Parents as Teachers (PAT)® Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: October 2019

Model Overview

Theoretical Model

The theory of change for the Parents as Teachers model is that affecting parenting knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and family well-being impacts the child’s developmental trajectory.

The overall Parents as Teachers model is grounded in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Human Ecology Theory and Family Systems Theory. The home visits focus on three areas of emphasis—parent-child interaction, development-centered parenting, and family well-being. Parents as Teachers is informed by additional theories including developmental parenting, attribution theory, and self-efficacy theory.

View Revisions

Model Components

The Parents as Teachers model has four components that all affiliates are required to provide.

(1) One-on-one home (or personal) visits, during which the home visitor (referred to as a parent educator) visits the family in its home or a mutually agreeable alternative location. The parent educator delivers the majority of visits in the home. The Parents as Teachers model refers to some visits as “personal” visits because they can take place in environments other than the home when it is unsafe or impossible to have visits in the home. For example, some families may be homeless or have unstable housing, may be experiencing intimate partner violence, or may have infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. To be receptive to these families’ needs, home visits can occur in transitional housing shelters, hospitals, or in a safe location outside of the home.

(2) Group connections, which are planned events, such as family activities, ongoing parenting groups, or presentations, facilitated by a parent educator to share information about parenting and child development. Group connections are also designed to encourage families to share common experiences and to foster peer learning.

(3) Health, hearing, vision, and developmental screenings for children.

(4) Linkages and connections for families to needed resources.

View Revisions

Target Population

The Parents as Teachers model serves families with high-needs characteristics. Parents as Teachers affiliates select the specific characteristics and eligibility criteria of the target population they plan to serve. Such eligibility criteria might include children with special needs, families at risk for child abuse, low-income families, teen parents, first-time parents, immigrant families, low-literate families, parents with mental health or substance use issues, or families experiencing homelessness or unstable housing.

The Parents as Teachers model is designed to serve families throughout pregnancy through kindergarten entry. Families can enroll at any point along this continuum. Curriculum materials provide resources to continue services through the kindergarten year if an affiliate chooses to do so.

View Revisions

Where to Find Out More

Parents as Teachers National Center
2228 Ball Drive
St. Louis, MO 63146
Phone: (314) 432-4330
Toll-free phone: 1-866-728-4968
Fax: (314) 432-8963
Email: info@parentsasteachers.org
Website: http://www.parentsasteachers.org

View Revisions

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Summary of Findings

Please read Describing Effects for more information on these categories. Only results from studies that meet the standards for the high or moderate ratings are included above.

View Revisions

Reductions in Child Maltreatment

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Abuse and/or Neglect-DSS and School Records, Cases Remaining Open
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.05 Unadjusted mean = 0.05 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Abuse and/or Neglect-DSS and School Records, Confirmed Cases 1987-1992
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.25 Unadjusted mean = 0.25 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Abuse and/or Neglect-DSS and School Records, Current Suspected Cases
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.25 Unadjusted mean = 0.50 Mean difference = -0.25 HomeVEE calculated = -0.65 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary

footnote164

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr>-calculated <em>p</em>-value reported (authors do not report the <em>p</em>-value for this measure).

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Abuse and/or Neglect-DSS and School Records, Cases Remaining Open

Percentage of children who had open cases of abuse and/or neglect Department of Social Services records, school records

Not applicable

Primary

Abuse and/or Neglect-DSS and School Records, Confirmed Cases 1987-1992

Percentage of children who had confirmed cases of abuse and/or neglect Department of Social Services records, school records

Not applicable

Primary

Abuse and/or Neglect-DSS and School Records, Current Suspected Cases

Percentage of children currently suspected to be abused and/or neglected Department of Social Services records, school records

Not applicable

Primary
View Revisions

Positive Parenting Practices

Outcomes Rated High

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 6.40 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = -0.30 Study reported = -0.28 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 4.60 Mean = 4.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 4.00 Mean = 4.00 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 3.40 Mean = 3.50 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 6.40 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.32 Statistically significant,
p < 0.001
Primary
HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 6.60 Mean = 6.50 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 6.70 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME language- and literacy-promoting behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 5.80 Mean = 5.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 3.50 Mean = 3.60 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME parental responsivity subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 10.00 Mean = 10.00 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME parental responsivity subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 9.90 Mean = 9.80 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME total scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 36.60 Mean = 37.20 Mean difference = -0.60 Study reported = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME total scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 36.20 Mean = 36.40 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
KIDI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 367 mothers Mean = 0.65 Mean = 0.65 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
KIDI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 350 mothers Mean = 0.66 Mean = 0.69 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.18 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC parenting efficacy subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 357 mothers Mean = 27.20 Mean = 27.00 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC parenting efficacy subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 341 mothers Mean = 27.10 Mean = 26.60 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.15 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC parenting satisfaction subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 357 mothers Mean = 24.60 Mean = 25.20 Mean difference = -0.06 Study reported = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC parenting satisfaction subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 341 mothers Mean = 25.40 Mean = 26.40 Mean difference = -1.00 Study reported = -0.18 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC total score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 357 mothers Mean = 51.80 Mean = 52.20 Mean difference = -0.40 Study reported = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC total score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 341 mothers Mean = 52.40 Mean = 52.90 Mean difference = -0.50 Study reported = -0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Discipline (from HOME items)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.90 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.27 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
Home mother-child interaction
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 335 mothers Mean = 5.20 Mean = 5.20 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

