Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)® Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: October 2019

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Child Development and School Readiness

Outcomes Rated High

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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

Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (12-year follow-up)

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

12 years

Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample

559 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >0.05

Primary

Statistical significance is based on information the authors provided in the text.

Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (2-year follow-up)

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

2 years

Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample

587 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Statistically significant, p = 0.03

Primary

Statistical significance and favorability are based on information the authors provided in the text.

Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (6-year follow-up)

FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect

6 years

Nurse home-visited vs. comparison, Memphis sample

575 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p >0.05

Primary

Statistical significance is based on information the authors provided in the text.

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

Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (12-year follow-up)

The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.

Maternal report

The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.

Primary

Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (2-year follow-up)

The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.

Maternal report

The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.

Primary

Composite externalizing disorders (ED) continuous total scores: Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (6-year follow-up)

The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist Externalizing Disorders Composite is a standardized tool completed by parents, and is designed to assess the presence of behavioral or emotional problems in children.

Maternal report

The study authors note that the CBCL is standardized and normed.

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
Number of internalizing problems
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
15-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 227 adolescents Adjusted mean = 11.19 Adjusted mean = 10.58 Mean difference = 0.61 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.46
Secondary
Number of internalizing problems
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
15-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 245 adolescents Adjusted mean = 11.66 Adjusted mean = 10.58 Mean difference = 1.08 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.19
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Number of externalizing problems

An average of parent and child reports of externalizing behavioral problems Parent/caregiver and child report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Number of internalizing problems

An average of parent and child reports of internalizing behavioral problems Parent/caregiver and child report

Not reported by author

Secondary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
CBCL (externalizing problems)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children % (adjusted) = 17.40 Adjusted mean % = 20.20 OR = 0.83 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.43 Secondary
CBCL (internalizing problems)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children % (adjusted) = 12.60 Adjusted mean % = 14.70 OR = 0.84 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.50 Primary
CBCL (total problems)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children % (adjusted) = 2.00 Adjusted mean % = 5.00 OR = 0.32 HomeVEE calculated = -0.37 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

HTC Rating Scale (classroom social skills)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 24.93 Adjusted mean = 24.53 Mean difference = 0.40 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.71
Primary
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 6.16 Adjusted mean = 6.86 Mean difference = -0.70 Study reported = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.72
Primary
KABC arithmetic achievement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 89.75 Adjusted mean = 88.61 Mean difference = 1.14 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p = 0.30 Primary
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 92.34 Adjusted mean = 90.24 Mean difference = 2.10 Study reported = 0.18 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
Primary
KABC reading achievement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 93.79 Adjusted mean = 93.56 Mean difference = 0.23 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.84 Primary
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 99.24 Adjusted mean = 100.26 Mean difference = -1.02 Study reported = -0.10 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.26
Primary
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 21.15 Adjusted mean = 25.22 Mean difference = -4.07 Study reported = -0.16 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.07
Primary
MSSB (warmth/empathy index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 100.86 Adjusted mean = 99.51 Mean difference = 1.35 Study reported = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.13
Primary
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 615 children Adjusted mean = 84.32 Adjusted mean = 82.13 Mean difference = 2.19 Study reported = 0.17 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Primary
Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 641 mothers % (adjusted) = 82.00 Adjusted mean % = 75.00 OR = 1.53 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26 Statistically significant,
p = 0.05
Secondary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

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

CBCL (total problems)

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. The researchers used the assessment to examine the aggregate internalizing and externalizing problems of the child. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL (total problems)

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. The researchers used the assessment to examine the aggregate internalizing and externalizing problems of the child. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Primary

HTC Rating Scale:

  • Academic engagement
  • Classroom social skills
Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment. Teacher report

academic engagement: Cronbach’s α = 0.96 Classroom social skills: Cronbach’s α = 0.92

Primary

HTC Rating Scale: Academic engagement

Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment. Teacher report

Cronbach’s α = 0.96

Primary

HTC Rating Scale: Classroom social skills

Children’s classroom behavior was summarized into two scales derived from principal components analysis: (1) the degree to which children were engaged with school, and (2) their classroom socioemotional adjustment. Teacher report

Cronbach’s α = 0.92

Primary

KABC: Mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)

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

Not reported by author

Primary

KABC: Mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)

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

Not reported by author

Primary

MSSB: Dysregulated aggression index

Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation

Cronbach’s α = 0.67, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.83

Primary

MSSB: Dysregulated aggression index

Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation

Cronbach’s α = 0.67, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.83

Primary

MSSB: Percentage incoherent stories

Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation

Cronbach’s α = 0.49, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68

Primary

MSSB: Percentage incoherent stories

Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation

Cronbach’s α = 0.49, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68

Primary

MSSB: Warmth/empathy index

Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation

Cronbach’s α = 0.68, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68

Primary

MSSB: Warmth/empathy index

Children’s responses to eight story stems were videotaped and coded for a series of content themes, observable affective expressions, and coherence in completing the stories. The coding scheme and constructs were adapted explicitly for low-income black children with a combination of theory, prior research, and factor analysis to characterize children’s representations of dysregulated aggressive behavior and parental warmth/empathy themes in their stories and whether each story completion was incoherent. Codes were averaged for all stories, and components were standardized before aggregation. Videotaped observation

Cronbach’s α = 0.68, Interobserver Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68

Primary

PPVT-III

The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PPVT-III

The PPVT-III assesses receptive vocabulary for Standard American English in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months

Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or an early intervention Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or early intervention, age 24–54 months

Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, day care, or an early intervention Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
GPA (reading and math, grades 1–3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children Adjusted mean = 2.69 Adjusted mean = 2.59 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.20
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1–3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 570 children Adjusted mean = 44.61 Adjusted mean = 41.63 Mean difference = 2.98 Study reported = 0.11 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.17
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Any academic failures (grades 1–3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children = 0.07 = 0.05 Mean difference = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.20 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.37
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Conduct grades (grades 1–3 )
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children Adjusted mean = 2.71 Adjusted mean = 2.68 Mean difference = 0.03 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.67
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Count of conduct failures, (grades 1–3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children Adjusted mean = 0.06 Adjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = -0.04 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.09
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Count of depressive and anxiety disorders
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children Adjusted mean = 0.12 Adjusted mean = 0.19 Mean difference = -0.07 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.12
Secondary

footnote4

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.

Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children Adjusted mean = 0.36 Adjusted mean = 0.31 Mean difference = -0.05 Not available Not statistically significant,
p = 0.42
Secondary

footnote4

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculation of incidence ratio.

Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children = 0.02 = 0.02 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.97
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Ever retained (grades 1–3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 604 children = 0.16 = 0.12 Mean difference = 4.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.18 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.25
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Teacher reported peer affiliation (grade 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 558 children Adjusted mean = 100.35 Adjusted mean = 99.92 Mean difference = 0.43 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.64
Secondary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 558 children Adjusted mean = 100.10 Adjusted mean = 100.08 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.98
Secondary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 558 children Adjusted mean = 99.77 Adjusted mean = 100.08 Mean difference = -0.31 Study reported = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.74
Secondary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

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

GPA

Grades received in math and reading during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

GPA

Grades received in math and reading during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Achievement tests

Scores received on achievement tests (primarily the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test) during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Achievement tests

Scores received on achievement tests (primarily the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test) during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Any academic failures (grades 1–3)

Percentage of children who had any academic failures during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Any academic failures (grades 1–3)

Percentage of children who had any academic failures during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Conduct grades

Ratings of the child’s conduct at school during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Conduct grades

Ratings of the child’s conduct at school during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Count of conduct failures

Counts of conduct failures at the end of each school year during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Count of conduct failures

Counts of conduct failures at the end of each school year during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Count of depressive and anxiety disorders

Counts of depressive and anxiety disorders reported in the past year (major depression, dysthymia, generalized anxiety, separation anxiety, and social phobia) with actual values ranging between 0 and 5 Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Count of depressive and anxiety disorders

Counts of depressive and anxiety disorders reported in the past year (major depression, dysthymia, generalized anxiety, separation anxiety, and social phobia) with actual values ranging between 0 and 5 Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment)

Counts of disruptive behavior disorders reported in the past year (either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, and attention-deficit disorder of any type), with actual values ranging between 0 and 2 Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Count of disruptive behavior disorders (with impairment)

Counts of disruptive behavior disorders reported in the past year (either oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder, and attention-deficit disorder of any type), with actual values ranging between 0 and 2 Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3)

Percentage of children who had ever been placed in special education Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Ever placed in special education (grades 1–3)

Percentage of children who had ever been placed in special education Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Ever retained (grades 1–3)

Percentage of children who had ever been retained during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Ever retained (grades 1–3)

Percentage of children who had ever been retained during grades 1 to 3 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Teacher-reported academically focused behavior

Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report

Cronbach’s α = 0.95

Secondary

Teacher-reported antisocial behavior

Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report

Cronbach’s α = 0.95

Secondary

Teacher-reported antisocial behavior, academically focused behavior, peer affiliation

Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report

antisocial behavior - Cronbach’s α = 0.95, academically focused behavior - Cronbach’s α = 0.95, Peer affiliation - Cronbach’s α = 0.80

Secondary

Teacher-reported peer affiliation

Reports of children’s behavior in the classroom over the previous year from the Social Competence Scale, Social Health Profile, and the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment Revised were subjected to principal axis analysis. Three scales were formed: (1) antisocial behavior, (2) academically focused behavior, and (3) peer affiliation. Teacher report

Cronbach’s α = 0.80

Secondary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 406 children % (adjusted) = 6.00 Adjusted mean % = 12.00 OR = 0.48 HomeVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary
PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 406 children Adjusted mean = 101.22 Adjusted mean = 99.49 Mean difference = 1.73 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

BSID: Mental development delay

The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

BSID: Mental development delay and MDI

The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

BSID: Mental development delay and Mental Development Index

The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

BSID: Mental Development Index

The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL (Behavioral problem score)

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (language delay and language development)

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores < 85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (language delay)

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores <85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (language delay)

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores <85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (language delay), PLS-3 (language development)

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. To examine language delay, scores <85 were considered delayed. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (language development)

ThePLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (language development)

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. For language development, the outcome was analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Irritable temperament

No description provided by author. Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary

Irritable temperament

No description provided Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary

Irritable temperament

No description provided by author Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary

Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)

Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary

Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)

Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary

Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding), Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)

Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
PLS-3 (total language score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 408 children Adjusted mean = 92.65 Adjusted mean = 92.01 Mean difference = 0.64 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.65
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Behavioral adaptation in testing
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 408 children Adjusted mean = 99.63 Adjusted mean = 99.71 Mean difference = -0.08 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.93
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 424 mothers = 0.54 = 0.66 OR = 0.62 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
Secondary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Emotional regulation in testing
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 408 children Adjusted mean = 99.54 Adjusted mean = 99.61 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.95
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Executive function composite
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 408 children Adjusted mean = 100.64 Adjusted mean = 99.69 Mean difference = 0.95 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.34
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Externalizing behavior problems
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 408 children Adjusted mean = 12.16 Adjusted mean = 12.20 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.96
Secondary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

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

PLS-3

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

PLS-3 (total language score)

The PLS-3 is used to assess expressive and receptive language skills in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Behavioral adaptation in testing

Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.96

Primary

Behavioral adaptation in testing

Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.96

Primary

Behavioral adaptation in testing

Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.96

Primary

Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care

Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care

Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Child attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care

Percentage of children who attended Head Start, preschool, center-based day care, or government-supported family care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Emotional regulation in testing

Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.92

Primary

Emotional regulation in testing

Assessments of children’s ability to regulate their behavior and emotions were analyzed using principal components analysis to produce two scales: (1) behavioral adaptation (attention, activity level, organization of behavior/impulse control, and sociability); and (2) emotional regulation (anxiety, energy and feelings, regulation of mood, and sensory reactivity). In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.92

Primary

Emotional regulation in testing

In-home observational assessment during testing In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.92

Primary

Executive function composite

Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions. In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.60

Primary

Executive function composite

Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions. In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.60

Primary

Executive function composite

Assessments of a series of cognitive tasks focusing primarily on the children’s capacity for sustained attention and inhibitory control were coded and analyzed using principal components analysis to produce a single composite index labeled executive functions. In-home observational assessment

Cronbach’s α = 0.60

Primary

Externalizing behavior problems

Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Externalizing behavior problems

Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary

Externalizing behavior problems

Instances of rule-breaking and aggressive behavior Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
Graduated from high school
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
19-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy and infancy and comparison (Elmira) 231 children %(adjusted) = 70.60 Adjusted mean % = 74.50 Difference = -3.90 HomeVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Graduated from high school
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
19-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 219 children %(adjusted) = 81.60 Adjusted mean % = 74.50 Difference = 7.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.25 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Graduated from high school

Percentage of youth that had graduated from high school Adolescent report

Not applicable

Secondary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
Math Grades: Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 374 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.14 Unadjusted mean = 3.21 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.11 p-value = 0.32 Secondary
Reading Grades: Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 375 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.14 Unadjusted mean = 3.18 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = -0.05 p-value = 0.62 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical

Antisocial ProcessScreening Device (ASPD) assessment detects antisocial processes in youth ages 6 through 13 years. Teacher report

Not reported by authors

Primary

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

Percentage of children rated as having externalizing problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent/caregiver report and teacher report

Not reported by authors

Primary

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

Percentage of children rated as having internalizing problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent/caregiver report and teacher report

Not reported by authors

Primary

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical

Percentage of children rated as having total behavioral problems on Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent/caregiver report and teacher report

Not reported by authors

Primary

Current grade placement

Mean current grade placement Not reported by authors

Not applicable

Primary

Learning support services: hrs/week

Mean hours per week in learning support services Not reported by authors

Not applicable

Primary

Math Grades: Parent Report

Mean third-grade math grade point average Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Math Grades: Parent Report

No description provided Parent report

Not applicable

Secondary

Math Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade math grade point average Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Reading Grades: Parent Report

Mean third-grade reading grade point average Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Reading Grades: Parent Report

No description provided Parent report

Not applicable

Secondary

Reading Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade reading grade point average Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Special Education school report

Not reported by authors Not reported by authors

Not applicable

Primary

Times sent to Principal's office

Mean number of times sent to principal's office Not reported by authors

Not applicable

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children Mean = 2.48 Mean = 2.39 Mean difference = 0.09 HomeVEE calculated = 2.07 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children Mean = 2.28 Mean = 2.20 Mean difference = 0.08 HomeVEE calculated = 1.70 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 568 children Mean = 89.24 Mean = 87.96 Mean difference = 1.27 HomeVEE calculated = 2.25 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Conduct grades (grades 1–-6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children Mean = 2.95 Mean = 2.89 Mean difference = 0.06 HomeVEE calculated = 1.79 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary
Conduct grades (grades 4–6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children Mean = 2.95 Mean = 2.88 Mean difference = 0.07 HomeVEE calculated = 1.87 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Ever placed in special education (grades 1–6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children % (adjusted) = 14.80 Adjusted mean % = 9.80 OR = 1.61 HomeVEE calculated = 0.28 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary
Ever retained
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children % (adjusted) = 24.90 Adjusted mean % = 20.80 OR = 1.26 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1–6), percentile
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 578 children Mean = 42.34 Mean = 39.79 Mean difference = 2.55 HomeVEE calculated = 2.12 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4–6), percentile
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 635 children Mean = 39.37 Mean = 38.27 Mean difference = 1.09 HomeVEE calculated = 0.89 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and development screening comparison (Memphis) 578 children Mean = 8.68 Mean = 8.75 Mean difference = -0.07 HomeVEE calculated = -0.42 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6)

Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 1 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records

Not applicable 

Primary

GPA (reading and math) (grades 1–6)

Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 1 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records

Not applicable 

Primary

GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6)

Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 4 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records

Not applicable 

Primary

GPA (reading and math) (grades 4–6)

Reading and math end-of-year grade pointaverages (GPAs) in grades 4 through 6 (score ranges from 0 to 4)  Review of school records

Not applicable 

Primary

PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years

Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests (PIATs) assess reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children  Child report

Not reported by author

Primary

PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years

Peabody IndividualAchievement Tests (PIATs) assess reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children  Child report

Not reported by author

Primary

Conduct grades (grades 1-6)

A scale of child conduct during grades 1 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records

 Not applicable

Primary

Conduct grades (grades 1–-6)

A scale of child conduct during grades 1 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records

 Not applicable

Primary

Conduct grades (grades 4-6)

A scale of child conduct during grades 4 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records

Not applicable

Primary

Conduct grades (grades 4–6)

A scale of child conduct during grades 4 to 6 ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 4 (honors) Review of school records

Not applicable

Primary

Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)

Percentage of children that had ever been placed in special education during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records

Not applicable

Primary

Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)

Percentage of children that had ever been placed in special education during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records

Not applicable

Primary

Ever retained

Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records

Not applicable

Primary

Ever retained

Percentage of children that had ever been grade retained during grades 1 to 6 Review of school records

Not applicable

Primary

Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1-6), percentile1

Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 1 through 6 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1–6), percentile

Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 1 through 6 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1

Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 4 through 6 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4–6), percentile

Reading and math achievement in terms of score percentiles derived from the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores for grades 4 through 6 Review of school records

Not reported by author

Primary

Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score

Leiter-R Sustained Attention test assesses skills in memory or attention in children Direct assessment 

Not reported by author

Primary

Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score

Leiter-R Sustained Attention test assesses skills in memory or attention in children Direct assessment 

Not reported by author

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
CBCL (total score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 years postnatal Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 1082 children Adjusted mean = 46.00 Adjusted mean = 49.20 Mean difference = -3.20 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID (total score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 years postnatal Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 1082 children Adjusted mean = 94.50 Adjusted mean = 94.30 Mean difference = 0.20 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
NCAST Child Responsiveness (total score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
2 years postnatal Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 1082 children Adjusted mean = 17.70 Adjusted mean = 17.40 Mean difference = 0.30 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

BSID

The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

NCAST Child Responsiveness

Mothers and children were observed while the mothers taught their children a developmentally challenging task. The mothers’ behaviors were coded and summarized to characterize their sensitivity, responsiveness, and quality of teaching. The infants’ behaviors were coded and aggregated to characterize their responsiveness and clarity of communication toward their mothers. Observation conducted at the project offices

Not reported by author

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
BSID MDI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison 204 children Adjusted mean = 111.23 Adjusted mean = 109.94 Mean difference = 1.29 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID Mental Development Index (MDI)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12 months Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison 199 children Adjusted mean = 105.44 Adjusted mean = 109.94 Mean difference = -4.50 Not available Statistical significance not reported Primary
Cattell
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison 186 children Adjusted mean = 105.73 Adjusted mean = 106.49 Mean difference = -0.76 Not available Statistical significance not reported Primary
Cattell
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison 193 children Adjusted mean = 109.34 Adjusted mean = 106.49 Mean difference = 2.85 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

BSID Mental Development Index

The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Cattell

The Cattell assesses mental ability in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
Stanford Binet
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 months Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 226 children Adjusted mean = 104.20 Adjusted mean = 101.95 Mean difference = 2.25 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Stanford Binet
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
36 months Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 236 children Adjusted mean = 103.57 Adjusted mean = 101.95 Mean difference = 1.62 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Stanford Binet
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
48 months Nurse visited during pregnancy and comparison (Elmira) 226 children Adjusted mean = 111.25 Adjusted mean = 108.93 Mean difference = 2.32 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Stanford Binet
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
48 months Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and comparison (Elmira) 236 children Adjusted mean = 111.52 Adjusted mean = 108.93 Mean difference = 2.59 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

Stanford Binet

The Stanford Binet Form L-M assesses intelligence in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 378 children Unadjusted mean = 0.02 Unadjusted mean = 0.05 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = 0.34 Not statistically significant, p = 0.07 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 396 children Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = -0.03 Study reported = 0.76 Not statistically significant, p = 0.42 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 396 children Unadjusted mean = 0.01 Unadjusted mean = 0.03 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = 0.42 Not statistically significant, p = 0.28 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 396 children Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = 0.45 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

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

Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with attention dysfunction, as measured by the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and scores greater than 60 on the Clinical Confidence Index. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3

Percent of children with attention dysfunction, as measured by the Conners' Continuous Performance Test and scores greater than 60 on the Clinical Confidence Index. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for internalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 3

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for total behavioral problems. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary
NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
CBCL (externalizing problems)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children % (adjusted) = 22.00 Adjusted mean % = 24.00 OR = 0.87 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.63
Primary
CBCL (internalizing problems)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children % (adjusted) = 20.00 Adjusted mean % = 17.00 OR = 1.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.40
Primary
CBCL (total problems, percentage)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children %, (adjusted) = 3.70 Adjusted mean % = 6.60 Difference = -2.90 Study reported = -0.37 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.31
Primary
HTC Rating Scale(academic engagement)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 4.74 Adjusted mean = 4.23 Mean difference = 0.51 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.86
Primary
HTC Rating Scale(classroom social skills)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 24.54 Adjusted mean = 22.92 Mean difference = 1.62 Study reported = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.27
Primary
KABC arithmetic achievement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 88.61 Adjusted mean = 85.42 Mean difference = 3.19 Study reported = 0.25 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Primary
KABC mental processing composite (arithmetic and reading)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 90.49 Adjusted mean = 87.64 Mean difference = 2.85 Study reported = 0.25 Statistically significant,
p = 0.03
Primary
KABC reading achievement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 92.07 Adjusted mean = 90.87 Mean difference = 1.20 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.44
Secondary
MSSB (dysregulated aggression index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 98.58 Adjusted mean = 101.10 Mean difference = -2.52 Study reported = -0.25 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Primary
MSSB (percentage incoherent stories)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 20.90 Adjusted mean = 29.84 Mean difference = -8.94 Study reported = -0.34 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Primary
MSSB (warmth/ empathy index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 100.30 Adjusted mean = 98.98 Mean difference = 1.32 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.27
Primary
PPVT-III receptive vocabulary
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 335 children Adjusted mean = 81.75 Adjusted mean = 79.08 Mean difference = 2.67 Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.07
Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
GPA (reading and math, grades 1 – 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 333 children Adjusted mean = 2.68 Adjusted mean = 2.44 Mean difference = 0.24 Study reported = 0.22 Statistically significant,
p = 0.02
Primary
Achievement tests (reading and math, grades 1 – 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 333 children Adjusted mean = 44.89 Adjusted mean = 35.72 Mean difference = 9.17 Study reported = 0.33 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Primary
Conduct grades (grades 1 – 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 333 children Adjusted mean = 2.68 Adjusted mean = 2.65 Mean difference = 0.03 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.75
Primary
Teacher-reported academically focused behavior (grade 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 333 children Adjusted mean = 99.59 Adjusted mean = 98.70 Mean difference = 0.89 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.47
Secondary
Teacher-reported antisocial behavior (grade 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 333 children Adjusted mean = 100.18 Adjusted mean = 100.17 Mean difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.99
Secondary
Teacher-reported peer affiliation (grade 3)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources – Nurse visited during pregnancy + infancy and developmental screening comparison (Memphis) 333 children Adjusted mean = 99.56 Adjusted mean = 99.37 Mean difference = 0.19 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.88
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
CBCL
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 136 children Adjusted mean = 48.13 Adjusted mean = 49.25 Mean difference = -1.12 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID (mental development delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 136 children = 0.10 = 0.19 OR = 0.48 HomeVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

BSID (mental development index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 136 children Adjusted mean = 90.18 Adjusted mean = 86.20 Mean difference = 3.98 Not available Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary

footnote26

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

The confidence interval includes 0, but according to the study, the result is statistically significant (&alpha; = 0.05).

PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 142 children = 0.07 = 0.18 OR = 0.32 HomeVEE calculated = -0.65 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary
PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 142 children Adjusted mean = 101.52 Adjusted mean = 96.85 Mean difference = 4.67 Not available Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 138 children = 0.13 = 0.32 OR = 0.33 HomeVEE calculated = -0.31 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary
Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 138 children = 0.24 = 0.40 OR = 0.46 HomeVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary
Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 138 children = 0.12 = 0.21 OR = 0.51 HomeVEE calculated = -0.34 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

Irritable temperament
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 138 children Adjusted mean = 2.88 Adjusted mean = 2.92 Mean difference = -0.04 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
PLS-3 (Total language score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 144 children Adjusted mean = 91.39 Adjusted mean = 86.73 Mean difference = 4.66 Study reported = 0.31 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Behavioral adaptation in testing
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 144 children Adjusted mean = 100.41 Adjusted mean = 96.66 Mean difference = 3.75 Study reported = 0.38 Statistically significant,
p = 0.04
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Emotional regulation in testing
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 144 children Adjusted mean = 99.54 Adjusted mean = 98.42 Mean difference = 1.12 Study reported = 0.11 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.51
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Executive function composite
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 144 children Adjusted mean = 100.16 Adjusted mean = 95.48 Mean difference = 4.68 Study reported = 0.47 Statistically significant,
p = 0.00
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Externalizing behavior problems
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Denver) 144 children Adjusted mean = 13.16 Adjusted mean = 12.95 Mean difference = 0.21 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.88
Secondary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Nurse Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
GPA (reading and math) (grades 1-6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 2.46 Mean = 2.27 Mean difference = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = 3.32 Statistically significant, p < .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

GPA (reading and math) (grades 4-6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 2.27 Mean = 2.08 Mean difference = 0.19 HomeVEE calculated = 2.83 Statistically significant, p < .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

PIAT scores (reading and math) at 12 years
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 88.78 Mean = 85.70 Mean difference = 3.07 HomeVEE calculated = 3.91 Statistically significant, p < .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Conduct grades (grades 1-6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 2.93 Mean = 2.86 Mean difference = 0.07 HomeVEE calculated = 1.61 Not statistically significant, p&gy; .05 Secondary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Conduct grades (grades 4-6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 2.91 Mean = 2.86 Mean difference = 0.05 HomeVEE calculated = 0.93 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote121

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

Outcome examined with repeated measures.

