Baker, A. J. L., & Piotrkowski, C. S. (1996). Parents and children through the school years: The effects of the home instruction program for preschool youngsters. New York: National Council of Jewish Women, Center for the Child.
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 1 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Randomized controlled trial | High | Established on race/ethnicity, SES, and outcomes (for all included samples). | None | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to move child school attendance measures from the Positive Parenting Practices to the Child Development and School Readiness domain because ACF determined that HomVEE should place all school attendance and absence measures in that domain.
In addition to the randomized controlled trial, this study also reported findings from a matched comparison group design study. Outcomes from this comparison received a moderate rating when baseline equivalence was established on race/ethnicity, SES, and baseline measures of the outcomes. Several outcomes from this comparison received a low rating because the intervention and comparison groups were not equivalent on the cognitive pretest at baseline.
| Study participants | This study took place in two unnamed cities in Arkansas and New York. In Arkansas, families were recruited by word of mouth and with flyers. In New York, students were recruited through the city’s Public School Early Childhood Center. The participants in the two cities were quite different. In Arkansas, 93% of the participants were African American, 6% were white, 0% were Hispanic, 1% were another ethnicity, 42% received public assistance as their primary source of income, and 37% had not completed high school. In New York, 27% of the participants were African American, 24% were white, 30% were Hispanic, 19% were another ethnicity, 29% received public assistance as their primary source of income, and 26% had not completed high school. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study was conducted in two unnamed cities, one in Arkansas and one in New York. The Arkansas city was relatively small and the school district served only 6,200 students, but the New York city has a population of 200,000 and is the fourth-largest in the state. |
| Intervention services | The model was in line with the HIPPY model. Program recipients received services for two years. In each year, there were 30 weeks of scheduled activities that coincided with the school year. Families participated in two 30- to 60-minute home visits per month and two group meetings per month. The curriculum was available in both English and Spanish. |
| Comparison conditions | Comparison families did not receive any of the HIPPY services. In the New York site, all study children were in preschool during the first study year and kindergarten during the second year. In the Arkansas site, the comparison children did not receive any preschool services. Most children at this site entered kindergarten in the second year of the study, but 8% were late kindergarten starters so were one year behind the other participants in formal schooling. |
| 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. |
| Funding sources | The David and Lucile Packard Foundation |
| Author affiliation | None of the study authors are developers of this model. |
| Peer reviewed | Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Academic Self-Image Measure | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Adjusted mean = 4.21 | Adjusted mean = 3.79 | Mean difference = 0.42 | Study reported = 0.62 | Statistically significant, p = 0.02 |
|
| Moderate | Child Classroom Adaptation Index | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | End of program | 84 families | Adjusted mean = 3.65 | Adjusted mean = 3.04 | Mean difference = 0.61 | Study reported = 0.42 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.08 |
|
| Moderate | Child Classroom Adaptation Index | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 78 families | Adjusted mean = 3.65 | Adjusted mean = 3.04 | Mean difference = 0.51 | Study reported = 0.59 | Statistically significant, p = 0.02 |
|
| Moderate | Combined reading and math grade | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Adjusted mean = 7.82 | Adjusted mean = 6.95 | Mean difference = 0.87 | Study reported = 0.34 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.21 |
|
| Moderate | Cooperative Preschool Inventory | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | End of program | 84 families | Adjusted mean = 56.37 | Adjusted mean = 56.96 | Mean difference = -0.56 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.67 |
|
| Moderate | Delayed entry into school | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | End of program | 78 families | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Study reported = 0.41 | Statistically significant, p = 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Grade placement at beginning of year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Mean % = 87.00 | Mean % = 69.00 | Mean difference = 18.00 | Study reported = 0.44 | Statistically significant, p = 0.04 |
|
| Moderate | Grade placement at end of year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Study reported = 0.16 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.44 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Median % = 97.00 | Median % = 97.00 | Not reported | Study reported = 0.17 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.44 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | End of program | 78 families | Median % = 96.00 | Median % = 94.00 | Not reported | Study reported = 0.39 | Statistically significant, p = 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (parametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Study reported = 0.23 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.33 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (parametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | End of program | 78 families | Adjusted mean % = 94.58 | Adjusted mean % = 93.72 | Mean difference = 0.86 | Study reported = 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.44 |
|
| Moderate | Stanford Early Achievement Test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | End of program | 78 families | Adjusted mean = 47.39 | Adjusted mean = 41.11 | Mean difference = 6.28 | Study reported = 0.41 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.11 | |
| Moderate | Stanford Early Achievement Test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I | 1-year follow-up | 86 families | Adjusted mean = 47.17 | Adjusted mean = 45.12 | Mean difference = 2.05 | Study reported = 0.12 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.64 |
|
| Moderate | Cooperative Preschool Inventory | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort II | End of program | 78 families | Adjusted mean = 57.51 | Adjusted mean = 60.15 | Mean difference = -2.64 | Study reported = 0.47 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.06 |
|
| Moderate | Child Classroom Adaptation Index | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort I | End of program | 49 families | Adjusted mean = 3.69 | Adjusted mean = 2.71 | Mean difference = 0.96 | Study reported = 0.76 | Statistically significant, p = 0.03 |
|
| Moderate | Cooperative Preschool Inventory | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort I | End of program | 59 families | Adjusted mean = 52.12 | Adjusted mean = 49.36 | Mean difference = 2.76 | Study reported = 0.56 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.06 |
|
| Moderate | Metropolitan Readiness Test – Math | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort I | End of program | 56 families | Adjusted mean = 52.00 | Adjusted mean = 43.66 | Mean difference = 8.34 | Study reported = 0.34 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.29 |
|
| Moderate | Metropolitan Readiness Test – Reading | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort I | End of program | 56 families | Adjusted mean = 47.58 | Adjusted mean = 41.59 | Mean difference = 5.99 | Study reported = 0.28 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.39 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort I | End of program | 56 families | Median % = 92.00 | Median % = 92.00 | Not reported | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.71 |
|
| Moderate | Child Classroom Adaptation Index | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | End of program | 97 families | Adjusted mean = 3.24 | Adjusted mean = 3.39 | Mean difference = -0.15 | Study reported = 0.20 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.36 |
|
| Moderate | Child Classroom Adaptation Index | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | 1-year follow-up | 95 families | Adjusted mean = 3.50 | Adjusted mean = 3.40 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.12 | Notstatistically significant, p = 0.60 |
|
| Moderate | Combined reading and math grade | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | 1-year follow-up | 91 families | Adjusted mean = 7.60 | Adjusted mean = 8.30 | Mean difference = -0.70 | Study reported = 0.33 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.17 |
|
| Moderate | Cooperative Preschool Inventory | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | End of program | 101 families | Adjusted mean = 53.96 | Adjusted mean = 53.03 | Mean difference = 0.93 | Study reported = 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.33 |
|
| Moderate | Metropolitan Achievement Test – Math | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | 1-year follow-up | 91 families | Adjusted mean = 56.41 | Adjusted mean = 58.41 | Mean difference = -2.00 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.68 |
|
| Moderate | Metropolitan Achievement Test – Reading | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | 1-year follow-up | 91 families | Adjusted mean = 52.14 | Adjusted mean = 51.12 | Mean difference = 1.02 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.85 |
|
| Moderate | Metropolitan Readiness Test – Math | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | End of program | 97 families | Adjusted mean = 46.79 | Adjusted mean = 51.30 | Mean difference = -4.54 | Study reported = 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.39 |
|
| Moderate | Metropolitan Readiness Test – Reading | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | End of program | 97 families | Adjusted mean = 44.16 | Adjusted mean = 45.70 | Mean difference = -1.54 | Study reported = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.72 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | End of program | 97 families | Median % = 88.00 | Median % = 90.00 | Not reported | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.68 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | 1-year follow-up | 91 families | Median % = 93.50 | Median % = 93.00 | Not reported | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.91 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (parametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | End of program | 97 families | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.75 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (parametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B), Cohort II | 1-year follow-up | 91 families | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.87 |
|
| Moderate | Percentage of days attended (parametric test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
City in New York (site B)Cohort I | End of program | 56 families | Not available | Not available | Not reported | Study reported = 0.15 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.62 |