KIDI

The KIDI measures the parent’s knowledge of childrearing practices and developmental processes. The researchers measured the percentage of items that were answered correctly on the 57-item assessment. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

PSOC Scale: Total score, Parenting satisfaction subscale, Parenting efficacy subscale

The PSOC measures parent attitudes and self-efficacy. The researchers examined the total score and two subscale scores regarding parental, efficacy and satisfaction. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

HOME:

  • Total score
  • Parental responsivity subscale
  • Acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
  • Organization of the environment subscale
  • Appropriate play materials subscale
  • Involvement with child subscale
  • Opportunities for stimulation subscale
  • Parental responsivity subscale
  • Language- and literacy-promoting behaviors
  • Mother-child interaction
  • Discipline
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. The researchers examined the total score, as well as the following subscales: acceptance of child’s behavior, opportunity for stimulation, organization of the environment, parental involvement, parental responsivity, appropriate play materials, language promoting behaviors, mother-child interaction, and discipline. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
AAPI average child maltreatment precursor scale (range = 6 to 24)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean = 19.10 Mean = 19.10 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
AAPI average child maltreatment precursor scale (range = 6 to 24)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 267 mothers Mean = 18.30 Mean = 18.30 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 6.00 Mean = 6.20 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 6.00 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = 0.30 Study reported = 0.22 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 7.90 Mean = 7.40 Mean difference = 0.30 Study reported = 0.26 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 4.10 Mean = 4.10 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 5.00 Mean = 4.90 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 3.40 Mean = 3.40 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 3.70 Mean = 3.50 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 5.30 Mean = 5.30 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 6.80 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.60 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.17 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME parental responsivity subcale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 9.40 Mean = 9.30 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME subscale related to language- and literacy-promoting behaviors (range = 0 to 8)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 5.50 Mean = 5.30 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME subscale related to language- and literacy-promoting behaviors (range = 0 to 8)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 mothers Mean = 6.50 Mean = 6.10 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME subscale: parental responsivity
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 8.50 Mean = 8.50 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME total scale (range = 0 to 45)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 34.10 Mean = 34.20 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.93
Primary
HOME total scale (range = 0 to 45)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 37.70 Mean = 36.40 Mean difference = 1.30 Study reported = 0.22 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
NCAST, total scale score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 254 mothers Mean = 52.60 Mean = 52.90 Mean difference = -0.30 Study reported = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.41
Primary
PSOC parenting efficacy subscale (range = 8 to 32)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean = 28.60 Mean = 28.80 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.10 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC parenting efficacy subscale (range = 8 to 32)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 267 mothers Mean = 28.70 Mean = 28.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC satisfaction subscale (range = 9 to 36)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean = 25.90 Mean = 26.80 Mean difference = -0.90 Study reported = -0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC satisfaction subscale (range = 9 to 36)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 267 mothers Mean = 25.50 Mean = 25.70 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC total scale (range = 17 to 68)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean = 54.40 Mean = 55.60 Mean difference = -1.20 Study reported = -0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PSOC total scale (range = 17 to 68)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 267 mothers Mean = 54.20 Mean = 54.40 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Language literacy numeracy promotion scale (range = 6 to 24)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 19.00 Mean = 18.50 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Language literacy numeracy promotion scale (range = 6 to 24)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 mothers Mean = 20.00 Mean = 19.70 Mean difference = 0.30 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent Observation Scale (range 1 to 4; 4 = more observant)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 340 mothers Mean = 3.70 Mean = 3.80 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.21 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent Observation Scale (range 1 to 4; 4 = more observant)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 267 mothers Mean = 3.80 Mean = 3.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent reads books with child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 327 mothers Mean = 3.00 Mean = 3.00 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent reads books with child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 261 mothers Mean = 3.20 Mean = 3.20 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent talks to/asks child questions during reading
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 327 mothers Mean = 3.30 Mean = 3.10 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent talks to/asks child questions during reading
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 261 mothers Mean = 3.60 Mean = 3.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent tell stories sings with child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 3.40 Mean = 3.50 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parent tell stories sings with child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 mothers Mean = 3.40 Mean = 3.20 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.19 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge all items (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean % = 78.80 Mean % = 80.00 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge all items (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 268 mothers Mean % = 77.70 Mean % = 75.90 Mean difference = 1.80 Study reported = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge child care and safety (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean % = 84.00 Mean % = 85.50 Mean difference = -1.50 Study reported = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge child care and safety (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 268 mothers Mean % = 74.30 Mean % = 74.60 Mean difference = -0.30 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge discipline (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean % = 84.80 Mean % = 85.20 Mean difference = -0.40 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge discipline (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 268 mothers Mean % = 75.40 Mean % = 75.80 Mean difference = -0.40 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge emotional development (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean % = 75.50 Mean % = 77.90 Mean difference = -2.40 Study reported = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge emotional development (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 268 mothers Mean % = 79.80 Mean % = 75.10 Mean difference = 4.70 Study reported = 0.24 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge general child development (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean % = 82.40 Mean % = 80.30 Mean difference = 2.10 Study reported = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge general child development (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 268 mothers Mean % = 74.00 Mean % = 71.90 Mean difference = 2.10 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge language/cognitive development (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 344 mothers Mean % = 70.70 Mean % = 73.90 Mean difference = -3.20 Study reported = -0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Parental knowledge language/cognitive development (percentage answered correctly)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 268 mothers Mean % = 79.90 Mean % = 78.70 Mean difference = 1.20 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
While doing everyday things parent counts things or uses numbers with child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 3.10 Mean = 3.20 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.10 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
While doing everyday things parent counts things or uses numbers with child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 mothers Mean = 3.40 Mean = 3.40 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
While doing everyday things parent reads aloud to child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1-year assessment Three-site sample 343 mothers Mean = 2.80 Mean = 2.60 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