Ever placed in special education (grades 1-6)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers % = 15.00 % = 15.00 OR = 0.97 HomeVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote122

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

Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).

Ever retained
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers % = 23.00 % = 27.00 OR = 0.77 HomeVEE calculated = -0.16 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary

footnote122

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

Percentages adjusted for covariates in the model (household poverty and maternal childrearing attitudes).

Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 1-6), percentile1
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 40.52 Mean = 34.85 Mean difference = 5.67 HomeVEE calculated = 3.39 Statistically significant, p < .05 Primary
Group achievement test scores (reading and math) (grades 4-6), percentile1
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 36.86 Mean = 33.67 Mean difference = 3.19 HomeVEE calculated = 1.87 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary
Leiter-R Sustained Attention test scaled score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
12-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Nurse home visitors and comparison (Memphis) 326 mothers Mean = 8.63 Mean = 8.72 Mean difference = -0.09 HomeVEE calculated = -0.39 Not statistically significant, p > .05 Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors
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
CBCL
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 392 children Adjusted mean = 45.49 Adjusted mean = 45.26 Mean difference = 0.23 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID (mental development delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 392 children % (adjusted) = 14.00 Adjusted mean % = 13.00 OR = 1.07 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID (Mental Developmental Index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 392 children Adjusted mean = 89.45 Adjusted mean = 89.38 Mean difference = 0.07 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 420 children % (adjusted) = 11.00 Adjusted mean % = 12.00 OR = 0.90 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 420 children Adjusted mean = 99.89 Adjusted mean = 99.49 Mean difference = 0.40 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Irritable temperament (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 377 children Adjusted mean = 2.83 Adjusted mean = 2.84 Mean difference = -0.01 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 377 children % (adjusted) = 26.00 Adjusted mean % = 28.00 OR = 0.89 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 377 children % (adjusted) = 31.00 Adjusted mean % = 34.00 OR = 0.88 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Paraprofessional home visitor and comparison (Denver) 377 children % (adjusted) = 18.00 Adjusted mean % = 25.00 OR = 0.67 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors
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
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 328 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.04 OR = 1.78 HomeVEE calculated = 0.37 p-value = 0.37 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 320 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.14 Unadjusted mean = 0.14 OR = 1.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.20 p-value = 0.33 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 317 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 OR = 0.95 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 p-value = 0.9 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 317 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 OR = 0.97 HomeVEE calculated = -0.01 p-value = 0.94 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Current grade placement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 321 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.45 Unadjusted mean = 4.45 Mean difference = 0.12 Study reported = 0.16 p-value = 0.13 Primary
Learning support services: hrs/week
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 309 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.22 Unadjusted mean = 1.22 Mean difference = -0.42 Study reported = -0.09 p-value = 0.4 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Math Grades: Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 391 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.11 Unadjusted mean = 3.11 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.15 p-value = 0.16 Secondary
Math Grades: School Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 305 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.51 Unadjusted mean = 2.51 Mean difference = -0.17 Study reported = -0.15 p-value = 0.15 Primary
Reading Grades: Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 391 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.12 Unadjusted mean = 3.12 Mean difference = -0.06 Study reported = -0.07 p-value = 0.47 Secondary
Reading Grades: School Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 307 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.32 Unadjusted mean = 2.32 Mean difference = -0.17 Study reported = -0.16 p-value = 0.14 Primary
Special Education school report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 308 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.16 Unadjusted mean = 0.16 OR = 1.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.01 p-value = 0.98 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Times sent to Principal"s office
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Paraprofessional vs. Control 326 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.44 Unadjusted mean = 1.44 Mean difference = 0.14 Study reported = 0.15 p-value = 0.18 Primary

footnote163

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

Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors
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
Attention dysfunction - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.03 Unadjusted mean = 0.05 Mean difference = -0.03 Study reported = 0.53 Not statistically significant, p = 0.22 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Externalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 411 children Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = -0.01 Study reported = 0.87 Not statistically significant, p = 0.66 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.14 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = 0.04 Study reported = 1.34 Not statistically significant, p = 0.33 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Internalizing - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 411 children Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.03 Mean difference = 0.01 Study reported = 1.35 Not statistically significant, p = 0.60 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.96 Not statistically significant, p = 0.90 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Total behavioral problems - 6 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (6 year follow up, Denver) 411 children Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 1.04 Not statistically significant, p = 0.91 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 2
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Paraprofessional home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 394 children Unadjusted mean = 0.09 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.97 Not statistically significant, p = 0.94 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
CBCL
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 48.79 Adjusted mean = 49.25 Mean difference = -0.46 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID (Mental development delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children = 0.19 = 0.19 OR = 0.97 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

BSID (Mental development index)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 88.54 Adjusted mean = 86.20 Mean difference = 2.33 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 406 children % (adjusted) = 6.00 Adjusted mean % = 12.00 OR = 0.48 HomeVEE calculated = -0.45 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Secondary
PLS-3 (language delay)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children = 0.13 = 0.18 OR = 0.66 HomeVEE calculated = -0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 406 children Adjusted mean = 101.22 Adjusted mean = 99.49 Mean difference = 1.73 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
PLS-3 (language development)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
21-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 97.83 Adjusted mean = 96.85 Mean difference = 0.98 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 158 children = 0.22 = 0.32 OR = 0.63 HomeVEE calculated = -0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 158 children = 0.30 = 0.40 OR = 0.64 HomeVEE calculated = -0.27 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 158 children = 0.17 = 0.21 OR = 0.77 HomeVEE calculated = -0.16 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote23

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

Authors report results are not statistically significant, although this appears to be inconsistent with the confidence interval.

Irritable temperament
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6-month follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 158 children Adjusted mean = 2.95 Adjusted mean = 2.92 Mean difference = 0.02 Not available HomVEE = > 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
NFP with Paraprofessional Home Visitors - Mothers with low psychological resources subgroup
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
PLS-3 (Total language score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 90.09 Adjusted mean = 86.73 Mean difference = 3.36 Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.13
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Behavioral adaptation in testing
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 99.51 Adjusted mean = 96.66 Mean difference = 2.85 Study reported = 0.28 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.10
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Emotional regulation in testing
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 99.29 Adjusted mean = 98.42 Mean difference = 0.87 Study reported = 0.09 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.59
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Executive function composite
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 98.40 Adjusted mean = 95.48 Mean difference = 2.92 Study reported = 0.29 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.06
Primary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Externalizing behavior problems
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
4-year follow-up Mothers with low psychological resources — Paraprofessional home visitors and comparison (Denver) 163 children Adjusted mean = 12.91 Adjusted mean = 12.95 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p = 0.98
Secondary

footnote5

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

Information on sample sizes for this study was received through communication with the authors. HomVEE previously rated 24-month outcomes for nurse home visitors Moderate due to high attrition. Upon further examination, HomVEE noted that the outcomes had low attrition, and therefore they rate High.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
CBCL (Behavior problems score)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 372 children Adjusted mean = 43.71 Adjusted mean = 45.26 Mean difference = -1.56 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID MDI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 372 children Adjusted mean = 90.13 Adjusted mean = 89.38 Mean difference = 0.75 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
BSID, MDI: Mental development delay
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
24 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 372 children %, (adjusted) = 11.00 Adjusted mean % = 13.00 OR = 0.83 HomeVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Infant low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 363 children %, (adjusted) = 19.00 Adjusted mean % = 28.00 OR = 0.62 HomeVEE calculated = -0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Infant low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 363 children %, (adjusted) = 26.00 Adjusted mean % = 34.00 OR = 0.68 HomeVEE calculated = -0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Infant vulnerability: fear stimuli (video coding)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 363 children % (adjusted) = 16.00 Adjusted mean % = 25.00 OR = 0.57 HomeVEE calculated = -0.34 Statistically significant,
p ≤ 0.05
Primary

footnote2

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

Statistical significance reported on authors’ calculations of the odds ratio.

Irritable temperament
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
6 months Nurse home visitor and comparison (Denver) 363 children Adjusted mean = 2.80 Adjusted mean = 2.84 Mean difference = -0.04 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

CBCL

The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

BSID: Mental development delay BSID: MDI

The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. For mental development delay, children with MDI scores <77 were classified as delayed. For mental development, the MDI scores were analyzed as continuous. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary

Vulnerable: fear stimuli (video coding)Low vitality: joy stimuli (video coding)Low vitality: anger stimuli (video coding)

Children’s emotional reactivity and looking at mother were videotaped and coded separately for their responses to stimuli designed to elicit fear, joy, and anger. The reactivity and looking-at-mother dimensions were dichotomized at the mean and cross-classified. Vulnerable infants exhibited high reactivity and low looking at mother in response to fear stimuli. Low vitality infants exhibited low reactivity and low looking at mother in response to joy and anger stimuli. High vitality infants exhibited high reactivity and frequent looking at mother in response to stimuli. Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary

Irritable temperament

No description provided Videotaped observation

Not reported by author

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 310 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.01 Unadjusted mean = 0.02 OR = 0.62 HomeVEE calculated = -0.26 p-value = 0.59 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 303 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 OR = 0.62 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 p-value = 0.26 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 302 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 OR = 0.41 HomeVEE calculated = -0.53 p-value = 0.1 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 302 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 OR = 0.74 HomeVEE calculated = -0.18 p-value = 0.47 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Current grade placement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 304 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.35 Unadjusted mean = 4.33 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.06 p-value = 0.57 Secondary
Learning support services: hrs/week
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 294 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.53 Unadjusted mean = 1.64 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = -0.02 p-value = 0.83 Secondary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Math Grades: Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 374 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.14 Unadjusted mean = 3.21 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.11 p-value = 0.32 Secondary
Math Grades: School Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 295 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.54 Unadjusted mean = 2.68 Mean difference = -0.14 Study reported = -0.12 p-value = 0.24 Primary
Reading Grades: School Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 294 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.47 Unadjusted mean = 2.49 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.03 p-value = 0.8 Primary
Special Education school report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 294 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.12 Unadjusted mean = 0.16 OR = 0.76 HomeVEE calculated = -0.17 p-value = 0.42 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Times sent to Principal's office
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 308 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.32 Unadjusted mean = 1.30 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.02 p-value = 0.85 Primary

footnote163

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

Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

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

ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

Current grade placement

No description provided Not reported by author

Not applicable

Secondary

Learning support services: hrs/week

No description provided Not reported by author

Not applicable

Secondary

Math Grades: Parent Report

No description provided Parent report

Not applicable

Secondary

Math Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade math grade point average Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Reading Grades: Parent Report

No description provided Parent report

Not applicable

Secondary

Reading Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade reading grade point average Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Special Education school report

No description provided Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Times sent to Principal's office

No description provided Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 310 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.01 Unadjusted mean = 0.02 OR = 0.62 HomeVEE calculated = -0.26 p-value = 0.59 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 303 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 OR = 0.62 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 p-value = 0.26 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 302 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 OR = 0.41 HomeVEE calculated = -0.53 p-value = 0.1 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 302 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 OR = 0.74 HomeVEE calculated = -0.18 p-value = 0.47 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Current grade placement
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 304 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.35 Unadjusted mean = 4.33 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.06 p-value = 0.57 Secondary
Learning support services: hrs/week
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 294 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.53 Unadjusted mean = 1.64 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = -0.02 p-value = 0.83 Secondary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Math Grades: Parent Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 374 mothers Unadjusted mean = 3.14 Unadjusted mean = 3.21 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.11 p-value = 0.32 Secondary
Math Grades: School Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 295 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.54 Unadjusted mean = 2.68 Mean difference = -0.14 Study reported = -0.12 p-value = 0.24 Primary
Reading Grades: School Report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 294 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.47 Unadjusted mean = 2.49 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.03 p-value = 0.8 Primary
Special Education school report
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 294 mothers Unadjusted mean = 0.12 Unadjusted mean = 0.16 OR = 0.76 HomeVEE calculated = -0.17 p-value = 0.42 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Times sent to Principal's office
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Age 9 follow-up Denver Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) - Nurse vs. Control 308 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.32 Unadjusted mean = 1.30 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.02 p-value = 0.85 Primary

footnote163

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

Positive value is favorable to the comparison group.

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

ASPD Total Score - borderline/clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL Externalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL Internalizing - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

CBCL Total - Dual Rater Clinical

No description provided Teacher report

Not reported by author

Primary

Current grade placement

No description provided Not reported by author

Not applicable

Secondary

Learning support services: hrs/week

No description provided Not reported by author

Not applicable

Secondary

Math Grades: Parent Report

No description provided Parent report

Not applicable

Secondary

Math Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade math grade point average Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Reading Grades: Parent Report

No description provided Parent report

Not applicable

Secondary

Reading Grades: School Report

Mean third-grade reading grade point average Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Special Education school report

No description provided Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary

Times sent to Principal's office

No description provided Teacher report

Not applicable

Primary
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP)®
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
Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 378 children Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = -0.04 Study reported = 0.64 Not statistically significant, p = 0.25 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Internalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 378 children Unadjusted mean = 0.04 Unadjusted mean = 0.08 Mean difference = -0.05 Study reported = 0.44 Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

Total behavioral problems - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
9 years Nurse home visiting pregnancy to 2 years vs. comparison (9 year follow up, Denver) 378 children Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.10 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = 0.76 Not statistically significant, p = 0.46 Primary

footnote162

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

Negative value is favorable to the intervention.

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

Any therapeutic services - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Any therapeutic services - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Any therapeutic services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Any therapeutic services - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Parental report on whether child ever received therapeutic services for any of the following: speech and language, cognitive delays, attention deficit and hyperactivity, or emotional problems. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Arithmetic achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Arithmetic achievement standard score - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Arithmetic achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Arithmetic achievement standard score - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Arithmetic achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Arithmetic achievement standard score - averaged over 6 and 9 years, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Average score on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, which assesses reading, mathematics, and spelling ability in children. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Behvioral regulation in testing - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Based on ratings from the child evaluators. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Behvioral regulation in testing - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Based on ratings from the child evaluators. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Dysregulated aggression - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Average dysregulated aggression index based on coded children's responses to the MacArthur Story Stem Battery. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Dysregulated aggression - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Average dysregulated aggression index based on coded children's responses to the MacArthur Story Stem Battery. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Externalizing - 9 year, treatment 1 vs. 3

Percent of children with scores greater than clinical threshold for externalizing behavior. Assessed using parent scores from Child Behavior Checklist and teacher scores from Teacher's Report Form. Teacher and parent report

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Grade retention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Parent report of whether child had been retained in school. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Grade retention - 9 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Parent report of whether child had been retained in school. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Intellectual functioning - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 2

Average score on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Mental Processing Composite. The mental processing composite includes measures of sequential and simultaneous processing, designed to elicit problem-solving and information processing styles while minimizing the role of language and verbal skills. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary

Intellectual functioning - 6 year, low psych resources, treatment 1 vs. 3

Average score on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Mental Processing Composite. The mental processing composite includes measures of sequential and simultaneous processing, designed to elicit problem-solving and information processing styles while minimizing the role of language and verbal skills. Child assessment

Norm-referenced measure

Primary