footnote38
The study expressed some effect sizes as a percentage of the standard deviation. To be consistent with other studies, HomVEE divided the study-reported effect size by 100 and rounded to two decimal places.
Manuscript Detail
Model(s) Reviewed: Early Head Start Home-Based Option
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion |
|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Reassignment | Confounding factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Established on race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; Established on many relevant outcomes | None | None |
Notes:
footnote175
This study received a mixed rating. Outcomes from the 24-month parent interview have low attrition and receive a high rating, except parent’s overall health and maternal depression outcomes, which were assessable at baseline but did not demonstrate baseline equivalence and were not controlled, and therefore rate moderate. Outcomes from the Parent Services Interview had low attrition, but baseline equivalence for race/ethnicity and <abbr title="socioeconomic status">SES</abbr> was not established on the analytic sample, so these outcomes rate moderate. Outcomes from the Child Assessment (Bayley) and Parent/Child Interactions have high attrition and were not assessable at baseline, so those outcomes receive a moderate rating.
| Study participants | This study relies on data from a randomized controlled trial of 17 Early Head Start (EHS) programs that began in 1995. Seven of the programs served clients through a home-based option (though other clients in other EHS options also received home visits) and are the focus of this report (EHS-HBO). The study randomly assigned 1,385 families, who applied to those 7 programs, either to receive home-based EHS or a comparison condition. This study included outcomes reported for the 2-year-old follow-up (other years of follow-up are reported in separate studies). For this follow-up, 966 parents (500 in EHS-HBO and 466 in the comparison group) provided data for parent interviews. Among parent interview participants, 45 percent were white, 25 percent were black, and 27 percent were Hispanic. One in four parents had more than a high school education, and one in 10 were in families living above the poverty line; one-third to one-half of families were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Food Stamps. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study was conducted in 17 EHS programs throughout the United States, including 7 programs with home-based options, which are the focus of this report. Four programs were located in urban areas, and three programs were located in rural areas. The seven programs represented a mix of implementation timing; one early implementer had all EHS-HBO elements in place by 1997, and three later implementers had all elements in place by 1999; three programs did not have all elements in place by 1999. The early-implementing program had fully implemented both child and family development services early and continued to have those services in place in 1999. |
| Intervention services | EHS-HBO services are intended to be delivered to study families via weekly home visits. Seventy percent of families in these programs received weekly visits during at least one of the first two follow-up periods, and 26 percent received such services throughout both periods. Over the first two years, families in the home-based option received an average of 71 visits. Typical home visits are at least one hour long. Topics for home visits included child growth and development, child play activities, housing issues, and parent-child communication. |
| Comparison conditions | Control group families could not receive EHS-HBO services, but could receive other services available in their community. |
| Staff characteristics and training | Not specified |
| Funding sources | Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation team (CORE)within ACF’s Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), and the Head Start Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) |
| Author affiliation | None of the study authors are developers of this model. |
Findings details
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | CBCL – Aggression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 10.40 | Adjusted mean = 10.50 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Average MacArthur CDI – Sentence Complexity | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 8.50 | Adjusted mean = 7.80 | Mean difference = 0.70 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | MacArthur CDI – Vocabulary Production | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 56.40 | Adjusted mean = 53.50 | Mean difference = 2.90 | Study reported = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage MacArthur CDI combining words | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 77.30 | Adjusted mean = 75.60 | Mean difference = 1.70 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage with sentence complexity <2 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 28.30 | Adjusted mean = 30.20 | Mean difference = -1.90 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage with vocabulary production <25 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 11.30 | Adjusted mean = 11.20 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 814 children | Adjusted mean = 91.60 | Adjusted mean = 90.50 | Mean difference = 1.10 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | ||
| Moderate | Bayley BRS – Emotional Regulation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 814 children | Adjusted mean = 3.60 | Adjusted mean = 3.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Bayley BRS – Orientation/Engagement | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 814 children | Adjusted mean = 3.60 | Adjusted mean = 3.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-Child Structured Play: Child Engagement | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 4.30 | Adjusted mean = 4.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-Child Structured Play: Child Negativity Toward Parent | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 1.70 | Adjusted mean = 1.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-Child Structured Play: Child Sustained Attention with Objects | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 5.10 | Adjusted mean = 5.00 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage with MDI < 100 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 814 children | Adjusted mean = 73.00 | Adjusted mean = 71.90 | Mean difference = 1.10 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage with MDI < 85 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 814 children | Adjusted mean = 31.50 | Adjusted mean = 32.50 | Mean difference = -1.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Any child health services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 99.10 | % = 99.60 | = -0.50 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any dentist visits | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 10.70 | % = 10.80 | = -0.10 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any doctor visits | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 93.60 | % = 93.40 | = 0.20 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any emergency room visits | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 41.30 | % = 43.20 | = -1.90 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any immunizations | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 96.30 | % = 97.90 | = -1.60 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.35 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any screening tests | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 52.40 | % = 49.40 | = 3.00 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Average hours per week employed | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean = 12.70 | Adjusted mean = 13.80 | Mean difference = -1.10 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean = 17.80 | Adjusted mean = 17.70 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Average hours per week in education or training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean = 4.90 | Adjusted mean = 3.70 | Mean difference = 1.20 | Study reported = -0.16 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Employed: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 36.00 | % = 39.20 | = -3.20 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employed: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 39.80 | % = 46.40 | = -6.60 | Study reported = 0.13 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Employed: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 46.80 | % = 51.00 | = -4.20 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employed: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 52.20 | % = 53.00 | = -0.80 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employed: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 57.10 | % = 60.80 | = -3.70 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employment, education, or training: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 53.00 | % = 52.90 | = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employment, education, or training: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 57.90 | % = 59.90 | = -2.00 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employment, education, or training: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 62.50 | % = 59.90 | = -1.50 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employment, education, or training: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 65.30 | % = 64.00 | = 1.90 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Employment, education, or training: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 69.30 | % = 63.40 | = -1.20 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever employed | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 66.90 | % = 69.60 | = -2.70 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever employed or in education/training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 79.20 | % = 80.20 | = -1.00 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever in ESL class (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 2.30 | % = 0.70 | = 1.60 | Study reported = -0.15 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Ever in education or training (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 45.50 | % = 39.60 | = 6.30 | Study reported = -0.12 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Ever in high school (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 11.50 | % = 6.20 | = 5.30 | Study reported = -0.18 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Ever in vocational program (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 12.70 | % = 8.50 | = -6.80 | Study reported = -0.15 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Ever received AFDC or TANF | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 54.10 | % = 52.60 | Not reported = -1.50 | Study reported = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever received food stamps | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 66.00 | % = 64.20 | = 1.80 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever received welfare | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 75.30 | % = 69.60 | = 2.70 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Have GED | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 8.20 | % = 9.00 | = -0.80 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Have high school diploma | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 46.50 | % = 45.90 | = 0.60 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | In education or training: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 24.50 | % = 23.30 | = 1.20 | Study reported = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | In education or training: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 28.90 | % = 24.60 | = 4.30 | Study reported = -0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | In education or training: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 29.50 | % = 26.70 | = 2.80 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | In education or training: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 28.20 | % = 22.60 | = 5.60 | Study reported = -0.13 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | In education or training: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 30.50 | % = 23.60 | = 6.90 | Study reported = -0.16 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Income above poverty line, (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean % = 30.50 | Adjusted mean % = 29.70 | Mean difference = 30.80 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Received AFDC or TANF: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 43.20 | % = 40.40 | = 2.80 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Received AFDC or TANF: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 42.60 | % = 43.00 | = -0.40 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Received AFDC or TANF: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 47.00 | % = 44.50 | = 2.50 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Received AFDC or TANF: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 39.20 | % = 39.50 | = -0.30 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Received AFDC or TANF: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 37.80 | % = 38.80 | = -1.00 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Total AFDC or TANF benefits ($) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean = 1967.80 | Adjusted mean = 1927.50 | Mean difference = 49.30 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Total food stamps benefits ($) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean = 1435.80 | Adjusted mean = 1400.90 | Mean difference = 34.90 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Total welfare benefits ($) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | Adjusted mean = 4141.40 | Adjusted mean = 3911.70 | Mean difference = 229.70 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Any education-related services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 83.40 | % = 45.20 | = 38.20 | Study reported = 1.09 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 | |
| Moderate | Any employment-related services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 71.60 | % = 32.60 | = 39.00 | Study reported = 1.00 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 | |
| Moderate | Any family health services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 97.60 | % = 98.20 | = -0.60 | Study reported = -0.18 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any family mental health services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 19.70 | % = 18.40 | = 1.30 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Housing assistance | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 55.60 | % = 54.20 | = 1.40 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Identification of child’s disability | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 5.10 | % = 2.50 | = 2.60 | Study reported = 0.45 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Services for child with disability | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 3.80 | % = 1.70 | = 2.10 | Study reported = 0.50 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Transportation assistance | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 7 to 16 months after assignment | 1,059 mothers | % = 29.80 | % = 20.70 | = 9.10 | Study reported = 0.29 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | FES: Family conflict | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 24 months postpartum | 966 mothers | Adjusted mean = 1.70 | Adjusted mean = 1.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.12 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSI Parent-Child dysfunctional interaction | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 24 months postpartum | 966 mothers | Adjusted mean = 17.10 | Adjusted mean = 17.50 | Mean difference = -0.40 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSI parental distress | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 24 months postpartum | 966 mothers | Adjusted mean = 25.10 | Adjusted mean = 26.20 | Mean difference = -1.10 | Study reported = -0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | CIDI short screening scales: Major depression (probability) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 24 months postpartum | 966 mothers | Adjusted mean = 14.70 | Adjusted mean = 12.00 | Mean difference = 2.80 | Study reported = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent’s health status | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 24 months postpartum | 966 mothers | Adjusted mean = 3.40 | Adjusted mean = 3.40 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | HOME absence of punitive interactions | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 4.30 | Adjusted mean = 4.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME emotional responsivity | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 6.50 | Adjusted mean = 6.40 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME maternal verbal/social skills | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 2.90 | Adjusted mean = 2.90 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 10.30 | Adjusted mean = 10.10 | Mean difference = 0.20 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME total score | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 26.90 | Adjusted mean = 26.40 | Mean difference = 0.50 | Study reported = 0.13 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | KIDI | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 3.40 | Adjusted mean = 3.30 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.17 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | Covers electric outlets (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 61.00 | % = 57.20 | = -3.80 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Has gates or doors in front of stairs (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 72.70 | % = 75.50 | = -2.80 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Has poison control number (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 36.50 | % = 36.40 | = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Has syrup of Ipecac at home (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 30.20 | % = 30.60 | = -0.40 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Home has working smoke alarm (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 83.20 | % = 83.30 | = -0.01 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Index of discipline severity | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 2.50 | Adjusted mean = 2.60 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Observed child play area is safe (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 74.60 | % = 74.20 | = 0.04 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Parent-child activities to stimulate cognitive and language development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 4.50 | Adjusted mean = 4.50 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents and children that have regular bedtime routines | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 69.20 | % = 65.10 | = 4.10 | Study reported = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents suggesting only mild responses to the hypothetical conflicts | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 48.00 | % = 45.10 | = 2.90 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that read to child as part of bedtime routine | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 26.00 | % = 19.50 | = 6.50 | Study reported = 0.16 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | Percentage of parents that read to child daily | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 55.50 | % = 54.40 | = 1.10 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that set a regular bedtime for child | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 58.70 | % = 54.00 | = 4.70 | Study reported = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Physical punishment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 23.00 | % = 26.10 | = -3.10 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Prevent or distract | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 69.60 | % = 66.60 | = 3.00 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Remove child or object | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 78.60 | % = 80.40 | = -1.80 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Shout | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 6.00 | % = 3.60 | = 2.40 | Study reported = 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Talk and explain | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 34.10 | % = 28.10 | = 6.00 | Study reported = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Percentage of parents that suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child: Threaten or command | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 28.80 | % = 28.20 | = 0.50 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Reading frequency | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | Adjusted mean = 4.60 | Adjusted mean = 4.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Spanked child in last week (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 49.00 | % = 52.40 | = -3.40 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Uses a car seat (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 81.10 | % = 80.70 | = 0.04 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Uses guards or gates for windows (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 966 children | % = 52.60 | % = 55.40 | = -2.80 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-child structured play: Negative regard | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 1.40 | Adjusted mean = 1.50 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-child structured play: Parent detachment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 1.40 | Adjusted mean = 1.50 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.15 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-child structured play: Parent intrusiveness | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 1.80 | Adjusted mean = 1.90 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-child structured play: Parent supportiveness | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 2 | 794 children | Adjusted mean = 4.00 | Adjusted mean = 3.90 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.14 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
Outcome measure summary
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
CBCL: Aggression |
The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. | Parent/caregiver report | Not reported by author |
MacArthur CDI – Vocabulary ProductionPercentage with vocabulary production < 25Percent MacArthur CDI combining wordsAverage MacArthur CDI – Sentence ComplexityPercentage with sentence complexity < 2 |
The CDI assesses language development in young children. Vocabulary production measured the number of words out of 100 the parent had heard the child say. Sentence production measured the extent to which the child used more grammatically complex sentences. Percentage combining words measured the Percentage of children who are using at least two-word phrases. The researchers also examined the percentage with vocabulary production < 85 and sentence complexity <2. | Parent/caregiver report | Not reported by author |
BSID, MDIPercentage with MDI <85Percentage with MDI <100 |
The MDI of the BSID assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. In addition to the mean MDI score, the researchers examined the percentage with MDI <85 and MDI <100. | Child assessment | Not reported by author |
Bayley BRS: Emotional Regulation Bayley BRS: Orientation/Engagement |
The Bayley BRS assesses child behavior, with each item scored on a 5-point scale. Emotional regulation was an average score on items including negative affect and attention adaptation to change in test materials. Orientation and engagement was an average score on items including positive affect, interest in materials, and exploration of objects and surroundings. | Trained assessor ratings | Not reported by author |
Parent-child Structured Play:
|
The child’s behavior during a play task was coded. Child engagement with parent was measured as the extent to which the child interacted with the parent and communicated positive feelings. Child negativity toward parent measured displays of anger, rejection, or a negative reaction to parent’s behavior. Child sustained attention with objects was measured as the duration of the child’s focus on an object or set of objects. | Videotape observation | Not reported by author |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Any child health services |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Any dentist visits |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Any doctor visits |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Any emergency room visits |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Any immunizations |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Any screening tests |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Average hours per week employed |
Parents were asked about jobs that they had held during the follow-up period, including the start and end dates for those jobs and the typical hours per week they worked in those jobs. From that information, the authors constructed a weekly timeline of employment activities and indicators of whether parents were employed during the first five quarters following random assignment. They also calculated the average hours per week parents spent in employment during the 15-month follow-up period. Averages include zero hours. | Parent report | Not applicable |
Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity |
The weekly histories of education/training activities and jobs were combined to create a timeline of participation in any of these self-sufficiency activities and indicators of whether parents participated in any self-sufficiency activities during each of the first five quarters following random assignment. The authors also added the average number of hours spent in education/training and jobs to get the average number of hours parents spent in any self-sufficiency activities during the first 15 months after random assignment. Averages include zero hours. | Parent report | Not applicable |
Average hours per week in education or training |
The average hours per week that program participants spent in school or job/vocational training | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Employed |
Percentage of parents who were employed at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Employment, education, or training |
Percentage of parents who participated in school, job/vocational training, or employment activities at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever employed |
Percentage of parents who had ever been employed during their time in the program | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever employed or in education/training |
Percentage of parents who had ever participated in an education or job training program or been employed during their time in the program | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever in ESL class |
Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in ESL classes during their time in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever in education or training |
Percentage of parents who had ever participated in an education or job training program during their time in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever in high school |
Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in high school during their time in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever in vocational program |
Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in a vocational training program during their time in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever received AFDC or TANF |
Parents were asked about their receipt of benefits, including the amount they received and the months during which they received it. From this information the authors created a monthly timeline of benefit receipt, as well as indicators of benefit receipt during each of the first five quarters after random assignment. They also added the benefit amounts to obtain the total amount received during the 15-month follow-up period. | Parent report | Not applicable |
Ever received food stamps |
Parents were asked about their receipt of benefits, including the amount they received and the months during which they received it. From this information the authors created a monthly timeline of benefit receipt, as well as indicators of benefit receipt during each of the first five quarters after random assignment. They also added the benefit amounts to obtain the total amount received during the 15-month follow-up period. | Parent report | Not applicable |
Ever received other welfare |
Percentage of households that had ever received welfare benefits during their time in the program, including (1) AFDC or TANF, (2) SSI, (3) food stamps, and (4) GA | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever received welfare |
Parents were asked about their receipt of benefits, including the amount they received and the months during which they received it. From this information the authors created a monthly timeline of benefit receipt, as well as indicators of benefit receipt during each of the first five quarters after random assignment. They also added the benefit amounts to obtain the total amount received during the 15-month follow-up period. | Parent report | Not applicable |
Has GED |
Percentage of parents who had earned a GED | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Has high school diploma |
Percentage of parents who had earned a high school diploma | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
In education or training |
Percentage of parents who were participating in an education or job training program at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Income above poverty line, (percentage) |
Parents were asked about their family income during the last year. The authors compared information on their annual income and the number of children in their family with federal poverty levels to create an indicator of whether or not the family’s income during the year prior to the second follow-up was above the poverty level. | Parent report | Not applicable |
Received AFDC or TANF |
Percentage of households that had ever received AFDC or TANF at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Total AFDC or TANF benefits |
A sum of reported household AFDC or TANF benefits | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Total food stamp benefits |
A sum of reported household food stamp benefits | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Total welfare benefits ($) |
A sum of all reported household welfare benefits, including (1) AFDC or TANF, (2) SSI, (3) food stamps, and (4) GA | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Any education-related services |
Indicates whether the family reported receiving any education-related services from the EHS program | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Any employment-related services |
Indicates whether the family reported receiving help finding a job from the EHS program | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Any family health services |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Any family mental health services |
No description provided | Parent report | Not applicable |
Housing assistance |
Indicates whether the family reported receiving housing assistance from the EHS program | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Identification of child’s disability |
Indicates whether the family reported that a child’s disability was identified | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Services for child with disability |
Indicates whether the family reported receiving services for a child with a disability | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Transportation assistance |
Indicates whether the family reported receiving trasnporation assistance from the EHS program | Parent interview | Not applicable |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
FES: Family conflict |
The FES assesses the social-environmental characteristics of families. The researchers used the Family Conflict dimension, which measures the extent to which anger, aggression, frustration, and contentious interactions are common in the family. | Parent/caregiver report | Cronbach’s α = 0.67 |
PSI–SF: Parental DistressPSI: Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction |
The PSI–SF assesses stress in the parent-child relationship arising from child temperament, parental depression, and negatively reinforcing parent-child interactions. The researchers used two subscales: (1) Parental Distress, which measures the level of distress parents feel in their role because of personal factors; and (2) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction, which measures parents’ perception of parent-child interaction not meeting expectations and feelings of child rejection and abuse. | Parent/caregiver report | Cronbach’s α = 0.82 (Parental Distress)Cronbach’s a = 0.78 (Parent Child Dysfunctional Interaction) |
CIDI-SF: Major depression |
The CIDI-SF assesses the presence of six Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and two DSM-IIIR substance disorders. The researchers used one section of the CIDI-SF, Major Depression, which provided the probability of a depressive episode having been experienced during the previous 12 months. | Parent/caregiver report | Not reported by author |
CIDI short screening scales: Major depression (probability) |
Provides a probability for a DSM-IV major depressive episode in the past 12 months | Parent assessment | Not reported by author |
Parent’s health status |
A measure of perceived health status on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) | Parent/caregiver report | Not reported by author |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
KIDI |
The KIDI measures the parent’s knowledge of childrearing practices and developmental processes. The researchers selected a subset of 8 items from the 17 items used in the Infant Health and Development Program evaluation. Items were coded on a 4-point scale indicating the average level of accuracy of responses to each statement. | Parent/caregiver report | Cronbach’s α = .56 |
HOME:
|
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Emotional responsivity measures the parent’s verbal responsivity to child, praise of child, and expressions of warmth and affection to child (sum of 7 observation items). Support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment measures the presence of toys, books, and developmentally appropriate furnishings and equipment. It also includes parental cognitive stimulation such as reading and talking to the child (sum of 12 items). Maternal verbal-social skills measures the parent’s ability to speak freely and clearly to the interviewer, with a maximum potential score of 3. Absence of punitive interactions measured harsh or punitive parenting behavior observed during the HOME interview. Items were scored 1 if the parent did not engage in the particular harsh or punitive behavior. | Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment | Cronbach’s α = 0.74 (Emotional responsivity) Cronbach’s α = 0.76 (Total score) Cronbach’s α = 0.68 (Support of cognitive, language, and literacy environment) Cronbach’s α = 0.71 (Maternal verbal/social skills) Cronbach’s α = 0.78 (absence of punitive interactions) |
Covers electric outlets |
Percentage of families who used covers for the electrical outlets that the child could reach in the home | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Has gates or doors in front of stairs |
Percentage of families who used guards or gates in front of their staircases | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Has poison control number |
Percentage of parents who had access to the poison control number in case of poison emergencies | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Has syrup of Ipecac at home |
Percentage of parents who kept syrup of Ipecac in the home in case of poison emergencies | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Home has working smoke alarm |
Percentage of families who had working smoke alarms in the home | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Observed child play area is safe |
Percentage of families who had a safe child play area | Interviewer observation | Not applicable |
Parent-child activities to stimulate cognitive and language development |
The frequency with which the parent engaged in several activities with the child that can stimulate cognitive and language development, including reading or telling stories, dancing, singing, and playing outside together | Parent/caregiver report | Not reported by author |
Percentage of parents and children who have regular bedtime routines |
Percentage of parents who had regular routines with the child around bedtime, such as singing lullabies, putting toys away, or telling stories | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of parents who read to child as part of bedtime routine |
Percentage of parents who read to child as part of the regular bedtime routine and followed this routine four out of five weekdays in previous week | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of parents who read to child daily |
Percentage of parents who read to the child every day or more than once per day | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of parents who set a regular bedtime for child |
Percentage of parents who set a regular bedtime for the child, and the child was put to bed at that time four out of five weekdays in previous week | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of parents who suggest responses to hypothetical conflict with child:
Percentage of parents suggesting only mild responses to the hypothetical conflicts Index of discipline severity |
Parents were asked how they would respond to three situations: (1) child keeps playing with breakables; (2) child refuses to eat; and (3) child has a temper tantrum in a store. Responses were coded dichotomously with 1 if the reference technique is ever mentioned and 0 if not. The percentage of mild responses was a binary variable indicating parents who mentioned only the following types of responses for each situation: prevent the situation; distract the child; talk to the child or explain the issue; ignore the behavior; or remove the child or object. The index of severity measured the degree of harshness of discipline strategies suggested. An individual’s score on this index ranged from 1 to 5, and was determined by the harshest strategy that was suggested in response to any of the three conflict situations. | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable Not reported by author (for Index of discipline severity) |
Reading frequency |
A measure of the frequency with which parents read to their child | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Spanked child in last week |
Percentage of parents who had spanked the child in the previous week | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Uses a car seat |
Percentage of families who used a car seat for the child, and it was in the back seat of the car. | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Uses guards or gates for windows |
Percentage of families who used guards or gates for their windows | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Parent-child structured play:
|
Parent behavior during a structured play task was coded. Parent supportiveness was measured as contingent responsivity, positive regard, and cognitive stimulation. Parent detachment was measured as under-involvement, lack of awareness, attention, or engagement. Parent intrusiveness was measured as over-involvement or over-control. Parent negative regard was measured as discontent, anger, or rejection. | Videotaped observation | Not reported by author |