Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., et al. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Volumes I-III: Final technical report [and] appendixes [and] local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau.
| 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 |
In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to remove mother's partnership status/family structure findings from the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency domain because ACF determined that mother's partnership status is ineligible for review by HomVEE.
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.
This study received a mixed rating. Outcomes from the Parent Services Interview have low attrition and typically receive a high rating (though some outcomes that were assessable at baseline and not controlled receive a moderate rating). Outcomes from the Child Assessment (Bayley) and Parent/Child Interactions have high attrition, but baseline equivalence is established and those outcomes receive a moderate rating. Outcomes from the 36-month parent interview have high attrition, but baseline equivalence was established so they generally rate moderate, although outcomes on maternal health and male/father presence were assessable and not controlled, and therefore rate low.
| 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 3-year-old follow-up (other years of follow-up are reported in separate studies). For this follow-up, 950 parents (502 in EHS-HBO and 448 in the comparison group) provided data for parent interviews. Among parent interview participants, 46 percent were white, 25 percent were black, and 26 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 welfare (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. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Bayley BRS: Orientation/Engagement | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 3.90 | Adjusted mean = 3.80 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 3.40 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale(BRS): Emotional regulation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 4.00 | Adjusted mean = 4.00 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 2.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Bayley Mental DevelopmentIndex(MDI)Standard Score | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 746 children | Adjusted mean = 94.10 | Adjusted mean = 92.80 | Mean difference = 1.20 | Study reported = 9.50 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Child behavior checklist - aggressive behavior | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 746 children | Adjusted mean = 11.20 | Adjusted mean = 11.70 | Mean difference = -0.50 | Study reported = -7.80 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Engagement of parent during parent-child puzzle challenge task | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 5.10 | Adjusted mean = 5.00 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 5.60 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Engagement of parent during parent-child semistructured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 4.80 | Adjusted mean = 4.60 | Mean difference = 0.20 | Study reported = 19.20 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Frustration during parent-child puzzle challenge task | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 2.70 | Adjusted mean = 2.60 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 5.90 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Negativity toward parent during parent-child semistructured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 1.30 | Adjusted mean = 1.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -6.60 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)-III Standard Score | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 746 children | Adjusted mean = 84.60 | Adjusted mean = 83.10 | Mean difference = 1.50 | Study reported = 9.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage with PPVT-III<85 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 746 children | % = 45.60 | % = 48.60 | = -3.00 | Study reported = -6.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage with MDI <85 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 746 children | % = 20.50 | % = 22.00 | = -1.40 | Study reported = -3.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Persistence during parent-child puzzle challenge task | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 4.70 | Adjusted mean = 4.60 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 12.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Sustained attention with objects during parent-child semistructured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 5.00 | Adjusted mean = 4.90 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 10.60 | 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 | Any child health services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 100.00 | % = 99.80 | = 0.20 | Not Applicable | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any dentist visits | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 27.10 | % = 28.10 | = -1.00 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any doctor visits | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 99.00 | % = 98.70 | = 0.30 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any emergency room visits | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 53.40 | % = 56.00 | = -2.60 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any immunizations | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 99.10 | % = 98.50 | = 0.70 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.31 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any screening tests | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 62.40 | % = 61.00 | = 1.40 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Child’s health status | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 4.00 | Adjusted mean = 4.00 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of children in fair or poor health | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | Age 3 | 950 children | % = 9.80 | % = 9.60 | Mean difference = 0.20 | Study reported = 0.01 | 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 | Average hours per week employed | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean = 14.80 | Adjusted mean = 15.10 | Mean difference = -0.30 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean = 19.90 | Adjusted mean = 18.50 | Mean difference = 1.40 | Study reported = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Average hours per week in education or training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean = 4.50 | Adjusted mean = 3.00 | Mean difference = 1.50 | Study reported = -0.24 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| High | Employed: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 33.80 | % = 36.10 | = -2.30 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 