Study Detail

View Revisions

Wagner, M., Clayton, S., Gerlach-Downie, S., & McElroy, M. (1999). An evaluation of the northern California Parents as Teachers demonstration. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Model(s) Reviewed: Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
Additional Sources:

WWHV017041

Wagner, M. & Clayton, S. (1999). The Parents as Teachers program: Results from two demonstrations. The Future of Children, 9(1), 91-115.
Study Screening Details
Screening Decision Screening Conclusion
Study Passes Screens Study Passes Screens
Study Design Details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline Equivalence Reassignment Confounding Factors
High Randomized controlled trial Low Not applicable None None
Study Characteristics
Study Participants The sample presented here includes 375 mothers with children who were assessed at 2 years of age and 363 mothers with children who were assessed at 3 years of age. (This report also includes a sample of mothers followed up when the child was 1 year of age. These analyses received a low rating, however. See Study Ratings for details.) Over the course of one year, families with a child up to 6 months of age were recruited for enrollment in the Parents as Teachers (PAT) program. In the 2-year-old sample, most mothers had an education level of high school or less (77%); more than three-quarters of study participants were Latina mothers (80%); the majority of participating households received Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program (60%), while a minority received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (18%); and 59% of mothers were married. The 3-year-old sample had similar characteristics.
Setting A single site in the Salinas Valley in Northern California
Home Visiting Services Families enrolled in PAT received monthly home visits and other program services for as long as they remained in the program, up to the child’s third birthday. Among those families enrolled in PAT , 57% participated and remained in the program for all three years.
Comparison Conditions The comparison families received only the services that were normally available in the community and that they sought of their own accord. In addition, they received age-appropriate toys at regular quarterly intervals, which were used as a means of tracking their locations.
Staff Characteristics and Training Parent educators were trained by the PAT national staff at the certified training center during a weeklong session. All parent educators had previous experience working with children and families, but their educational backgrounds varied widely.
Funding Sources The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Author Affiliation None of the study authors are developers of this model.

Study Effects Details

Outcome domain: Maternal Health Outcome Effects
Rating Outcome Measure Effect Sample Timing of Follow-up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
High Mother had additional births
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 343 mothers = % = 27.50 = -6.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.22 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Mother had additional births
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 371 mothers % = 14.80 % = 16.30 = -1.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Outcome domain: Child Health Outcome Effects
Rating Outcome Measure Effect Sample Timing of Follow-up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
High Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 352 children % = 56.90 % = 57.60 = -0.70 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 365 children % = 84.70 % = 86.90 = -2.20 Study reported = -0.24 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Child treated for illness in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 365 children % = 39.30 % = 33.30 = 6.00 Study reported = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Child treated for illness in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 352 children % = 51.00 % = 50.20 = 0.80 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Child treated for injury in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 365 children % = 12.00 % = 14.90 = -2.90 Study reported = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Child treated for injury in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 352 children % = 8.10 % = 11.90 = -3.80 Study reported = -0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Child went to the emergency room in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 365 children % = 29.70 % = 33.60 = -3.90 Study reported = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Child went to the emergency room in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 352 children % = 20.30 % = 24.50 = -4.20 Study reported = -0.10 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
Outcome domain: Child Development and School Readiness Outcome Effects
Rating Outcome Measure Effect Sample Timing of Follow-up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
High BSID Mental Development Index (in normal range)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 184 children % = 67.60 % = 69.60 = -2.00 Study reported = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High BSID Mental Development Index (mean)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 184 children Mean = 91.00 Mean = 92.20 Mean difference = -1.20 Study reported = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High BSID Physical Development Index (in normal range)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 184 children % = 85.70 % = 79.80 = 5.90 Study reported = 0.16 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High BSID Physical Development Index (mean)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 184 children Mean = 99.80 Mean = 98.40 Mean difference = 1.40 Study reported = 0.12 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Cognitive Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children % = 68.60 % = 67.70 = 0.90 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Cognitive Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children % = 44.80 % = 41.20 = 3.60 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Cognitive Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children Mean = -0.50 Mean = -1.10 Mean difference = 0.60 Study reported = 0.10 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Cognitive Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children Mean = 1.80 Mean = 1.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Communication Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children % = 82.70 % = 74.80 = 7.90 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High DPII Communication Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children % = 78.60 % = 77.10 = 1.50 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Communication Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children Mean = 4.30 Mean = 4.40 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Communication Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children Mean = 5.40 Mean = 5.30 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Physical Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children % = 78.10 % = 79.10 = -1.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Physical Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children % = 86.40 % = 85.20 = 1.20 Study reported = 0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Physical Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children Mean = 4.60 Mean = 4.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Physical Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children Mean = 3.90 Mean = 3.70 Mean difference = 0.20 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Self-Help Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children % = 92.90 % = 90.80 = 2.10 Study reported = 0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Self-Help Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children % = 96.40 % = 95.50 = 0.90 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Self-Help Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children Mean = 7.30 Mean = 7.40 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Self-Help Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children Mean = 13.00 Mean = 10.80 Mean difference = 2.20 Study reported = 0.25 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
High DPII Social Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children % = 91.60 % = 93.20 = -1.60 Study reported = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High DPII Social Development Scale (at or above chronological age)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children % = 83.30 % = 73.90 = 9.40 Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High DPII Social Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 375 children Mean = 4.70 Mean = 5.80 Mean difference = -1.10 Study reported = -0.24 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
High DPII Social Development Scale (mean months differential)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 363 children Mean = 7.40 Mean = 5.90 Mean difference = 1.50 Study reported = 0.17 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High PPVT ator above chronological age
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 320 children % = 50.00 % = 49.20 = 0.80 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High PPVT mean months differential
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 320 children Mean = 0.30 Mean = -0.20 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Outcome domain: Positive Parenting Practices Outcome Effects
Rating Outcome Measure Effect Sample Timing of Follow-up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type
High Discipline (from HOME items)
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.90 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.27 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
High HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 6.40 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = -0.30 Study reported = -0.28 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Primary
High HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 4.00 Mean = 4.00 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME involvement with child subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 4.60 Mean = 4.60 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 3.40 Mean = 3.50 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 6.40 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.32 Statistically significant,
p < 0.001
Primary
High HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 6.60 Mean = 6.50 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME appropriate play materials subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 6.70 Mean = 6.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME language- and literacy-promoting behaviors
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 5.80 Mean = 5.80 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 3.50 Mean = 3.60 Mean difference = -0.10 Study reported = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME organization of the environment subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 5.70 Mean = 5.70 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME parental responsivity subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 10.00 Mean = 10.00 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME parental responsivity subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 9.90 Mean = 9.80 Mean difference = 0.10 Study reported = 0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME total scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 350 mothers Mean = 36.60 Mean = 37.20 Mean difference = -0.60 Study reported = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High HOME total scale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 36.20 Mean = 36.40 Mean difference = -0.20 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
High KIDI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 350 mothers Mean = 0.66 Mean = 0.69 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.18 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High KIDI
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 367 mothers Mean = 0.65 Mean = 0.65 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High PSOC parenting efficacy subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 341 mothers Mean = 27.10 Mean = 26.60 Mean difference = 0.50 Study reported = 0.15 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High PSOC parenting efficacy subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 357 mothers Mean = 27.20 Mean = 27.00 Mean difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High PSOC parenting satisfaction subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 357 mothers Mean = 24.60 Mean = 25.20 Mean difference = -0.06 Study reported = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High PSOC parenting satisfaction subscale
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 341 mothers Mean = 25.40 Mean = 26.40 Mean difference = -1.00 Study reported = -0.18 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High PSOC total score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 341 mothers Mean = 52.40 Mean = 52.90 Mean difference = -0.50 Study reported = -0.06 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High PSOC total score
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 357 mothers Mean = 51.80 Mean = 52.20 Mean difference = -0.40 Study reported = -0.05 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Home mother-child interaction
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 335 mothers Mean = 5.20 Mean = 5.20 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Primary
Outcome domain: Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Outcome Effects
Rating Outcome Measure Effect Sample Timing of Follow-up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect size Statistical significance Outcome Type Notes
High Any postsecondary education
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 29.30 % = 38.80 = -9.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.26 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Any postsecondary education
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 363 mothers % = 27.00 % = 33.10 = -6.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.18 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Attending school in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 25.80 % = 23.50 = 3.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Attending school in the past year
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 363 mothers % = 27.70 % = 30.70 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Average highest grade level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 363 mothers Mean = 10.50 Mean = 11.20 Mean difference = -0.70 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Average highest grade level
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers Mean = 10.80 Mean = 11.60 Mean difference = -0.80 Not available Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Father living in household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 371 mothers % = 77.60 % = 81.00 = -3.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Father living in household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 343 mothers % = 78.80 % = 80.80 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High High school graduate
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 363 mothers % = 23.20 % = 22.70 = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High High school graduate
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 24.50 % = 20.40 = 4.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Household income $10000 - $29999
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 55.30 = = 7.90 HomeVEE calculated = 0.19 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Household income $10000 - $29999
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 366 mothers % = 57.90 % = 44.90 = 13.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.32 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Household income $30000 or more
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 366 mothers % = 22.60 % = 33.60 = -11.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Household income $30000 or more
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 25.30 % = 36.80 = -11.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Secondary
High Household income less than $10000
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 366 mothers % = 19.50 % = 21.50 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Household income less than $10000
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 19.30 % = 15.80 = 3.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Household receiving AFDC
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 366 mothers % = 16.10 % = 22.20 = -6.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.24 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Household receiving AFDC
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 15.40 % = 17.90 = -2.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Household receiving Medi-Cal
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 366 mothers % = 39.90 % = 45.10 = -5.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Household receiving Medi-Cal
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers &#; = 37.00 % = 36.40 = 0.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Less than high school
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 363 mothers % = 49.80 % = 44.20 = 5.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Less than high school
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 46.20 % = 40.80 = 5.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.13 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Married
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 371 mothers % = 66.10 % = 67.60 = -1.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Married
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 343 mothers % = 67.20 % = 68.70 = -1.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Married two- parent household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 343 mothers % = 64.60 % = 67.80 = -3.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Married two- parent household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 371 mothers % = 61.90 % = 65.50 = -3.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Mother working/in job training
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 354 mothers % = 55.40 % = 46.00 = 9.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.23 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Mother working/in job training
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 366 mothers % = 48.80 % = 36.20 = 12.60 HomeVEE calculated = 0.31 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

footnote61

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

In contrast to the study-reported results, <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (<em>p</em> &le; 0.05). The <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> tests of statistical significance are based on the <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

High Sole-adult household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 3 year 343 mothers % = 10.10 % = 10.60 = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary
High Sole-adult household
FavorableUnfavorableNo Effect
Northern California sample 2 year 371 mothers % = 10.00 % = 5.20 = 4.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Secondary

Study Outcome Measure Summary

Outcome Domain: Maternal Health Outcome Measures
Rating Outcome Measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure Outcome Type
High

Mother had additional births

Percentage of mothers who experienced additional births after entering Parents as Teachers Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
Outcome Domain: Child Health Outcome Measures
Rating Outcome Measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure Outcome Type
High

Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months

Percentage of children who saw a doctor for well-child care within the past 6 months Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Child treated for illness in the past year

Percentage of children who were treated for an illness during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Child treated for injury in the past year

Percentage of children who were treated for an injury during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Child went to the emergency room in the past year

Percentage of children who went to the emergency room during the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
Outcome Domain: Child Development and School Readiness Outcome Measures
Rating Outcome Measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure Outcome Type
High

BSID:

  • Physical Development Index
  • Mental Development Index
The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children. The researchers examined both the mental development and physical development scales. The scores were presented as (1) average scores, and (2) the proportion of the sample that were within the normal range (scores of 86 or above). Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
High

DPII:

  • Physical Development Scale
  • Cognitive Development Scale
  • Communication Development Scale
  • Self-Help Development Scale
  • Social Development Scale
The subscales of the DPII assess the physical, communication, self-help, social, and cognitive development of young children. The scores were presented as (1) the difference in months between a child’s chronological age and the age that corresponds to the skill level assessed, and (2) the proportion of the sample assessed as at or above their chronological age in the area assessed. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
High

DPII:

  • Physical Development Scale
  • Cognitive Development Scale
  • Communication Development Scale
  • Self-Help Development Scale
  • Social Development Scale
The subscales of the DPII assess the physical, communication, self-help, social, and cognitive development of young children. The scores were presented as (1) the difference in months between a child’s chronological age and the age that corresponds to the skill level assessed, and (2) the proportion of the sample assessed as at or above their chronological age in the area assessed. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
High

PPVT

The PPVT assesses receptive language in young children. Scores were presented as (1) the number of months difference between the chronological age of the child and his/her receptive language developmental age, and (2) the proportion of the sample assessed as at or above their chronological age. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
Outcome Domain: Positive Parenting Practices Outcome Measures
Rating Outcome Measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure Outcome Type
High

KIDI

The KIDI measures the parent’s knowledge of childrearing practices and developmental processes. The researchers measured the percentage of items that were answered correctly on the 57-item assessment. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
High

PSOC Scale: Total score, Parenting satisfaction subscale, Parenting efficacy subscale

The PSOC measures parent attitudes and self-efficacy. The researchers examined the total score and two subscale scores regarding parental, efficacy and satisfaction. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Secondary
High

HOME:

  • Total score
  • Parental responsivity subscale
  • Acceptance of child’s behavior subscale
  • Organization of the environment subscale
  • Appropriate play materials subscale
  • Involvement with child subscale
  • Opportunities for stimulation subscale
  • