Healthy Families America (HFA)® Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: 2020

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Child Response Score NCAST
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Age 2 Children in custody of biological mother at year 2 follow-up interview, Alaska trial 249 children Adjusted mean = 18.40 Adjusted mean = 18.50 Mean difference = -0.90 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote56

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Child’s response to a caregiver who is teaching him/her a new skill.

Show outcome measure summary
Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Maternal acceptance of child’s behavior (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Mean = 5.60 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = -0.10 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Maternal acceptance of child’s behavior (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers Mean = 5.40 Mean = 5.40 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Maternal acceptance of child’s behavior (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers Mean = 3.20 Mean = 3.00 Mean difference = 0.20 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Maternal responsivity to child (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Mean = 9.30 Mean = 9.20 Mean difference = 0.10 Not available Statistical signifivance not reported
Maternal responsivity to child (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers Mean = 9.30 Mean = 8.90 Mean difference = 0.40 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Maternal responsivity to child (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers Mean = 4.80 Mean = 4.50 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Maternal responsivity to child (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available Mean difference = 0.18 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

HOME: Acceptance of child’s behavior HOME: Responsivity

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. The HOME includes several subscales, including scales that describe the extent to which parents respond to their child’s behavior and parental acceptance of challenging child behaviors. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Mother-child interaction, Caregiver total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 435 mothers Mean = 37.10 Mean = 35.90 Mean difference = 1.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Caregiver total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 412 mothers Mean = 40.30 Mean = 39.80 Mean difference = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Child total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 435 mothers Mean = 17.30 Mean = 16.80 Mean difference = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Child total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 412 mothers Mean = 16.60 Mean = 16.40 Mean difference = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Nonviolent discipline (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 435 mothers % = 100.00 % = 99.50 = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Nonviolent discipline (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 412 mothers % = 95.50 % = 95.50 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Quality of home environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 435 mothers Mean = 35.60 Mean = 35.20 Mean difference = 0.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Quality of home environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 412 mothers Mean = 40.10 Mean = 40.10 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

NCAST: Caregiver total score  NCAST: Child total score

The NCAST assesses the quality of teaching interaction between caregivers and young children. The researchers examined separate composite scores for both children and parents. Observation

Not reported by author

CTS-PC: Nonviolent discipline

The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The assessment includes several subscales, including nonviolent discipline, which the researchers used to examine the prevalence of nonviolent discipline in the sample. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

HOME: Total score

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Depression

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 39.80 Unadjusted mean = 39.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p= 0.85

Home environment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 42.80 Unadjusted mean = 39.90 Mean difference = 2.90 Study reported = 0.47

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

Linguistic dimension - Affective processes

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.40 Unadjusted mean = 15.00 Mean difference = 2.40 Study reported = 0.24

Not statistically significant, p= 0.15

Linguistic dimension - Anger

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.39 Unadjusted mean = 0.41 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = 0.06

Not statistically significant, p= 0.70

Linguistic dimension - Cause

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.10 Unadjusted mean = 1.30 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.39

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Linguistic dimension - Certainty

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.40 Unadjusted mean = 0.82 Mean difference = 0.58 Study reported = 0.27

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

Linguistic dimension - Cognitive mechanism

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 16.40 Unadjusted mean = 13.40 Mean difference = 3.00 Study reported = 0.44

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Linguistic dimension - Feeling expression

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.60 Unadjusted mean = 0.77 Mean difference = 0.83 Study reported = 0.50

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

Linguistic dimension - First person

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.70 Unadjusted mean = 3.30 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.10

Not statistically significant, p= 0.60

Linguistic dimension - Future

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.18 Unadjusted mean = 0.20 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.81

Linguistic dimension - Insight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.20 Unadjusted mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 1.00 Study reported = 0.33

Statistically significant, p= 0.05

Authors reported this finding as statistically significant.

