footnote272
Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.
Family Check-Up® For Children
Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2021
Model overview
Theoretical approach
Family Check-Up is a strength-based, family-centered intervention designed to support parents’ efforts to promote children’s behavioral and mental health and prevent behavior problems. The model is tailored to address the specific needs of each family. It can be integrated into a variety of service settings, including home visiting. The model can be delivered by telehealth with virtual sessions for parents and/or through a web-based application that allows asynchronous family engagement.Model services
Family Check-Up has two phases. Phase 1 includes three sessions: an interview, an assessment, and a feedback session. During the feedback session, the provider and the family collaboratively decide which follow-up services, if any, would be beneficial. In Phase 2, the provider can refer the family to additional community services as needed and/or may deliver the Everyday Parenting family management training curriculum to the family.* The Everyday Parenting curriculum provides a basis for more intensive parenting support and is designed to enhance parent skills in reinforcing positive behavior, setting healthy limits, and building relationships. Phase 2 services, which the provider tailors to the family’s needs, may also include support for the child’s school success or services to address the parent’s behavioral or mental health needs.
When used as a health maintenance model, Family Check-Up involves yearly behavioral and mental health check-ups in which families complete Phase 1 and participate in Phase 2 as needed. This annual contact enables providers to track family and child behavior over time and continue to motivate families to change persistent areas of difficulty.
The Family Check-Up curriculum details objectives for the initial interview, assessment, and feedback sessions and the process skills needed to accomplish these objectives. It also provides tips and strategies to deliver the model.
The Everyday Parenting curriculum manual presents session outlines and materials organized into three skill areas: (1) supporting positive behavior, (2) setting healthy limits, and (3) building family relationships.
*Family Check-Up may be delivered without the Everyday Parenting curriculum, but the effectiveness of the model has only been evaluated when offered in conjunction with the Everyday Parenting curriculum.
Intended population
The intended population for this model is families with children who are at risk for conduct problems and academic failure and face familial adversity including socioeconomic disadvantages and maternal depression.
Families with children ages 2 through 17 years old are eligible for Family Check-Up. The HomVEE review only included studies that used home visiting as the primary service delivery method, incorporated the Everyday Parenting curriculum, and focused on families with children ages 2 through 5 years old. Thus, for the purpose of the HomVEE review, HomVEE uses the name Family Check-Up for Children to describe Family Check-Up that incorporates the Everyday Parenting curriculum and is delivered in the home to families with children ages 2 through 5 years old.* There are few differences between the implementation of Family Check-Up and Family Check-Up for Children, so the information in this profile applies to Family Check-Up broadly, unless specified otherwise.
*Family Check-Up is a flexible model that can be delivered to children and adolescents in the home or in other settings. Family Check-Up for Children is HomVEE’s designation for the group of studies on Family Check-Up that HomVEE reviewed. Family Check-Up for Children does not appear as a version of Family Check-Up on the developer’s website because the requirements for implementing Family Check-Up for Children do not differ from those for Family Check-Up.
Where to find out more
Dr. Elizabeth Stormshak
Dr. Anne Marie Mauricio
Chris Hazen
Family Check-Up and Everyday Parenting Developer and Implementation Team
Phone:
415-685-0023
Email:
fcu@uoregon.edu
chris@nwpreventionscience.org
Website:
https://fcu.uoregon.edu
http://www.nwpreventionscience.org
Effects shown in research
Maternal health
Findings rated high
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, SEM, Figure 2 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, SEM, Figure 3 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, SEM, Figure 4 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, SEM, Figure 5 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, SEM, Figure 6 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, SEM, Figure 7 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, Autoregressive model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.18 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote271Authors used an autoregressive model to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and effect size. |
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 651 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Findings rated moderate
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal Depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), Age 3, Mean and SD | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 651 mothers | Unadjusted mean = 14.62 | Unadjusted mean = 16.26 | Mean difference = -1.64 | HomVEE calculated = -0.15 | Not statistically significant, p=0.06 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
Child development and school readiness
Findings rated high
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remaining in “normal” (no externalizing or internalizing), age 2 to 3 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 3.75 | Not available | Not available |
| Remaining in “normal” (no externalizing or internalizing), age 3 to 4 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 1.94 | Not available | Not available |
| Transition from comorbid (externalizing and internalizing) at age 2 to “normal” at age 3 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 60.42 | Not available | Not available |
| Transition from comorbid (externalizing and internalizing) at age 3 to “normal” at age 4 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 167.80 | Not available | Not available |
| Transition from externalizing at age 2 to “normal” at age 3 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 0.89 | Not available | Not available |
| Transition from externalizing at age 3 to “normal” at age 4 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 0.89 | Not available | Not available |
| Transition from internalizing at age 2 to “normal” at age 3 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 1.01 | Not available | Not available |
| Transition from internalizing at age 3 to “normal” at age 4 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | Early Steps Multisite Study Sample | Not available | Not available | Not available | OR = 9.35 | Not available | Not available |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitory control, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote297Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported an estimate, coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Language skills, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote297Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported an estimate, coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Externalizing, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 651 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Externalizing, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 619 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.05 | |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Internalizing, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 651 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Internalizing, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 619 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.05 | |
| Eyeberg Child Behavior Inventory Problem Score, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 642 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Eyeberg Child Behavior Inventory Problem Score, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 616 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.05 | |
| Growth in Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Externalizing from ages 2 to 4, Latent growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 3 and 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.23 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote270Authors used a latent growth model to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and effect size. |
| Growth in Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Internalizing from ages 2 to 4, Latent growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 3 and 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.21 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote270Authors used a latent growth model to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and effect size. |
| Growth in Eyeberg Child Behavior Inventory Problem Score from ages 2 to 4, Latent growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 3 and 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.23 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote270Authors used a latent growth model to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and effect size. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBCL Aggression Scale (Revised version for age 4 follow-up) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 and Age 4 | Pittsburgh sample | 92 children | Mean at age 3 = 9.85 (SD 4.04). Mean at age 4 = 6.96, (SD 4.76) = 9.85 | Mean = 8.93 | Difference = -1.16 | HomVEE calculated = 30.22 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote44HomVEE calculated the difference in growth rates as the change over time (mean at age 4 minus mean at age 3) for the program group minus the change over time for the comparison group. footnote46Statistical significance is based on the results of the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. |
| CBCL Destructive Scale (Revised version for age 4 follow-up) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 and Age 4 | Pittsburgh sample | 92 children | Mean at age 3 = 2.66 (SD 1.82), Mean at age 4 = 1.87 (SD 1.87) = 2.66 | Mean = 3.21 | Difference = 0.15 | HomVEE calculated = 3.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote46Statistical significance is based on the results of the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. |
| CBCL Physical Aggression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 and Age 4 | Pittsburgh sample | 92 children | Mean at age 3=0.96, (SD=1.07). Mean at age 4=0.65, (SD= 0.95). = 0.96 | Mean = 0.67 | Difference = -0.42 | HomVEE calculated = 30.27 | Statistical significance not reported | footnote44HomVEE calculated the difference in growth rates as the change over time (mean at age 4 minus mean at age 3) for the program group minus the change over time for the comparison group. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 614 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 614 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.43 | Unadjusted mean = 0.47 | Mean difference = -0.04 | HomVEE calculated = 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
Findings rated moderate
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Externalizing, Age 3, Mean and SD | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 651 children | Unadjusted mean = 55.83 | Unadjusted mean = 56.11 | Mean difference = -0.28 | HomVEE calculated = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p=0.70 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Externalizing, Age 4, Mean and SD | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 619 children | Unadjusted mean = 52.68 | Unadjusted mean = 54.67 | Mean difference = -1.99 | HomVEE calculated = -0.19 | Statistically significant, p=0.02 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Externalizing, Ages 3 and 4, Latent growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 3 and 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 723 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote266Authors used a latent growth model to estimate the impact. |
| Eyeberg Child Behavior Inventory Problem Score, Age 3, Mean and SD | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 642 children | Unadjusted mean = 59.18 | Unadjusted mean = 60.06 | Mean difference = -0.88 | HomVEE calculated = -0.08 | Not statistically significant, p=0.28 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Eyeberg Child Behavior Inventory Problem Score, Age 4, Mean and SD | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 616 children | Unadjusted mean = 58.64 | Unadjusted mean = 60.63 | Mean difference = -1.99 | HomVEE calculated = -0.18 | Statistically significant, p=0.03 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Eyeberg Child Behavior Inventory Problem Score, Ages 3 and 4, Latent growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 3 and 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 723 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote266Authors used a latent growth model to estimate the impact. |
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitory control intercept, Ages 2-4, Preliminary conditional growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 2-4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 720 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p>0.051 | footnote260Authors used a preliminary conditional growth model and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Inhibitory control slope, Ages 2-4, Preliminary conditional growth model | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 2-4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 720 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p>0.051 | footnote260Authors used a preliminary conditional growth model and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Inhibitory control, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 645 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Inhibitory control, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 622 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 657 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 627 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 612 children | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Positive parenting practices
Findings rated high
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proactive Parenting, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregivers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.011 | footnote279Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient and p-value. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Engagement, Ages 3 to 5, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Ages 3-5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregiver-child dyads | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.011 | footnote259Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of the outcome. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dyadic Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregiver-child dyads | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.011 | footnote276Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of outcome. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregivers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.33 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote264Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome. |
| Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregivers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote264Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome. |
| Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregivers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote264Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 726 caregivers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.011 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 caregivers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.24 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote268Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported an estimate, coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
| Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 7 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 mothers | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote272Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOME Involvement | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 and Age 4 | Pittsburgh sample | 92 families | Mean = 2.00 | Mean = 1.72 | Difference = 0.82 | HomVEE calculated = 30.27 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
footnote48Statistical significance is based on the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of covariance. Authors report using a one-tailed test. |
150
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dyadic Coercion - Age 3 (T-test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 635 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Mean difference = -0.01 | HomVEE calculated = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Dyadic Coercion - Age 4 (T-test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 561 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Mean difference = 0.01 | HomVEE calculated = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Dyadic Coercion - Age 5 (T-test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 572 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.06 | Unadjusted mean = 0.07 | Mean difference = -0.01 | HomVEE calculated = 0.12 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote162Negative value is favorable to the intervention. |
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 635 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | footnote261Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2). |
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 561 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 572 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 731 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.012 | footnote261Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2). |
| Positive Engagement, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 635 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.01 | |
| Positive Engagement, Age 3, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 635 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.37 | Unadjusted mean = 0.34 | Mean difference = 0.03 | HomVEE calculated = -0.24 | Statistically significant, p<0.01 | |
| Positive Engagement, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 561 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Positive Engagement, Age 4, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 4 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 561 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.28 | Unadjusted mean = 0.27 | Mean difference = 0.01 | HomVEE calculated = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Positive Engagement, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 572 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.05 | |
| Positive Engagement, Age 5, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 5 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 572 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.38 | Unadjusted mean = 0.36 | Mean difference = 0.02 | HomVEE calculated = -0.17 | Statistically significant, p<0.05 |
Findings rated moderate
Family Check-Up® For Children
Show findings details
| Outcome measure | Effect | Follow-up timing | Sample | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Age 3 | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | 725 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Study reported = 0.33 | Statistically significant, p<0.051 | footnote274Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. Covariates included positive behavior support at age 2, child gender, child race/ethnicity (minority status = 1), project site, primary caregiver education, and average child aggression at ages 2-3. |
In brief
Evidence of model effectiveness
| Title | General population | Tribal population | Domains with favorable effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Check-Up® For Children | Meets HHS criteria
|
Does not meet HHS criteria for tribal population because the model has not been evaluated with a tribal population. |
|
Model description
Family Check-Up is a strength-based, family-centered intervention designed to support parents’ efforts to promote children’s behavioral and mental health and prevent behavior problems. It can be integrated into a variety of service settings, including home visiting. The model focuses on families with children who are at risk for conduct problems and academic failure and face familial adversity including socioeconomic disadvantages and maternal depression. Families with children ages 2 through 17 years old are eligible for Family Check-Up. Family Check-Up is designed to reduce children’s behavioral problems, academic difficulties, and emotional problems, and to improve maternal depression, parental involvement, and positive parenting. Family Check-Up has two phases. The first phase involves three sessions with a Family Check-Up provider who has been trained in the model. In Phase 2, the provider recommends additional services that are tailored to the needs of the family, if appropriate. Services could include the Everyday Parenting family management training curriculum, school consultation, or community referrals. While the model description includes services to all age groups regardless of service delivery setting, the HomVEE review only included studies that offered the Everyday Parenting curriculum, used home visiting as the primary service delivery method, and focused on families with children ages 2 through 5 years old. Thus, for the purpose of the HomVEE review, HomVEE uses the name Family Check-Up for Children to describe Family Check-Up that includes the Everyday Parenting curriculum and is delivered in the home to families with children ages 2 through 5 years old.
Extent of evidence
For more information, see the research database. For more information on the criteria used to rate research, please see details of HomVEE’s methods and standards.