footnote300
Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value.
SafeCare®
Entries in this row combine information across all versions of SafeCare. Only SafeCare Augmented meets HHS criteria for an evidence-based home visiting model. For SafeCare itself, there are no manuscripts about high- or moderate-quality impact studies. Some other versions of SafeCare have at least one such manuscripts. Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module) and Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training (a SafeCare module with an add-on) show evidence of effectiveness.
Last updated: 2018
Effects shown in research & outcome measure details
Positive parenting practices
Findings rated high
257
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 229 mothers | Adjusted mean = 3.83 | Adjusted mean = 3.54 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Study reported = 0.46 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 |
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 229 mothers | Adjusted mean = 3.99 | Adjusted mean = 3.48 | Mean difference = 0.51 | Study reported = 0.78 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 229 mothers | Adjusted mean = 0.47 | Adjusted mean = 0.38 | Mean difference = 0.09 | Study reported = 0.56 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 229 mothers | Adjusted mean = 0.55 | Adjusted mean = 0.37 | Mean difference = 0.18 | Study reported = 1.13 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 |
Show outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Outcome measure description | Collection method | Properties | Operations links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) |
Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions. |
Observational assessment |
Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89). |
|
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) |
Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the Planned Activities Training Checklist |
Observational assessment |
Not reported by authors |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 3.82 | Adjusted mean = 3.54 | Mean difference = 0.22 | Study reported = 0.34 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 |
| Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 3.97 | Adjusted mean = 3.48 | Mean difference = 0.40 | Study reported = 0.62 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
6 months | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 0.45 | Adjusted mean = 0.38 | Mean difference = 0.07 | Study reported = 0.44 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.05 |
| Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Posttest | Planned Activities Training vs. Control | 258 mothers | Adjusted mean = 0.51 | Adjusted mean = 0.37 | Mean difference = 0.13 | Study reported = 0.81 | Statistically significant, p ≤ 0.01 |
Show outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Outcome measure description | Collection method | Properties | Operations links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) |
Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions. |
Observational assessment |
Interrater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.96 and the items have a high internal consistency reliability (a = 0.89). |
|
Positive Behavior Support (Planned Activities Training Checklist) |
Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed, as measured by the Planned Activities Training Checklist |
Observational assessment |
Not reported by authors |
258
SafeCare: Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
12 months | PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control | 258 mother/child dyads | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not reported | Study reported = 0.37 | Statistically significant, p = 0.01 | |
| Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
12 months | PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control | 258 mother/child dyads | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not reported | Study reported = 0.58 | Statistically significant, p < 0.001 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
Show outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Outcome measure description | Collection method | Properties | Operations links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months |
Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist. |
Direct observation |
Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78. |
|
Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI (Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months |
Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions. |
Direct observation |
Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.94 to 0.96. |
Findings rated moderate
SafeCare/Project 12-Ways: Home Safety Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Hazardous Items | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
2-3 weeks | Project 12-Ways | 3 families | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not reported | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Show outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Outcome measure description | Collection method | Properties | Operations links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Number of Hazardous Items |
The Home Accident Prevention Inventory, a home assessment protocol to record the accessibility of hazardous items in the home, was used to record the number of hazardous items accessible to the target children. Five categories of hazards were included: (1) poisoning by solids and liquids, (2) suffocation by mechanical objects, (3) fire and electrical, (4) suffocation by ingested objects, and (5) firearms. |
Observation |
Rates of inter-observer agreement across hazard categories ranged from 77 to 100 percent. |
Australian Adaptation of UCLA Parent-Child Health and Wellness Project
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Going to the doctor | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 2.85 | Mean = 1.75 | Mean difference = 1.10 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.92 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Going to the doctor | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 2.85 | Mean = 2.20 | Mean difference = 0.65 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.59 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Going to the doctor | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 2.85 | Mean = 2.00 | Mean difference = 0.85 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.78 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Health comprehension | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 5.10 | Mean = 5.80 | Mean difference = -0.70 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.71 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Health comprehension | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 5.10 | Mean = 4.91 | Mean difference = 0.19 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Health comprehension | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 5.10 | Mean = 5.50 | Mean difference = -0.40 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.36 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Illustrations—Dangers | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 76.25 | Mean = 57.33 | Mean difference = 18.92 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.50 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Illustrations—Dangers | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 76.25 | Mean = 54.82 | Mean difference = 21.43 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.65 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Illustrations—Dangers | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 76.25 | Mean = 55.70 | Mean difference = 20.55 | HomeVEE calculated = 2.02 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Illustrations—Precautions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 78.85 | Mean = 45.33 | Mean difference = 33.52 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.92 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Illustrations—Precautions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 78.85 | Mean = 48.91 | Mean difference = 29.94 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.75 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Illustrations—Precautions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 78.85 | Mean = 47.10 | Mean difference = 31.75 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.91 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Precautions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 60.35 | Mean = 53.30 | Mean difference = 7.05 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.35 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Precautions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 60.35 | Mean = 45.67 | Mean difference = 14.68 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.67 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Home Precautions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 60.35 | Mean = 48.73 | Mean difference = 11.62 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.60 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Illness and symptom recognition | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 12.95 | Mean = 10.80 | Mean difference = 2.15 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.62 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Illness and symptom recognition | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 12.95 | Mean = 9.36 | Mean difference = 3.59 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.09 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Illness and symptom recognition | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 12.95 | Mean = 10.50 | Mean difference = 2.45 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.69 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Life threatening emergencies | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 4.95 | Mean = 3.25 | Mean difference = 1.70 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.88 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Life threatening emergencies | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 4.95 | Mean = 3.00 | Mean difference = 1.95 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.98 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Life threatening emergencies | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 4.95 | Mean = 1.91 | Mean difference = 3.04 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.79 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Using medicine safely | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | 31 families | Mean = 2.15 | Mean = 1.27 | Mean difference = 0.88 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.97 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Using medicine safely | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 4 | 24 families | Mean = 2.15 | Mean = 1.75 | Mean difference = 0.40 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.46 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
| Using medicine safely | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Assessment 2 | Group 1 vs. Group 3 | 30 families | Mean = 2.15 | Mean = 1.00 | Mean difference = 1.15 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.30 | Not available | footnote89Author-reported statistics are derived from models controlling for baseline outcomes as required for a moderate rating. However, author-reported statistics cannot be reported separately for the comparisons of interest. Because of this lack of sufficient information, this outcome has been categorized as no effect. |
Show outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Outcome measure description | Collection method | Properties | Operations links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Going to the doctor |
Measures parent knowledge about when to go to the doctor, what to tell and ask the doctor. Scores ranging from 0 to 9 and represent the sum of 3 sub-scale scores related to calling the doctor, asking questions and following directions. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct. |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.52 |
|
Health comprehension |
Measures parent knowledge of health related words and body parts. Scores range from 0 through to 6 and represent the sum of two-sub-scale scores: health related vocabulary and knowledge of body parts. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct. |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.54 |
|
Home Illustrations—Dangers |
Count of the total number of dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard). Scores ranged from 0 to 104. |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.89 |
|
Home Illustrations—Precautions |
Count of the total number of precautions identified for dangers identified in pictures of six areas of the home (kitchen, bathroom, living room, stairs, bedroom and yard) |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.87 |
|
Home Precautions |
Scores represent the total number of precautions actually taken to deal with 114 possible dangers in and around the home related to the following: fire, electrical, cooking, poisons, inappropriate edibles, suffocation, heavy and sharp objects, firearms, clutter, dangerous toys, animals, outside and general dangers. |
Home assessment |
Cronbach’s α = 0.98 |
|
Illness and symptom recognition |
Measures parent knowledge about symptoms of illness, common child health problems, and practical tasks such as taking a child’s temperature. Scores range from 0 to 21 and represent the sum of 7 sub-scale scores related to recognizing symptoms of illness. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20 percent of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80 percent or more of answers were correct. |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.66 |
|
Life threatening emergencies |
Measures parent knowledge about life threatening emergencies, including causes, prevention, and appropriate response. Scores range from 0 to 12 and represent the sum of 4 sub-scale scores related to parent knowledge of and skills in responding to life threatening emergencies. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct. |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.69 |
|
Using medicine safely |
Measures parent knowledge about prescription medication, how to use medicine safely, reading important information on medication labels, and following directions exactly. Scores range from 0 to 6 and represent the sum of two sub-scale scores related to asking questions about and using medicine safely. Each sub-scale is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 indicates that less than 20% of answers were correct and a score of 3 indicates that 80% or more of answers were correct. |
Parent/caregiver report |
Cronbach’s α = 0.45 |
SafeCare: Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training Module
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
12 months | PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control | 229 mother/child dyads | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not reported | Study reported = 0.68 | Statistically significant, p < 0.001 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
| Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
12 months | PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control | 229 mother/child dyads | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not reported | Study reported = 0.35 | Statistically significant, p = 0.00 | footnote300Authors used linear regression models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. |
Show outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Outcome measure description | Collection method | Properties | Operations links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills: Positive Behavior Support (PCI skills checklist), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months |
Mean percentage of parenting strategies properly employed on an observed parent-child clean-up task, as measured by the PCI (Planned Activities Training) skills checklist. |
Direct observation |
Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.68 to 0.78. |
|
Parenting: Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS), PCI-C (Cellular Phone Enhanced Planned Activities Training) vs. Control, 12 months |
Mean score on KIPS; KIPS rated the quality of interactions between mothers and the target children. Parenting behaviors were rated on a 5-point scale along 12 dimensions. |
Direct observation |
Internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.94 to 0.96. |