Linguistic dimension - Negative valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.90 Unadjusted mean = 2.80 Mean difference = -0.90 Study reported = 0.29

Not statistically significant, p= 0.08

Linguistic dimension - Past

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.94 Unadjusted mean = 1.65 Mean difference = -0.71 Study reported = 0.27

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

Linguistic dimension - Perceptual process

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.20 Unadjusted mean = 2.90 Mean difference = 1.30 Study reported = 0.33

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Linguistic dimension - Positive valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 15.30 Unadjusted mean = 12.00 Mean difference = 3.30 Study reported = 0.37

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Linguistic dimension - Present

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.00 Unadjusted mean = 14.60 Mean difference = 2.40 Study reported = 0.34

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Linguistic dimension - Sad

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.78 Unadjusted mean = 1.50 Mean difference = -0.72 Study reported = 0.42

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Linguistic dimension -Anxiety

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.20 Unadjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.33 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.35

Mother's reading to child

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.10 Unadjusted mean = 3.60 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.38

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Parent efficacy

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 26.20 Unadjusted mean = 25.80 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.11

Not statistically significant, p= 0.47

Parent/child behavior

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 46.00 Unadjusted mean = 44.90 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.24

Not statistically significant, p= 0.13

Reduced chaotic household

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.20 Unadjusted mean = 1.40 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = 0.29

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Regular routines

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Unadjusted mean = 1.60 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.36

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Role satisfaction

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 25.70 Unadjusted mean = 26.90 Mean difference = -1.20 Study reported = -0.33

Not statistically significant, p= 0.06

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Depression

Depression subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.84

Father contact with child

Frequency of father's contact

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Home environment

Home Environment subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.85

Linguistic dimension - Affective processes

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Anger

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Cause

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Certainty

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Cognitive mechanism

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Feeling expression

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - First person

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Future

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Insight

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Negative valanced

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Past

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Perceptual process

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Positive valanced

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Present

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension - Sad

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Linguistic dimension -Anxiety

Linguistic examination analyzed via the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Mother's reading to child

Frequency of mother's reading to child

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Parent efficacy

Parenting Efficacy subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.88

Parent/child behavior

Parent/Child Behavior subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.85

Reduced chaotic household

A single-item measure of reduction of household chaos

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Regular routines

A single-item measure of parents' use of regular routines (source not reported)

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Role satisfaction

Role Satisfaction subscale from Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.85

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Learning environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 564 mothers Mean = 35.20 Mean = 35.20 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Learning environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 567 mothers Mean = 34.60 Mean = 34.10 Mean difference = 0.50 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Caregiver total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 564 mothers Mean = 12.80 Mean = 12.70 Mean difference = 0.10 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Caregiver total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 567 mothers Mean = 15.00 Mean = 14.60 Mean difference = 0.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Child total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 564 mothers Mean = 6.80 Mean = 6.50 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mother-child interaction, Child total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 567 mothers Mean = 7.20 Mean = 7.20 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Parenting efficacy (PSOC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 564 mothers Mean = 75.20 Mean = 74.40 Mean difference = 0.80 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Parenting efficacy (PSOC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 567 mothers Mean = 76.10 Mean = 74.10 Not reported Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

NCAST: Caregiver total score  NCAST: Child total score

The NCAST assesses the quality of teaching interaction between caregivers and young children. The researchers examined separate composite scores for both children and parents. Observation

Not reported by author

PSOC

The PSOC measures parent attitudes and self-efficacy. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

HOME: Learning environment

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Mother relinquished role (child lived separately from mother for one month or more)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1 and 2 Full sample, Alaska trial 322 families % = 18.00 % = 16.00 OR = 1.19 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Mother relinquished role

Percentage of families in which the child lived separately from the mother for one month or more. Research staff determined whether separation cases were a relinquishment of parenting responsibilities, or a necessary separation to meet professional or family responsibilities. Parent/caregiver report and review of records