KIDI:

  • All items
  • General child development
  • Language/cognitive development
  • Emotional development
  • Discipline
  • Child care and safety
The KIDI measures the parent’s knowledge of childrearing practices and developmental processes. In addition to the total score, the researchers examined subscales about general child development, language/cognitive development, emotional development, and discipline. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

NCAST: Total score

The NCAST assesses the quality of teaching interaction between caregivers and young children. Mothers were assessed while introducing a new toy to their child. Areas of assessment included cue-giving and responsiveness to cues of both the parents and children. Observation

Not reported by author

Primary

PSOC: Total score, Parenting efficacy, Satisfaction

The PSOC measures parent attitudes and self-efficacy. The researchers analyzed the total score and scores on the two subscales: parent satisfaction and parent efficacy. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

AAPI: Average CMPS score

The CMPS from the AAPI assesses attitudes toward disciplining children that have been shown to, correlate with later abusive behaviors toward them. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Primary

HOME:

  • Language- and literacy-promoting behaviors
  • Total score
  • Parental responsivity
  • Acceptance of child’s behavior
  • Organization of the environment
  • Appropriate play materials
  • Involvement
  • Opportunities for stimulation
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. The researchers examined the total score, as well as subscales related to parental responsivity, acceptance of child's behavior, provision of appropriate play materials,, organization of the child’s environment, parental involvement with children, and the opportunities provided for daily stimulation. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Language, literacy, numeracy promotion scale

  • While doing everyday things, parent talks to/asks child questions
  • While doing everyday things, parent reads aloud to child
  • While doing everyday things, parent counts things or uses numbers with child
  • Parent tells stories, sings with child
  • Parent reads books with child
  • Parent talks to/asks child questions during reading
A 6-item measure of direct parent-child verbal interactions that encourage children’s language development, literacy, and numeracy. Each question was answered on a 4-point scale, with 4 being the most positive response. An overall scale was formed by summing the values on these six items. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Parent Observation Scale

A scale of parent observations skills ranging from 1 to 4, with 4 being the most observant Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 7.60 Mean = 7.20 Mean difference = 0.40 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 7.60 Mean = 8.00 Mean difference = -0.40 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 5.00 Mean = 4.70 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 4.70 Mean = 4.90 Mean difference = -0.20 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 3.50 Mean = 3.40 Mean difference = 0.10 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 4.00 Mean = 3.70 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 5.60 Mean = 5.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 6.10 Mean = 6.00 Mean difference = 0.10 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 6.30 Mean = 6.30 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME parental responsivity subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 9.90 Mean = 9.40 Mean difference = 0.50 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
HOME parental responsivity subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 9.80 Mean = 9.90 Mean difference = -0.10 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
HOME total scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers Mean = 37.60 Mean = 36.20 Mean difference = 1.40 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
HOME total scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers Mean = 38.00 Mean = 38.50 Mean difference = -0.50 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

HOME:

  • Total score
  • Parental responsivity subscale
  • Acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
  • Appropriate play materials subscale
  • Organization of the environment subscale
  • Involvement with child subscale
  • Opportunities for stimulation subscale
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. The researchers examined the total score, as well as subscales related to parental responsivity, acceptance of child's behavior, provision of appropriate play materials, organization of the child’s environment, parental involvement with children, and the opportunities provided for daily stimulation. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
Parents as First Teachers (New Zealand)
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Positive caregiver behaviors - imaginative play episode, responding to child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Whangarei 143 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.75 Unadjusted mean = 4.29 Mean difference = -0.54 HomeVEE calculated = -0.19 Not statistically significant, p = 0.25 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Parents as First Teachers (New Zealand)
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
HOME Questionnaire, Overall
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 207 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Parental Concerns, Disruption of plans
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.04 Unadjusted % = 0.04 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Parental Concerns, Disruption of relationship with partner
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.10 Unadjusted % = 0.15 Mean difference = -0.05 HomeVEE calculated = -0.28 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Parental Concerns, Significant Concern
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.18 Unadjusted % = 0.14 Mean difference = 0.04 HomeVEE calculated = 0.18 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Parental Concerns, Social Concern
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.21 Unadjusted % = 0.25 Mean difference = -0.04 HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Parents as Teachers Questionnaire, Overall
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote167

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

Authors report that significantly more program parents respond yes to the following item: Looking around his/her surroundings takes up much of a baby's day during the first month of life.

