Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)^®

Last updated: May 2013

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Positive Parenting Practices

Outcomes Rated High

Necoechea, D. M. (2007). Children at-risk for poor school readiness: The effect of an early intervention home visiting program on children and parents. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68 (6-A), 2311. (Dissertation Abstract: 2007-99230-512)

Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)^®

Show Findings Details

Outcome Measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Intervention Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect Size	Statistical Significance	Outcome Type
Parent-Home Survey	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	16 weeks	Full sample	51 mothers	Mean = 70.58	Mean = 61.64	Mean difference = 8.94	Study reported = 0.87	Statistically significant, p = 0.00	Secondary

Show Outcome Measure Summary

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection Method	Properties	Outcome Type	Operations links
Parent-Home Survey	A researcher-developed instrument that assessed parents’ use of home-based supports for children like oral language-based activities, print-based activities, literacy exposure, and parent book reading. The responses were used to generate an index of parent involvement.	Parent/caregiver report	Cronbach’s α = 0.71	Secondary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Baker, A. J. L., & Piotrkowski, C. S. (1996). Parents and children through the school years: The effects of the home instruction program for preschool youngsters. New York: National Council of Jewish Women, Center for the Child.

Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)^®

Show Findings Details

Outcome Measure	Effect	Follow-up Timing	Sample	Sample Size	Intervention Group	Comparison Group	Group Difference	Effect Size	Statistical Significance	Outcome Type
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1-year follow-up	City in New York (site B), Cohort II	91 families	Median % = 93.50	Median % = 93.00	Not reported	Study reported = 0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.91	Primary
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1-year follow-up	City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I	86 families	Median % = 97.00	Median % = 97.00	Not reported	Study reported = 0.17	Not statistically significant, p = 0.44	Primary
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	End of program	City in New York (site B), Cohort II	97 families	Median % = 88.00	Median % = 90.00	Not reported	Study reported = 0.08	Not statistically significant, p = 0.68	Primary
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	End of program	City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I	78 families	Median % = 96.00	Median % = 94.00	Not reported	Study reported = 0.39	Statistically significant, p = 0.054	Primary
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	End of program	City in New York (site B), Cohort I	56 families	Median % = 92.00	Median % = 92.00	Not reported	Study reported = 0.10	Not statistically significant, p = 0.71	Primary
Percentage of days attended (parametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1-year follow-up	City in New York (site B), Cohort II	91 families	Not available	Not available	Not reported	Study reported = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.87	Primary
Percentage of days attended (parametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1-year follow-up	City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I	86 families	Not available	Not available	Not reported	Study reported = 0.23	Not statistically significant, p = 0.33	Primary
Percentage of days attended (parametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	End of program	City in New York (site B), Cohort II	97 families	Not available	Not available	Not reported	Study reported = 0.07	Not statistically significant, p = 0.75	Primary
Percentage of days attended (parametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	End of program	City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I	78 families	Adjusted mean % = 94.58	Adjusted mean % = 93.72	Mean difference = 0.86	Study reported = 0.21	Not statistically significant, p = 0.44	Primary
Percentage of days attended (parametric test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	End of program	City in New York (site B)Cohort I	56 families	Not available	Not available	Not reported	Study reported = 0.15	Not statistically significant, p = 0.62	Primary

Show Outcome Measure Summary

Outcome Measure	Outcome Measure Description	Collection Method	Properties	Outcome Type	Operations links
Percentage of days attended	Percentage of total school days the child attended	Review of school records	Not applicable	Primary

View Revisions