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Aggressive discipline
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = 1.44 Mean = 1.83 Mean difference = -0.39 HomeVEE calculated = -2.43 Not statistically significant, p =0.10
Belief in corporal punishment
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 2.25 Mean = 2.15 Mean difference = 0.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p =0.12
Belief in corporal punishment (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = 2.21 Mean = 2.23 Mean difference = -0.02 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p =0.63
Inappropriate expectations
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 3.05 Mean = 2.88 Mean difference = 0.17 HomeVEE calculated = 0.22 Not statistically significant, p =0.10
Inappropriate expectations (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = 2.77 Mean = 2.77 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p =0.91
Lack of empathy
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 1.95 Mean = 1.94 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.54
Lack of empathy (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = 1.80 Mean = 1.78 Mean difference = 0.02 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p =0.91
Mother's reading
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = 2.26 Mean = 2.22 Mean difference = 0.04 HomeVEE calculated = 0.27 Not statistically significant, p =0.85
Mother's reading
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 2.46 Mean = 2.72 Mean difference = -0.26 HomeVEE calculated = -1.62 Not statistically significant, p =0.28
Never called name, cursed
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 96.40 Mean % = 94.10 Mean difference = 2.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26 Not statistically significant, p =0.33
Never hit elsewhere
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 98.80 Mean % = 96.50 Mean difference = 2.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.68 Not statistically significant, p =0.28
Never pinched child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 98.80 Mean % = 94.10 Mean difference = 4.70 HomeVEE calculated = 1.12 Not statistically significant, p =0.15
Never shouted, yelled at child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 50.60 Mean % = 34.10 Mean difference = 16.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.43 Statistically significant, p =0.02
Never slapped hand
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 56.60 Mean % = 38.80 Mean difference = 17.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.42 Statistically significant, p =0.03
Never slapped on face
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 100.00 Mean % = 97.60 Mean difference = 2.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.99
Never smacked/threatened, hit
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 69.50 Mean % = 63.50 Mean difference = 6.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p =0.30
Never spanked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 71.10 Mean % = 65.80 Mean difference = 5.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p =0.19
Never threw object at child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean % = 100.00 Mean % = 98.80 Mean difference = 1.20 Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.32
Oppressing child's independence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = Mean = 3.32 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.68
Oppressing child's independence (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 3.62 Mean = 3.58 Mean difference = 0.04 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p =0.06
Reversing roles
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 2.60 Mean = 2.47 Mean difference = 0.13 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p =0.32
Reversing roles (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = Mean = 2.25 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.33
Safety practices
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months Arizona sample 168 mothers Mean = 17.96 Mean = 17.07 Mean difference = 0.89 HomeVEE calculated = 1.17 Not statistically significant, p =0.42
Safety practices
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Arizona sample 180 mothers Mean = 17.95 Mean = 16.05 Mean difference = 1.90 HomeVEE calculated = 3.00 Statistically significant, p = 0.04
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Aggressive discipline

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Beliefin corporal punishment (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Inappropriate expectations (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Lack of empathy (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Mother's reading

An estimate of the time spent reading to the child on a weekly basis Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Never called name, cursed

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never hit elsewhere

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never pinched child

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never shouted, yelled at child

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never slapped hand

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never slapped on face

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never smacked/threatened, hit

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never spanked

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never threw object at child

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Oppressing child's independence (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Reversing roles (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Safety practices

A safety practices index included a list of items that were validated as true or false such as parent has a car seat, poisons are not within child’s reach, and similar indicators.  Observation

Not reported by author

Findings rated moderate

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Caregiver contingency score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 15.40 Adjusted mean = 15.00 Mean difference = 0.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Cognitive growth fostering (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 11.80 Adjusted mean = 11.90 Mean difference = -0.10 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Infant caregiving (AAPI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 112.10 Adjusted mean = 109.50 Mean difference = 2.60 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Maternal self-efficacy (Teti scale)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 35.10 Adjusted mean = 34.60 Mean difference = 0.50 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Parenting attitudes (AAPI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 130.00 Adjusted mean = 125.60 Mean difference = 4.50 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Parenting knowledge (KIDI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 73.50 Adjusted mean = 70.70 Mean difference = 2.80 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Quality of home environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 36.70 Adjusted mean = 35.90 Mean difference = 0.80 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Recognition of child developmental delay
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers % = 20.00 % = 24.00 Not reported HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Response to distress (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.20 Adjusted mean = 8.90 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Sensitivity to cues (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.40 Adjusted mean = 9.20 Mean difference = 0.20 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Social-emotional growth fostering (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.00 Adjusted mean = 8.80 Mean difference = 0.20 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

KIDI

The KIDI measures the parent’s knowledge of childrearing practices and developmental processes. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

NCAST:

  • Caregiver total score
  • Sensitivity to cues
  • Response to distress
  • Social-emotional growth fostering
  • Cognitive growth fostering
  • Child responsiveness

The NCAST assesses the quality of teaching interaction between caregivers and young children. The researchers used the composite caregiver score and caregiver subscales related to sensitivity to cues from the child, response to the child’s distress, and fostering of social-emotional and cognitive development. The caregiver subscales and total scores were analyzed as continuous. The researchers also used a binary measure where those with total scores less than or equal to 35 were defined as having poor interaction.

Observation

Not reported by author

AAPI: Infant Caregiving Inventory

The AAPI assesses parenting and childrearing attitudes. In addition to the total score, the Infant Caregiving Inventory was used to examine caregiver beliefs and understanding of the influences of infant, caregiving practices on child and parental well-being. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

AAPI: Parenting attitudes

The AAPI assesses parenting and childrearing attitudes. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

HOME: Total score

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Recognition of child developmental delay

A measure comparing the child’s development with that of most other children. For children assessed as developmentally delayed, recognition of delay occurred if the parent responded that their child, was developing slower than other children. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Teti Maternal Self-efficacy Scale

The Teti Maternal Self-efficacy Scale assesses self-evaluated parenting competence and effectiveness. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Change in father’s engagement score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 All families 600 families Not available Not available OR = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.97 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Change in father’s responsibility score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 All families 600 families Not available Not available OR = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Father has daily contact with child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 All families 600 families Not available Not available OR = 1.12 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Change in father’s engagement score

A measure based on mother report of how often the father performed five tasks: (1) changing diapers/toilet training, (2) feeding the child, (3) comforting the child, (4) playing with the child, and (5) teaching the child new things. Scores for each item ranged from 0 to 4, with 4 representing the greatest engagement. Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s a = 0.86

Change in father’s responsibility score

A measure of the share of responsibility that the father took for the child’s welfare. Mothers reported how the parents shared responsibility in assuring that (1) the child had an appropriate diet, (2) the child was learning and developing appropriately, (3) the child always had a trustworthy caregiver, and (4) the house was safe to prevent injury to the child. Scores for each item ranged from 0 to 4, with 4 representing the greatest level of father responsibility. Parent/caregiver report

Cronbach’s a = 0.89

Father has daily contact with child

Percentage of fathers who had daily contact with the child, as reported by mothers. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance

Family Involvement Questionnaire - Home-Based Involvement

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 years

HFM vs. comparison, Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation 2 (MHFE -2), Tier 6 full sample

373 mothers Unadjusted mean = 22.16 Unadjusted mean = 21.74 Mean difference = 0.42 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Family Involvement Questionnaire - Home-School Conferencing

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 years

HFM vs. comparison, Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation 2 (MHFE -2), Tier 6 full sample

388 mothers Unadjusted mean = 20.18 Unadjusted mean = 19.34 Mean difference = 0.84 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Family Involvement Questionnaire: School-Based Involvement

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 years

HFM vs. comparison, Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation 2 (MHFE -2), Tier 6 full sample

341 mothers Unadjusted mean = 13.30 Unadjusted mean = 13.28 Mean difference = 0.02 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Family Involvement Questionnaire - Home-Based Involvement

Family Involvement Questionnaire-Short Form (FIQ-SF)

Self-report questionnaire

Not reported

Family Involvement Questionnaire - Home-School Conferencing

Family Involvement Questionnaire-Short Form (FIQ-SF)

Self-report questionnaire

Not reported

Family Involvement Questionnaire: School-Based Involvement

Family Involvement Questionnaire-Short Form (FIQ-SF)

Self-report questionnaire

Not reported

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Corporal Punishment Subscale (AAPI-CP) Score - full sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child's 1st birthday HF Oregon 2010-2012 763 mothers Adjusted mean = 1.89 Adjusted mean = 1.97 Mean difference = -0.08 HomeVEE calculated = -0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote162

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Number of times in last month parent read to child - full sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child's 1st birthday HF Oregon 2010-2012 764 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.74 Adjusted mean = 4.43 Mean difference = 0.31 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26 Statistically significant, p = 0.00
Parent-Child Activities Scale (PCAS) score - full sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child's 1st birthday HF Oregon 2010-2012 764 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.84 Adjusted mean = 4.73 Mean difference = 0.11 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Statistically significant, p = 0.02
Protective Factors Survey (PFS) - Family Functioning Subscale - full sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child's 1st birthday HF Oregon 2010-2012 764 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.16 Adjusted mean = 4.15 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Corporal Punishment Subscale (AAPI-CP) Score - full sample

The Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory-Corporal Punishment Subscale assesses parenting and childrearing attitudes on discipline. Parent/caregiver report

Crohnbach's alpha = .77

Number of times in last month parent read to child - full sample

This survey item asks for the number of times in the last month that the parent read to child. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Parent-Child Activities Scale (PCAS) score - full sample

The Parent-Child Activities Scale assesses the frequency with which the parent engaged in several activities with the child that can stimulate cognitive and language development, including reading or telling stories, dancing, singing, and playing outside together. Parent/caregiver report

Crohnbach's alpha = .678

Protective Factors Survey (PFS) - Family Functioning Subscale - full sample

The Protective Factors Survey (PFS) - Family Functioning Subscale assesses whether a family has adaptive skills and strategies to persevere in times of crisis.

Parent/caregiver report

Crohnbach's alpha = .845

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Father contact with child

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 children Unadjusted mean = 0.85 Unadjusted mean = 0.84 Mean difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.86

Home environment

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 43.50 Unadjusted mean = 41.80 Mean difference = 1.70 Study reported = 0.32

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

Linguistic dimension - Affective processes

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 18.90 Unadjusted mean = 18.10 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.67

Linguistic dimension - Anger

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.57 Unadjusted mean = 0.52 Mean difference = 0.05 Study reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.84

Linguistic dimension - Cause

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.90 Unadjusted mean = 1.20 Mean difference = 1.70 Study reported = 0.50

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Linguistic dimension - Certainty

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.20 Unadjusted mean = 1.90 Mean difference = -0.70 Study reported = -0.26

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Linguistic dimension - Cognitive mechanism

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 16.50 Unadjusted mean = 13.40 Mean difference = 3.10 Study reported = 0.42

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Linguistic dimension - Feeling expression

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.00 Unadjusted mean = 0.81 Mean difference = 1.19 Study reported = 0.39

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Linguistic dimension - First person

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.10 Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Mean difference = 1.30 Study reported = 0.34

Statistically significant, p= 0.00

Linguistic dimension - Future

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.22 Unadjusted mean = 0.13 Mean difference = 0.09 Study reported = 0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.55

Linguistic dimension - Insight

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.70 Unadjusted mean = 2.60 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.28

Not statistically significant, p= 0.12

Linguistic dimension - Negative valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.59 Unadjusted mean = 1.50 Mean difference = -0.91 Study reported = 0.54

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Linguistic dimension - Past

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.65 Unadjusted mean = 0.61 Mean difference = 0.04 Study reported = -0.02

Not statistically significant, p= 0.87

Linguistic dimension - Perceptual process

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.50 Unadjusted mean = 3.10 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.10

Not statistically significant, p= 0.50

Linguistic dimension - Positive valanced

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.10 Unadjusted mean = 16.20 Mean difference = 0.90 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.63

Linguistic dimension - Present

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 17.80 Unadjusted mean = 16.70 Mean difference = 1.10 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.37

Linguistic dimension - Sad

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.56 Unadjusted mean = 0.67 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.64

Linguistic dimension -Anxiety

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.17 Unadjusted mean = 0.30 Mean difference = -0.13 Study reported = 0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.44

Mobilizing resources

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 24.60 Unadjusted mean = 22.20 Mean difference = 2.40 Study reported = 0.43

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Mother's reading to child

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 children Unadjusted mean = 3.90 Unadjusted mean = 4.00 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.09

Not statistically significant, p= 0.53

Parent/child behavior

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 46.00 Unadjusted mean = 45.10 Mean difference = 0.90 Study reported = 0.21

Not statistically significant, p= 0.21

Personal care

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 19.20 Unadjusted mean = 18.70 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.14

Not statistically significant, p= 0.38

Problem solving

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 24.60 Unadjusted mean = 23.80 Mean difference = 0.80 Study reported = 0.20

Not statistically significant, p= 0.20

Reduced chaotic household

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Unadjusted mean = 1.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p= 0.95

Regular routines

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

165 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.40 Unadjusted mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.25

Not statistically significant, p= 0.18

Safety practices

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted proportion = 0.70 Unadjusted proportion = 0.53 Mean difference = 0.17 Study reported = 0.17

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

Social support

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months

HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample

199 mothers Unadjusted mean = 21.60 Unadjusted mean = 20.60 Mean difference = 1.00 Study reported = 0.17

Not statistically significant, p= 0.26

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Mobilizing resources

Mobilizing Resources subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.78

Personal care

Personal Care subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.80

Problem solving

Problem Solving subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.87

Safety practices

Three safety practices were combined to assess this outcome (specific measures/practices are not described)

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Social support

Social Support subscale from Healthy Families Parenting Inventory (HFPI)

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=.87

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Attitudes: Empathy (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY trial 1060 mothers Adjusted mean = 37.12 Adjusted mean = 36.64 Mean difference = 0.48 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Attitudes: Inappropriate expectations (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY trial 1060 mothers Adjusted mean = 19.11 Adjusted mean = 18.83 Mean difference = 0.28 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Attitudes: Physical punishment (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY trial 1060 mothers Adjusted mean = 38.43 Adjusted mean = 38.01 Mean difference = 0.42 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Attitudes: Power/independence (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY trial 1060 mothers Adjusted mean = 19.39 Adjusted mean = 19.40 Mean difference = -0.01 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Attitudes: Role reversal (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY trial 1060 mothers Adjusted mean = 23.59 Adjusted mean = 23.24 Mean difference = 0.35 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Child safety checklist
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY trial 1060 mothers % = 86.10 % = 85.90 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

AAPI-2: Physical punishment, Inappropriate expectations, Empathy, Role reversal, Power and independence

The AAPI-2 assesses parenting and childrearing attitudes. The researchers examined five subscales: inappropriate expectations, empathy, corporal punishment, role reversal, power, and independence Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Child Safety Checklist (CSC)

The CSC assesses parental safety practices. Parents were asked how regularly they engaged in 23 child safety behaviors in the past year. Response choices included some of the time, none of the time, or all of the time. The authors analyzed the percentage of practices that parents reported doing all of the time. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Attitudes toward corporal punishment (AAPI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 20.50 Adjusted mean = 10.10 Mean difference = 0.38 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Poor caregiver interaction, (NCAST score = 35)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 17.00 % = 21.00 OR = 0.79 HomeVEE calculated = -0.16 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Poor quality home environment (HOME score = 33)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 20.00 % = 31.00 OR = 0.51 HomeVEE calculated = -0.36 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Total AAPI score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 130.00 Adjusted mean = 125.60 Mean difference = 4.47 Not available Not Statistically significant,
p >: 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

NCAST: Poor caregiver interaction

The NCAST assesses the quality of teaching interaction between caregivers and young children. The researchers define poor caregiver interaction as a composite NCAST caregiver score below or equal to 35. Observation

Not reported by author

AAPI: Attitudes toward corporal punishment  AAPI: Total score

The AAPI assesses parenting and childrearing attitudes. The researchers examined both the AAPI total score and a subscale of the Discipline Questionnaire that measured attitudes about the effectiveness of physical punishment. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

HOME: Poor-quality HOME environment (HOME score = 33)

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. The researchers defined poor-quality home environment as a HOME total score below or equal to 33. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

View Revisions