Manuscript Detail

View Revisions

LeCroy, C. W., & Krysik, J. (2011). Randomized trial of the Healthy Families Arizona home visiting program. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1761–1766.

Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion HomVEE procedures and standards version
Passes screens Eligible for review Version 1
Study design details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Compromised randomization Confounding factors Valid, reliable measure(s)
High Randomized controlled trial Low Established on race/ethnicity. None None Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021
Notes:

footnote90

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

High rating applies to all outcomes except those with baseline differences that were not controlled. The moderate rating applies to the following outcomes: use of resources, emotional loneliness, and pathways to goals.

footnote123

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

These outcomes are rated moderate due to baseline differences in these variables that were not controlled for in the analyses.

Study characteristics
Study participants Following assessment, families meeting Healthy Families Arizona criteria were randomly assigned to the experimental group or the Child Development control group. A total of 195 families enrolled in the study and completed baseline interviews (98 in the experimental group and 97 in the control group). Eighty-five families in the experimental group and 86 families in the control group completed one-year interviews. Twenty-five percent of the mothers in the study were white and 74 percent were Hispanic.
Setting The study took place in a single Healthy Families Arizona site in a large metropolitan area in the state.
Intervention services The Healthy Families Arizona program provides home visiting services to prenatal and new parents. The home visitor first establishes a trusting relationship with the family, then assists parents with their life circumstances, personal issues, parenting needs, and successful adaptation to new infants. Home visitors model good parenting behavior, review the child’s developmental progress, promote safety in the home, establish a medical home for the child, and provide emotional support to parents. They also address substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues.
Comparison conditions Families assigned to the Child Development control group received assessment information about their child’s developmental progress in the context of a consistent and long-term positive relationship. Control group families were also offered opportunities to access services if desired.
Subgroups examined This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report).
Subgroups are not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021.
Staff characteristics and training The home visitors in this study were all female and had either a baccalaureate degree or an equivalent number of years of experience. Many had worked with the program for several years and all received the national core HFA training.
Funding sources Arizona Department of Economic Security
Author affiliation None of the authors is a developer of this model.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021.

Findings details

Family economic self-sufficiency
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High School or training for mother
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean % = 35.20 Mean % = 6.80 Mean difference = 0.28 HomeVEE calculated = 1.19 Statistically significant, p = 0.01
Linkages and referrals
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Moderate Use of resources
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.71 Mean = 2.06 Mean difference = 0.65 HomeVEE calculated = 4.32 Statistically significant, p =0.007
Maternal health
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Alcohol use
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean % = 16.50 Mean % = 35.20 Mean difference = -18.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.59 Not available
High Alcohol use
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean % = 12.00 Mean % = 20.50 Mean difference = -8.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.40 Statistically significant, p = 0.04
High Using birth control
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean % = 65.80 Mean % = 65.10 Mean difference = 0.70 HomeVEE calculated = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.061
High Using birth control
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean % = Mean % = 72.20 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p = 0.54
Moderate Emotional loneliness
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 1.75 Mean = 1.74 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p = 0.34
Moderate Pathways to goal
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 13.00 Mean = 13.17 Mean difference = -0.17 HomeVEE calculated = -0.89 Not statistically significant, p =0.12
Moderate Pathways to goal
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean = 12.96 Mean = 12.69 Mean difference = 0.27 HomeVEE calculated = 1.69 Not statistically significant, p =0.87
Moderate Use of resources
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean = 2.53 Mean = 1.95 Mean difference = 0.58 HomeVEE calculated = 1.58 Statistically significant, p =0.001
Positive parenting practices
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Aggressive discipline
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 1.44 Mean = 1.83 Mean difference = -0.39 HomeVEE calculated = -2.43 Not statistically significant, p =0.10
High Belief in corporal punishment
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.25 Mean = 2.15 Mean difference = 0.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p =0.12
High Belief in corporal punishment (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 2.21 Mean = 2.23 Mean difference = -0.02 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p =0.63
High Inappropriate expectations
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 3.05 Mean = 2.88 Mean difference = 0.17 HomeVEE calculated = 0.22 Not statistically significant, p =0.10
High Inappropriate expectations (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 2.77 Mean = 2.77 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p =0.91
High Lack of empathy
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 1.95 Mean = 1.94 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.54
High Lack of empathy (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 1.80 Mean = 1.78 Mean difference = 0.02 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p =0.91
High Mother's reading
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.46 Mean = 2.72 Mean difference = -0.26 HomeVEE calculated = -1.62 Not statistically significant, p =0.28
High Mother's reading
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 2.26 Mean = 2.22 Mean difference = 0.04 HomeVEE calculated = 0.27 Not statistically significant, p =0.85
High Never called name, cursed
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 96.40 Mean % = 94.10 Mean difference = 2.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26 Not statistically significant, p =0.33
High Never hit elsewhere
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 98.80 Mean % = 96.50 Mean difference = 2.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.68 Not statistically significant, p =0.28
High Never pinched child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 98.80 Mean % = 94.10 Mean difference = 4.70 HomeVEE calculated = 1.12 Not statistically significant, p =0.15
High Never shouted, yelled at child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 50.60 Mean % = 34.10 Mean difference = 16.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.43 Statistically significant, p =0.02
High Never slapped hand
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 56.60 Mean % = 38.80 Mean difference = 17.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.42 Statistically significant, p =0.03
High Never slapped on face
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 100.00 Mean % = 97.60 Mean difference = 2.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.99
High Never smacked/threatened, hit
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 69.50 Mean % = 63.50 Mean difference = 6.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p =0.30
High Never spanked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 71.10 Mean % = 65.80 Mean difference = 5.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p =0.19
High Never threw object at child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 100.00 Mean % = 98.80 Mean difference = 1.20 Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.32
High Oppressing child's independence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = Mean = 3.32 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.68
High Oppressing child's independence (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 3.62 Mean = 3.58 Mean difference = 0.04 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p =0.06
High Reversing roles
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.60 Mean = 2.47 Mean difference = 0.13 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p =0.32
High Reversing roles (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = Mean = 2.25 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.33
High Safety practices
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 17.96 Mean = 17.07 Mean difference = 0.89 HomeVEE calculated = 1.17 Not statistically significant, p =0.42
High Safety practices
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 17.95 Mean = 16.05 Mean difference = 1.90 HomeVEE calculated = 3.00 Statistically significant, p = 0.04
Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Moderate Family violence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 0.51 Mean = 0.43 Mean difference = 0.08 HomeVEE calculated = 1.87 Not statistically significant, p =0.15
Moderate Family violence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 0.43 Mean = 0.52 Mean difference = -0.09 HomeVEE calculated = -1.12 Not statistically significant, p =0.37

Outcome measure summary

Family economic self-sufficiency
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

School or training for mother

A measure of whether the participant had enrolled and was attending training or school for advancement Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Maternal health
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Alcohol use

Alcohol use was measured by a series of questions that included: Do you drink beer or alcohol? To which the mother could answer yes or no. If the mother answered yes, then another question was asked: In the past two weeks how many times did you drink beer or alcohol? Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Using birth control

A measure of consistent use of birth control since last birth Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Emotional loneliness

The Emotional/Social Loneliness Inventory was used to examine coping and the sense of isolation. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Pathways to goal

The authors used the Adult Hope Scale subscale that measures the ability to plan for personal goal achievement and referred to it as pathway to goals. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Use of resources

A scale representing the number of resources the family reported using such as mental health counseling, financial counseling, center-based family assistance, and so forth Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Positive parenting practices
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Aggressive discipline

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Beliefin corporal punishment (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Inappropriate expectations (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Lack of empathy (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Mother's reading

An estimate of the time spent reading to the child on a weekly basis Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Never called name, cursed

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never hit elsewhere

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never pinched child

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never shouted, yelled at child

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never slapped hand

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never slapped on face

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never smacked/threatened, hit

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never spanked

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Never threw object at child

The authors developed a modified version of the Revised Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale that used the most serious indicators of abusive and neglectful behavior. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Oppressing child's independence (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Reversing roles (AAPI-2)

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (AAPI-2)was used to assess the child rearing attitudes of parents. The AAPI-2 includes five subscales: inappropriate expectations, parental lack of empathy, parental belief in corporal punishment, reversing parent-child family roles, and oppressing children’s power and independence. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Safety practices

A safety practices index included a list of items that were validated as true or false such as parent has a car seat, poisons are not within child’s reach, and similar indicators.  Observation

Not reported by author

Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Family violence

The authors used common indicators of violence to create a family violence index similar to the Conflict Tactics Scale. The index included items that describe violent behaviors in the home such as pushing and shoving, slapping, and throwing objects. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author