38.20 | % = 42.90 | = -4.70 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 46.90 | % = 50.10 | = -3.20 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 51.90 | % = 51.70 | = 0.20 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 57.70 | % = 58.90 | = -1.20 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 6th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 61.70 | % = 58.20 | = 3.50 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 7th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 57.50 | % = 55.00 | = 2.50 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employed: 8th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 55.90 | % = 59.90 | = -4.00 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 47.30 | % = 48.40 | = -1.10 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 53.40 | % = 55.50 | = -2.10 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 62.30 | % = 62.90 | = -0.60 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 65.20 | % = 61.60 | = 3.60 | Study reported = -0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 69.60 | % = 67.90 | = 1.70 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 6th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 72.90 | % = 66.40 | = 6.50 | Study reported = -0.14 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | Employment, education, or training: 7th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 66.40 | % = 62.70 | = 3.70 | Study reported = -0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Employment, education, or training: 8th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 65.20 | % = 66.60 | = -14.00 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Ever employed | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 83.10 | % = 81.80 | = 1.30 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Ever employed or in education/training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 90.50 | % = 88.90 | = 1.60 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Ever in education or training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 53.10 | % = 45.50 | = 7.60 | Study reported = -0.15 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | Ever received AFDC or TANF | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 55.20 | % = 52.50 | = 2.70 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Ever received food stamps | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | = 66.70 | = 65.40 | = 1.30 | Study reported = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Ever received welfare | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | = 72.90 | = 70.50 | = 2.40 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Have GED | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 8.50 | % = 11.50 | = 3.00 | Study reported = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Have high school diploma | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 49.10 | % = 45.70 | = 3.40 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | In education or training: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 21.20 | % = 21.60 | = -0.40 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | In education or training: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 25.10 | % = 22.90 | = 2.20 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | In education or training: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 28.20 | % = 26.50 | = 1.70 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | In education or training: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 27.10 | % = 22.50 | = 4.60 | Study reported = -0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | In education or training: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 28.60 | % = 22.90 | = 5.70 | Study reported = -0.13 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | In education or training: 6th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 28.70 | % = 21.30 | = 7.40 | Study reported = -0.18 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| High | In education or training: 7th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 23.10 | % = 17.60 | = 5.50 | Study reported = -0.14 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | In education or training: 8th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 24.30 | % = 15.60 | = 8.70 | Study reported = -0.22 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| High | Income above poverty line, (percentage) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean % = 41.10 | Adjusted mean % = 40.80 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 1st quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 42.20 | % = 29.40 | = 12.80 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 2nd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 41.90 | % = 42.40 | = -0.50 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 3rd quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 46.20 | % = 43.90 | = 2.30 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 4th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 37.20 | % = 38.10 | = -0.90 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 5th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 36.00 | % = 37.80 | = -1.80 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 6th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 36.40 | % = 38.50 | = -2.10 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 7th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 27.40 | % = 32.10 | = -4.70 | Study reported = 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Received AFDC or TANF: 8th quarter | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 27.80 | % = 27.80 | = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Total AFDC or TANF benefits ($) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | = 2675.50 | = 2833.80 | = -158.30 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Total food stamps benefits ($) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean = 2297.80 | Adjusted mean = 2152.50 | Mean difference = 145.30 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Total welfare benefits ($) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean = 5928.60 | Adjusted mean = 6088.80 | Mean difference = -160.20 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever in ESL class | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 3.40 | % = 2.40 | = 1.00 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Ever in high school | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 12.60 | % = 6.80 | = 5.80 | Study reported = -0.20 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Ever in vocational program | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 18.20 | % = 15.70 | = 2.50 | Study reported = -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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Any family health services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 100.00 | % = 100.00 | = 0.00 | Not Applicable | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any family mental health services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 23.90 | % = 21.00 | = 2.90 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Identification of child’s disability | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 7.60 | % = 5.00 | = 2.70 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Services for child with disability | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 5.30 | % = 3.70 | Mean difference = 1.50 | HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Any education-related services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 86.90 | % = 50.80 | = 36.10 | HomeVEE calculated = 1.13 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Any employment-related services | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 77.30 | % = 47.10 | = 30.20 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.81 | Statistically significant, p < 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Housing assistance | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 65.70 | % = 64.10 | = 1.60 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Transportation assistance | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 32.00 | % = 23.90 | = 8.10 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.24 | 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 | Subsequent birth by 24 months after random assignment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | % = 21.80 | % = 24.70 | Mean difference = -2.90 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | FES: Family conflict | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 36 months postpartum | 950 mothers | Adjusted mean = 1.70 | Adjusted mean = 1.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | PSI Parent-Child dysfunctional interaction | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 36 months postpartum | 950 mothers | Adjusted mean = 17.50 | Adjusted mean = 18.10 | Mean difference = -0.60 | Study reported = -0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | PSI Parental distress | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact sample | 36 months postpartum | 950 mothers | Adjusted mean = 24.90 | Adjusted mean = 26.30 | Mean difference = -1.40 | Study reported = -0.14 | 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 | HOME harshness | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 0.30 | Adjusted mean = 0.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME internal physical environment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 8.00 | Adjusted mean = 8.00 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME total score | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 28.30 | Adjusted mean = 28.10 | Mean difference = 0.20 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME warmth | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 2.70 | Adjusted mean = 2.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME: support of language and learning | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 10.90 | Adjusted mean = 10.70 | Mean difference = 0.20 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Detachment during parent-child puzzle challenge tasks | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 1.60 | Adjusted mean = 1.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Detachment during parent-child semi-structured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 1.20 | Adjusted mean = 1.30 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Index of severity of discipline strategies | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | Adjusted mean = 3.30 | Adjusted mean = 3.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Intrusiveness during parent-child puzzle challenge task | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 2.50 | Adjusted mean = 2.60 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Intrusiveness during parent-child semistructured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 1.60 | Adjusted mean = 1.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Negative regard during parent-child semistructured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 1.20 | Adjusted mean = 1.30 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Parent-child play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 4.40 | Adjusted mean = 4.40 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of children that follow a bedtime routine | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | % = 72.00 | % = 71.00 | = 1.00 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of children with a regular bedtime | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | % = 59.30 | % = 55.60 | = 3.70 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of parents suggesting physical punishment as a discipline strategy | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | = 44.90 | = 44.50 | = 0.40 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of parents that read to child at bedtime | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | % = 29.60 | % = 25.80 | = 3.80 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of parents that read to child daily | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | % = 54.50 | % = 55.70 | = -1.20 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of parents that spanked child in the past week | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | % = 44.10 | % = 49.60 | = -5.50 | Study reported = -0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of parents that usually use a car seat correctly | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | = 70.40 | = 69.40 | = 1.00 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Percentage of parents that would use mild discipline only | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 950 children | = 45.80 | = 45.90 | = -0.10 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Quality of assistance during parent-child puzzle challenge task | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 3.60 | Adjusted mean = 3.50 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Supportive presence during parent-child puzzle challenge task | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 4.60 | Adjusted mean = 4.50 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Supportiveness during parent-child semistructured play | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | Age 3 | 744 children | Adjusted mean = 4.00 | Adjusted mean = 3.90 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.16 | 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 | Number of emergency room visits for injuries | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
EHS-HBO impact study | 28 months after assignment | 941 mothers | Adjusted mean = 0.30 | Adjusted mean = 0.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Bayley BRS : Orientation/Engagement |
The Bayley BRS assesses child behavior, with each item scored on a 5-point scale. Orientation and engagement was an average score on items including positive affect, interest in materials, and exploration of objects and surroundings. | Child assessment | Not reported by author |
Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale(BRS): Emotional regulation |
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. | Trained assessor ratings | Not reported by author |
Bayley Mental DevelopmentIndex(MDI)Standard Score |
The MDI of the BSI D assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. | Child assessment | Not reported by author |
Child behavior checklist - aggressive behavior |
The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. | Parent/caregiver report | Not reported by author |
Engagement of parent during parent-child puzzle challenge task |
Children were given puzzles at increasing levels of challenge to work on with their parent. The task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols. The scales are based on a puzzle task used by Brooks-Gunn et al. (1992) in the Newark Observational Study of the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Engagement measures the extent to which the child shows, initiates, or maintains interaction with the parent. Very high engagement receives a 7. | Videotape observation | Not reported by author |
Engagement of parent during parent-child semistructured 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. | Videotape observation | Not reported by author |
Frustration during parent-child puzzle challenge task |
Children were given puzzles at increasing levels of challenge to work on with their parent. The task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols. The scales are based on a puzzle task used by Brooks-Gunn et al. (1992) in the Newark Observational Study of the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Frustration measures the degree to which the child expresses frustration or anger toward the puzzle task. Very high frustration receives a 7. | Videotape observation | Not reported by author |
Negativity toward parent during parent-child semistructured play |
The child’s behavior during a play task was coded. Child negativity toward parent measured displays of anger, rejection, or a negative reaction to parent’s behavior. | Videotape observation | Not reported by author |
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)-III Standard Score |
The PPVT -III is a test of children’s receptive vocabulary. | Child assessment | Not reported by author |
Percentage with MDI <85 |
The MDI of the BSI D assesses the cognitive functioning of young children. | Child assessment | Not reported by author |
Percentage with PPVT -III<85 |
The PPVT -III is a test of children’s receptive vocabulary. | Child assessment | Not reported by author |
Persistence during parent-child puzzle challenge task |
Children were given puzzles at increasing levels of challenge to work on with their parent. The task was videotaped, and child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale by child development researchers according to strict protocols. The scales are based on a puzzle task used by Brooks-Gunn et al. (1992) in the Newark Observational Study of the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Persistence measures how goal-oriented, focused, and motivated the child remains toward the puzzle throughout the task. Very high persistence receives a 7. | Videotape observation | Not reported by author |
Sustained attention with objects during parent-child semistructured play |
The child’s behavior during a play task was coded. 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 |
Child’s health status |
The child health status was rated on a five-point scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of children in fair or poor health |
Percentage of children who were reported to be in fair or poor health | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Average hours per week employed |
The average hours per week that program participants spent in paid work | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity |
The average hours per week that program participants spent in school, job/vocational training, or employment activities | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Average hours per week in education or training |
The average hours per week that program participants spend in school or job/vocational training | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Employed |
Percentage of parents who were employed at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th 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, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th quarters after enrolling in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever employed |
Percentage of parents who had ever been employed during their time in EHS | 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 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 received AFDC or TANF |
Percentage of households that had ever received AFDC or TANF during their time in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever received food stamps |
Percentage of households that had ever received food stamps during their time in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Ever received 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 |
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, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th quarters after enrolling in EHS | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Income above poverty line |
Percentage of households that had a household income above the poverty line | Parent/caregiver 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 |
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 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 |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Any family health services |
Percentage of families that had received any family health services | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Any family mental health services |
Percentage of families that had received any family mental health services | Parent interview | Not applicable |
Identification of child’s disability |
Percentage of children identified as having a disability | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Services for child with disability |
Percentage of families that received early intervention servicesfor a child with a disability | Parent interview | Not applicable |
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 |
Housing assistance |
Indicates whether the family reported receiving housing assistance from the EHS program | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Subsequent birth by 24 months after random assignment |
Percentage of parents who had a subsequent birth by 24 months after random assignment | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
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 = 0.68 |
PSI: 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 = 0.84 (Parental Distress) Cronbach’s a = 0.81 (Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction) |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
HOME:
|
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. In addition to a total score, four subscales were used. Warmth measured responsive and supportive parenting behavior. Items included whether the mother kissed or caressed the child during the visit, whether her voice conveyed positive feeling, and whether she praised the child. Scores ranged from 0, if none of the positive behaviors were observed, to 3, if all of the behaviors were observed. Harshness measured harsh or punitive parenting behavior observed during the HOME interview. Items included whether the parent scolded the child, physically restrained the child, or slapped or spanked the child. For this subscale (but not for the total HOME score), items were reverse-coded so that higher scores indicate greater harshness. Scores ranged from 0, if no harsh behavior was observed, to 3, if the three types of harsh behavior were observed. Support of language and learning measured the breadth and quality of the mother’s speech and verbal responses to the child, such as whether the parent encourages the child to learn shapes, colors, numbers, and the alphabet; the presence of books, toys, and games accessible to the child; and whether the parent read to the child several times per week. Internal physical environment measured the cleanliness, organization, and warmth of the home environment. Items in this subscale were each coded on a 3-point scale for this subscale (but on a binary scale for the total HOME) ranging from 3 to 9. | Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment | Cronbach’s α = .80 (Total Score) Cronbach’s α = .77 ( Internal physical environment) Cronbach’s α = .72 (Warmth) Cronbach’s α = .55 (Harshness) Cronbach’s α = .67 (Support of language and learning) |
Parent-child play |
Measured 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 | Cronbach’s α = .80 |
Percentage of children who follow a bedtime routine |
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 children with a regular bedtime |
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 suggesting physical punishment as a discipline strategy Percentage of parents who would use mild discipline only Index of severity of discipline strategies |
Parents were asked about strategies for handling four different potential conflict situations with the child: (1) the child keeps playing with breakable things; (2) the child refuses to eat; (3) the child throws a temper tantrum in a public place; and (4) the child hits the parent in anger. Parents provided open-ended answers to how they would respond to each of the four situations, and these responses were classified into discipline strategies that were coded as binary variables. Index of severity measured the degree of harshness of discipline strategies suggested. An individual’s score on this ranged from 1 to 5, and was determined by the harshest strategy that was suggested in response to any of the four conflict situations. Mild Discipline was a binary variable indicating parents who mentioned only the following types of responses for each situation: prevent the situation; distract the child; remove the child or object; talk to the child or explain the issue; ignore the behavior; put the child in time out; send the child to his or her room; threaten to take away treats or threaten time out; or tell child "No." | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of parents who read to child at bedtime |
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 spanked child in the past week |
Percentage of parents who had spanked the child in the previous week | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
Percentage of parents who usually use a car seat correctly |
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 |
Supportive presence during parent-child puzzle challenge task Quality of assistance during parent-child puzzle challenge task Detachment during parent-child puzzle challenge tasks Intrusiveness during parent-child puzzle challenge task |
The child was given a puzzle to play with, and the parent was instructed to give the child any help needed. After 3 minutes, or earlier if the puzzle was completed, the interviewer gave the child a second, harder puzzle and asked the mother not to help the child. If that puzzle was completed or 3 minutes elapsed, another, more challenging puzzle was provided. Child and parent behaviors were coded on a 7-point scale. Supportive presence measured the parent’s level of emotional support and enthusiasm toward the child and his or her work on the puzzles, displays of affection, and a positive attitude toward the child and his or her abilities. Quality of Assistance measured the frequency and quality of clear guidance to the child, flexible strategies for providing assistance, and diverse, descriptive verbal instructions and exchanges with the child. Detachment measured the extent to which the parent acted inattentive or indifferent toward the child. Intrusiveness measured the extent to which the parent controlled the child, rather than validating the child’s perspective and exploration. Higher scores indicate that the parent controlled the play agenda. | Videotaped observation | Cronbach’s α = .82 |
Supportiveness during parent-child semistructured play Intrusiveness during parent-child semistructured play Negative regard during parent-child semistructured play Detachment during parent-child semistructured play |
The parent and child were given three bags of toys and asked to play with the toys in sequence, and child and parent behaviors were coded. The assessment was adapted from the Three Box coding scales used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Aspects of the parent’s behavior with the child were rated on a 7-point scale. Supportiveness was a measure of parental sensitivity, cognitive stimulation, and positive regard during play. Detachment measured the extent to which the parent was inattentive to the child, or interacted in a indifferent manner. Intrusiveness measured the degree to which the parent controlled the child, rather than recognizing and respecting the validity of the child’s independent efforts to solve the puzzle. Negative regard measured the parent’s expression of discontent with, anger toward, disapproval of, or rejection of the child. High scores on negative regard indicate that the parent used a disapproving or negative tone; showed frustration, anger, physical roughness, or harshness toward the child; threatened the child for failing at a task or not playing the way the parent desired; or belittled the child. | Videotaped observation | Not reported by author |
| Outcome measure | Description of measure | Data collection method | Properties of measure |
|---|---|---|---|
ER visits due to accident or injury |
Percentage of children who had visited an ER because of accident or injury | Parent/caregiver report | Not applicable |