Total number of activities
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted mean = 27.64 Unadjusted mean = 27.27 Mean difference = 0.37 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote166

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

Authors report that significantly more program children play fantasy games.

Total number of experiences
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted mean = 18.93 Unadjusted mean = 18.79 Mean difference = 0.14 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Video Session, Parent-Child Interaction
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 155 mothers Unadjusted mean = 26.78 Unadjusted mean = 30.97 Mean difference = -4.19 HomeVEE calculated = -0.21 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary

footnote168

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

Authors report significant differences on several items: &amp;#8220;Book chosen by,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;Motivation,&amp;#8221; &amp;#8220;Attention maintained,&amp;#8221;&nbsp;&amp;#8220;Attending to help,&amp;#8221;&nbsp;and&nbsp;&amp;#8220;Using information.&amp;#8221;

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Baby Family and Child Education Program (Baby FACE)
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type

Frequency of home literacy activity

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

3 years

RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision

67 families Adjusted mean = 60.08 Adjusted mean = 55.45 MD = 4.63 = 0.64

Statistically significant, p = 0.01

Secondary

Hours parent reads to child

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

3 years

RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision

67 families Adjusted mean = 64.00 Adjusted mean = 33.73 MD = 30.27 = 0.49

Statistically significant, p = 0.04

Secondary

Protective Factors Survey - Nurturing and Attachment

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

2 years

RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision

66 families Adjusted mean = 27.06 Adjusted mean = 26.87 MD = 0.19 = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p = 0.55

Secondary

Protective Factors Survey - Nurturing and Attachment

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

3 years

RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision

68 families Adjusted mean = 26.87 Adjusted mean = 26.70 MD = 0.17 = 0.13

Not statistically significant, p = 0.56

Secondary

Protective Factors Survey - Parent's Child Development Knowledge

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

2 years

RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision

66 families Adjusted mean = 30.43 Adjusted mean = 29.57 MD = 0.86 = 0.16

Not statistically significant, p = 0.21

Secondary

Protective Factors Survey - Parent's Child Development Knowledge

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

3 years

RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision

68 families Adjusted mean = 31.11 Adjusted mean = 30.03 MD = 1.08 = 0.27

Not statistically significant, p = 0.13

Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
View Revisions

Family Economic Self-Sufficiency

Outcomes Rated High

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Any postsecondary education
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 363 mothers % = 27.00 % = 33.10 = -6.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.18 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Any postsecondary education
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 29.30 % = 38.80 = -9.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.26 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Attending school in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 363 mothers % = 27.70 % = 30.70 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Attending school in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 25.80 % = 23.50 = 3.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Average highest grade level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 363 mothers Mean = 10.50 Mean = 11.20 Mean difference = -0.70 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Average highest grade level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers Mean = 10.80 Mean = 11.60 Mean difference = -0.80 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Father living in household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 371 mothers % = 77.60 % = 81.00 = -3.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Father living in household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 343 mothers % = 78.80 % = 80.80 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High school graduate
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 363 mothers % = 23.20 % = 22.70 = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High school graduate
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 24.50 % = 20.40 = 4.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Household income $10000 - $29999
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 366 mothers % = 57.90 % = 44.90 = 13.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.32 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Household income $10000 - $29999
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 55.30 = = 7.90 HomeVEE calculated = 0.19 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Household income $30000 or more
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 366 mothers % = 22.60 % = 33.60 = -11.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Household income $30000 or more
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 25.30 % = 36.80 = -11.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Secondary
Household income less than $10000
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 366 mothers % = 19.50 % = 21.50 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Household income less than $10000
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 19.30 % = 15.80 = 3.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Household receiving AFDC
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 366 mothers % = 16.10 % = 22.20 = -6.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.24 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Household receiving AFDC
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 15.40 % = 17.90 = -2.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Household receiving Medi-Cal
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 366 mothers % = 39.90 % = 45.10 = -5.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Household receiving Medi-Cal
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers &#; = 37.00 % = 36.40 = 0.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Less than high school
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 363 mothers % = 49.80 % = 44.20 = 5.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Less than high school
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 46.20 % = 40.80 = 5.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Married
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 371 mothers % = 66.10 % = 67.60 = -1.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Married
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 343 mothers % = 67.20 % = 68.70 = -1.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Married two- parent household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 371 mothers % = 61.90 % = 65.50 = -3.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Married two- parent household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 343 mothers % = 64.60 % = 67.80 = -3.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Mother working/in job training
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 366 mothers % = 48.80 % = 36.20 = 12.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Mother working/in job training
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 354 mothers % = 55.40 % = 46.00 = 9.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Sole-adult household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 371 mothers % = 10.00 % = 5.20 = 4.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Sole-adult household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 343 mothers % = 10.10 % = 10.60 = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Any postsecondary education

Percentage of mothers who had some postsecondary education Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Attending school in the past year

Percentage of mothers who attended school in the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Average highest grade level

An average of the highest level of school that the mother had completed Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Father living in household

Percentage of fathers who lived in the same household as the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

High school graduate

Percentage of mothers who had completed high school Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Household income $10,000–$29,999

Percentage of households with incomes between $10,000 and $29,000 Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Household income $30,000 or more

Percentage of households with incomes of $30,000 or greater Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Household income less than $10,000

Percentage of households with incomes less than $10,000 Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Household receiving AFDC

Percentage of households that received AFDC Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Household receiving Medi-Cal

Percentage of households that received Medi-Cal Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Less than high school

Percentage of mothers who had less than a high school education Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Married

Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Married, two-parent household

Percentage of households in which there were two married parents Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Mother working/in job training

Percentage of mothers who were working or in job training Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Sole-adult household

Percentage of households in which the mother was the only adult Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Change in AFDC Status
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = -0.10 Unadjusted mean = 0.20 Mean difference = -0.30 Not available Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Change in AFDC Status

Difference in percentage of families who received AFDC when children were age 1 and when children were age 4 or 5 Department of Social Services records

Not applicable

Primary
Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Baby’s father living in the household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers % = 47.40 % = 50.00 = -2.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Baby’s father living in the household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers % = 40.20 % = 42.00 = -1.80 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Married
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers % = 19.80 % = 15.00 = 4.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Married
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers % = 19.20 % = 28.70 = -9.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.32 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Secondary
Receiving AFDC at assessment
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 234 mothers % = 50.40 % = 58.00 = -7.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.19 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Receiving AFDC at assessment
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 192 mothers % = 61.30 % = 54.60 = 6.70 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Teen mother was only adult in the household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 mothers % = 16.40 % = 15.00 = 1.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Teen mother was only adult in the household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 195 mothers % = 18.50 % = 26.00 = -7.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.26 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Working or in job training
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 234 mothers % = 16.50 % = 18.50 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Working or in job training
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 194 mothers % = 26.60 % = 29.00 = -2.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Baby’s father living in the household

Percentage of fathers who lived in the same household as the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Married

Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Receiving AFDC at assessment

Percentage of households that received AFDC Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Teen mother was only adult in the household

Percentage of households in which the mother was the only adult Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Working or in job training

Percentage of mothers who were working or in job training Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
Parents as First Teachers (New Zealand)
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Attained additional educational qualifications since birth of child
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin 207 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.23 Unadjusted % = 0.30 Mean difference = -0.07 HomeVEE calculated = -0.22 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Elley-Irving Socio-Economic Index
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Family composition
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Family means of transport
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Family owns car
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.88 Unadjusted % = 0.90 Mean difference = -0.02 HomeVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Family Strains Questionnaire, Sum of strains
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 206 mothers Unadjusted mean = 10.92 Unadjusted mean = 9.97 Mean difference = 0.95 HomeVEE calculated = 0.12 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote169

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

Authors report that significantly more program group families reported experiencing increased strain on family money for medical expenses, clothes, food, etc., but, after applying the Bonferroni inequality, this difference was no longer significant.

Family Stressors Questionnaire, Sum of stressors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 206 mothers Unadjusted mean = 15.42 Unadjusted mean = 14.54 Mean difference = 0.88 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Family type
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Father in paid employment
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.85 Unadjusted % = 0.84 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Held a community services card
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.39 Unadjusted % = 0.42 Mean difference = -0.03 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
In a "married" relationship
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.80 Unadjusted % = 0.87 Mean difference = -0.07 HomeVEE calculated = -0.31 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Language use in the home
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Live-in partner
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.86 Unadjusted % = 0.87 Mean difference = -0.01 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Mother working in full-time position
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.35 Unadjusted % = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.18 HomeVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Secondary
Mother working in paid employment
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.64 Unadjusted % = 0.56 Mean difference = 0.08 HomeVEE calculated = 0.20 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of hours father figure employed per week
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Receiving government support
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.42 Unadjusted % = 0.39 Mean difference = 0.03 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Solo parenting
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.20 Unadjusted % = 0.13 Mean difference = 0.07 HomeVEE calculated = 0.31 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Subjective perception of income level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 207 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Type of accomodation
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
View Revisions

Child Health

Outcomes Rated High

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 365 children % = 84.70 % = 86.90 = -2.20 Study reported = -0.24 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 352 children % = 56.90 % = 57.60 = -0.70 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child treated for illness in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 365 children % = 39.30 % = 33.30 = 6.00 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child treated for illness in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 352 children % = 51.00 % = 50.20 = 0.80 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child treated for injury in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 365 children % = 12.00 % = 14.90 = -2.90 Study reported = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child treated for injury in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 352 children % = 8.10 % = 11.90 = -3.80 Study reported = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Child went to the emergency room in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 365 children % = 29.70 % = 33.60 = -3.90 Study reported = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child went to the emergency room in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 352 children % = 20.30 % = 24.50 = -4.20 Study reported = -0.10 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months

Percentage of children who saw a doctor for well-child care within the past 6 months Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child treated for illness in the past year

Percentage of children who were treated for an illness during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child treated for injury in the past year

Percentage of children who were treated for an injury during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child went to the emergency room in the past year

Percentage of children who went to the emergency room during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Child covered by health insurance
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Three-site sample 265 children % = 79.80 % = 84.80 = -4.60 Study reported = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Three-site sample 265 children % = 91.40 % = 94.80 = -3.40 Study reported = -0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Child treated for injury in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Three-site sample 265 children % = 5.50 % = 11.00 = -5.50 Study reported = -0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Child was fully immunized
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Three-site sample 265 children % = 26.30 % = 19.00 = 7.30 Study reported = 0.17 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Child went to the emergency room
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Three-site sample 265 children % = 38.50 % = 50.60 = -12.10 Study reported = -0.24 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Child covered by health insurance

Percentage of children who were covered by health insurance Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months

Percentage of children who had seen a doctor for well-child care during the past 6 months Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child treated for injury in the past year

Percentage of children who were treated for an injury during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child was fully immunized

Percentage of children who were fully immunized for their age Review of immunization records for families who could produce them

Not applicable

Primary

Child went to the emergency room

Percentage of children who went to the emergency room during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Child had a regular source of medical care
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 232 children % = 92.00 % = 94.10 = -2.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.20 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child had a regular source of medical care
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 192 children % = 90.30 % = 92.90 = -2.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.21 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 232 children % = 97.40 % = 95.80 = 1.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.30 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 194 children % = 87.10 % = 92.10 = -5.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Child had a regular source of medical care

Percentage of children who had a regular source of medical care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months

Percentage of children who had seen a doctor for well-child care during the past 6 months Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
Parents as First Teachers (New Zealand)
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Incidence of ear infections
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.70 Unadjusted % = 0.79 Mean difference = -0.09 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Incidence of hearing problems
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.08 Unadjusted % = 0.07 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of health problems children had experienced
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.85 Unadjusted mean = 4.91 Mean difference = -0.06 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote165

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

Authors report that significantly more program children experienced bronchitis attacks.

Number of hospital admissions
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.33 Unadjusted % = 0.30 Mean difference = 0.03 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of hospital visits
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.64 Unadjusted % = 0.72 Mean difference = -0.08 HomeVEE calculated = -0.22 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of times children visited a hospital clinic
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.42 Unadjusted % = 0.51 Mean difference = -0.09 HomeVEE calculated = -0.22 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of times children visited general practitioner
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.00 Unadjusted % = 0.00 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of times children visited health specialist
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.54 Unadjusted % = 0.51 Mean difference = 0.03 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Number of times children visited other professional health service
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.18 Unadjusted % = 0.15 Mean difference = 0.03 HomeVEE calculated = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Total number of injuries
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 208 mothers Unadjusted % = 0.42 Unadjusted % = 0.38 Mean difference = 0.04 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
View Revisions

Maternal Health

Outcomes Rated High

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
Mother had additional births
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 371 mothers % = 14.80 % = 16.30 = -1.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Mother had additional births
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 343 mothers = % = 27.50 = -6.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.22 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Mother had additional births

Percentage of mothers who experienced additional births after entering Parents as Teachers Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Parents as First Teachers (New Zealand)
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Maternal Social Support Index (MSSI),Overall
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 years Dunedin sample 207 mothers Not available Not available Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
View Revisions

Child Development and School Readiness

Outcomes Rated High

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
BSID Behavioral Rating Scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 month Ohio sample 354 children Mean = 109.63 Mean = 109.20 Mean difference = 0.43 Study reported = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.56
Primary

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

BSID Mental Development Scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 month Ohio sample 344 children Mean = 96.97 Mean = 97.75 Mean difference = -0.78 Study reported = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.67
Primary

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

BSID, Behavioral Rating Scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 342 children Mean = 111.84 Mean = 113.48 Mean difference = -1.64 Study reported = -0.14 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.20
Primary

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

CBRS, Engagement Score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 month Ohio sample 336 children Mean = 2.81 Mean = 2.98 Mean difference = -0.17 Study reported = -0.17 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.11
Primary

footnote65

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

Information on outcomes was received through communication with the authors.

,

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

CBRS, Negative Affect Score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 month Ohio sample 336 children Mean = 4.93 Mean = 4.93 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.97
Primary

footnote65

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

Information on outcomes was received through communication with the authors.

CBRS, Positive Affect Score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 month Ohio sample 336 children Mean = 2.43 Mean = 2.44 Mean difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.96
Primary

footnote65

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

Information on outcomes was received through communication with the authors.

,

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

CBRS: Involvement Score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 month Ohio sample 330 children Mean = 4.13 Mean = 4.18 Mean difference = -0.05 Study reported = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.73
Primary

footnote65

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

Information on outcomes was received through communication with the authors.

,

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

KABC Simultaneous Processing Standard Score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 331 children Mean = 107.77 Mean = 109.29 Mean difference = -1.52 Study reported = -0.11 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.30
Primary
SSRS Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 336 children Mean = 103.07 Mean = 100.37 Mean difference = 2.70 Study reported = 0.18 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09
Primary
TERA-2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 333 children Mean = 106.12 Mean = 105.58 Mean difference = 0.54 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.72
Primary
Bracken Basic Concept Scale composite
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 336 children Mean = 113.47 Mean = 112.23 Mean difference = 1.24 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.51
Primary
Mastery Motivation – Task Competence
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 319 children Mean = 847.98 Mean = 841.74 Mean difference = 6.24 Study reported = 0.20 Statistically significant,
p = 0.05
Primary
Mastery Motivation – Task Persistence
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 318 children Mean = 17.30 Mean = 16.49 Mean difference = 0.81 Study reported = 0.20 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.07
Primary
Mastery Motivation – Task Pleasure
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 month Ohio sample 319 children Mean = 0.51 Mean = 0.52 Mean difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.71
Primary

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

Q-Sort Security of Attachment
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
18 month Ohio sample 364 children Mean = 34.43 Mean = 35.46 Mean difference = -1.03 Study reported = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.64
Primary

footnote65

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

Information on outcomes was received through communication with the authors.

,

footnote74

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

<abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> reversed the sign of this effect size because the treatment group mean was less than the control group mean.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

BSID:

  • Mental Development Scale
  • Behavioral Rating Scale
The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children. The researchers examined both the mental development and behavioral subscales. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

BBCS-R

The BBCS-R assesses knowledge of basic concepts and receptive language skills in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

CBRS:

  • Engagement score
  • Positive Affect score
  • Negative Affect score,
  • Involvement score
The CBRS assesses behavioral problems in young children. The researchers examined scores related to engagement, involvement, and positive and negative affect. Observation

Interrater reliability = 0.81 to 0.90

Primary

KABC: Simultaneous Processing Standard score

The KABC assesses achievement and intelligence in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

SSRS

The SSRS assesses social skills, academic competence, and problem behaviors in young children. Parent/caregiver and teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

TERA-2

The TERA-2 assesses early reading skills in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Attachment Q-Sort scale

The Attachment Q-Sort assesses security of attachment and dependency in young children. Observation

Interrater reliability = 0.90

Primary

Mastery Motivation – Task Persistence, Task Pleasure, Task Competence

Children were introduced to various toys and were evaluated based upon persistence, pleasure, and competence in problem solving for up to 4 minutes. Observation

Interrater reliability = 0.78 to 0.91

Primary
Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
BSID Mental Development Index (in normal range)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 184 children % = 67.60 % = 69.60 = -2.00 Study reported = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID Mental Development Index (mean)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 184 children Mean = 91.00 Mean = 92.20 Mean difference = -1.20 Study reported = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID Physical Development Index (in normal range)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 184 children % = 85.70 % = 79.80 = 5.90 Study reported = 0.16 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID Physical Development Index (mean)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 184 children Mean = 99.80 Mean = 98.40 Mean difference = 1.40 Study reported = 0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Cognitive Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children % = 68.60 % = 67.70 = 0.90 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Cognitive Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children % = 44.80 % = 41.20 = 3.60 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Cognitive Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children Mean = 1.80 Mean = 1.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Cognitive Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children Mean = -0.50 Mean = -1.10 Mean difference = 0.60 Study reported = 0.10 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Communication Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children % = 82.70 % = 74.80 = 7.90 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

DPII Communication Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children % = 78.60 % = 77.10 = 1.50 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Communication Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children Mean = 4.30 Mean = 4.40 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Communication Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children Mean = 5.40 Mean = 5.30 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Physical Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children % = 86.40 % = 85.20 = 1.20 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Physical Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children % = 78.10 % = 79.10 = -1.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Physical Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children Mean = 4.60 Mean = 4.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Physical Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children Mean = 3.90 Mean = 3.70 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Self-Help Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children % = 96.40 % = 95.50 = 0.90 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Self-Help Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children % = 92.90 % = 90.80 = 2.10 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Self-Help Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children Mean = 7.30 Mean = 7.40 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Self-Help Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children Mean = 13.00 Mean = 10.80 Mean difference = 2.20 Study reported = 0.25 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
DPII Social Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children % = 91.60 % = 93.20 = -1.60 Study reported = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII Social Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children % = 83.30 % = 73.90 = 9.40 Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

DPII Social Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Northern California sample 375 children Mean = 4.70 Mean = 5.80 Mean difference = -1.10 Study reported = -0.24 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
DPII Social Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 363 children Mean = 7.40 Mean = 5.90 Mean difference = 1.50 Study reported = 0.17 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
PPVT ator above chronological age
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 320 children % = 50.00 % = 49.20 = 0.80 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
PPVT mean months differential
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
3 year Northern California sample 320 children Mean = 0.30 Mean = -0.20 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

BSID:

  • Physical Development Index
  • Mental Development Index
The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children. The researchers examined both the mental development and physical development scales. The scores were presented as (1) average scores, and (2) the proportion of the sample that were within the normal range (scores of 86 or above). Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

DPII:

  • Physical Development Scale
  • Cognitive Development Scale
  • Communication Development Scale
  • Self-Help Development Scale
  • Social Development Scale
The subscales of the DPII assess the physical, communication, self-help, social, and cognitive development of young children. The scores were presented as (1) the difference in months between a child’s chronological age and the age that corresponds to the skill level assessed, and (2) the proportion of the sample assessed as at or above their chronological age in the area assessed. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

DPII:

  • Physical Development Scale
  • Cognitive Development Scale
  • Communication Development Scale
  • Self-Help Development Scale
  • Social Development Scale
The subscales of the DPII assess the physical, communication, self-help, social, and cognitive development of young children. The scores were presented as (1) the difference in months between a child’s chronological age and the age that corresponds to the skill level assessed, and (2) the proportion of the sample assessed as at or above their chronological age in the area assessed. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PPVT

The PPVT assesses receptive language in young children. Scores were presented as (1) the number of months difference between the chronological age of the child and his/her receptive language developmental age, and (2) the proportion of the sample assessed as at or above their chronological age. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
Achievement-Kaufman ABC
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 24 children Unadjusted mean = 97.00 Unadjusted mean = 94.00 Mean difference = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.25 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Achievement-Kaufman ABC, % Below 90
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 24 children Unadjusted mean = 0.25 Unadjusted mean = 0.20 Mean difference = 0.05 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Fine Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.30 Unadjusted mean = 0.50 Mean difference = -0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.30 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Fine Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test, % Below Age Level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.25 Unadjusted mean = 0.40 Mean difference = -0.15 HomeVEE calculated = -0.41 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Gross Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Unadjusted mean = 0.90 Mean difference = -0.80 HomeVEE calculated = -0.77 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Gross Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test, % Below Age Level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Unadjusted mean = 0.45 Mean difference = -0.35 HomeVEE calculated = 1.05 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Language Acquisition Quotient-Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 107.00 Unadjusted mean = 100.00 Mean difference = 7.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.57 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Language Acquisition Quotient-Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale, % Below Age Level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 40 children Unadjusted mean = 0.30 Unadjusted mean = 0.65 Mean difference = -0.35 HomeVEE calculated = -0.80 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Mental Processing-Kaufman ABC
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 24 children Unadjusted mean = 102.00 Unadjusted mean = 94.00 Mean difference = 8.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.62 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary
Mental Processing-Kaufman ABC, % Below 90
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-5 years Binghamton, NY 24 children Unadjusted mean = 0.05 Unadjusted mean = 0.25 Mean difference = -0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -1.27 Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Achievement-Kaufman ABC

Mean score on achievement portion of Kaufman Assessment Battery for children (K- ABC) Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Achievement-Kaufman ABC, % Below 90

Percentage of children who scored below 90 on achievement portion of Kaufman Assessment Battery for children (K- ABC) Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Fine Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test

Mean number of fine motor delays (definite delays) and cautions (questionable delays) on the Denver Developmental Screening Test Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Fine Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test, % Below Age Level

Percentage of children who scored below age level for fine motor delays (definite delays) and cautions (questionable delays) on the Denver Developmental Screening Test Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Gross Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test

Mean number of gross motor delays (definite delays) and cautions (questionable delays) on the Denver Developmental Screening Test Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Gross Motor Delays-Denver Developmental Screening Test, % Below Age Level

Percentage of children who scored below age level for gross motor delays (definite delays) and cautions (questionable delays) on the Denver Developmental Screening Test Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Language Acquisition Quotient-Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale

Mean language age quotient on Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale, calculated by comparing the child's language development with his/her chronical age to measure language development. Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Language Acquisition Quotient-Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale, % Below Age Level

Percentage of children whose language age quotient was below 100 on the Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale, indicating their language development was below their cronical age. Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Mental Processing-Kaufman ABC

Mean score on mental processing portion of Kaufman Assessment Battery for children (K- ABC) Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary

Mental Processing-Kaufman ABC, % Below 90

Percentage of children who scored below 90 on mental processing portion of Kaufman Assessment Battery for children (K- ABC) Child assessment

Not reported by authors

Primary
Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
DPII average months differential: cognitive development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 children Mean = 2.20 Mean = 2.40 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: communication development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 children Mean = 4.90 Mean = 4.50 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: physical development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 children Mean = 2.90 Mean = 3.00 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: self-help development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 children Mean = 6.10 Mean = 6.00 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: social development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 266 children Mean = 4.90 Mean = 4.90 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
ASBI score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2-year assessment Three-site sample 259 children Mean = 72.30 Mean = 70.80 Mean difference = 1.50 Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

DPII:

  • Physical Development Scale
  • Cognitive Development Scale
  • Communication Development Scale
  • Self-Help Development Scale
  • Social Development Scale
The subscales of the DPII assess the physical, communication, self-help, social, and cognitive development of young children. The scores were presented as the difference in months between a child’s chronological age and the age that corresponds to the skill level assessed. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

ASBI: Total score

The ASBI assesses the social development and prosocial/antisocial behaviors of young children. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
DPII average months differential: cognitive development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 children Mean = 3.90 Mean = 3.60 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: cognitive development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 196 children Mean = 2.60 Mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 0.40 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: communication development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 children Mean = 2.60 Mean = 2.30 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: communication development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 196 children Mean = 3.50 Mean = 3.20 Mean difference = 0.30 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: physical development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 children Mean = 3.60 Mean = 3.80 Mean difference = -0.20 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: physical development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 196 children Mean = 5.60 Mean = 5.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: self-help
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 children Mean = 2.70 Mean = 2.60 Mean difference = 0.10 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: self-help
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 196 children Mean = 9.00 Mean = 9.40 Mean difference = -0.40 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: social development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
1 year Teen mothers sample 236 children Mean = 6.10 Mean = 6.60 Mean difference = -0.50 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
DPII average months differential: social development
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 year Teen mothers sample 196 children Mean = 7.80 Mean = 6.80 Mean difference = 1.00 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary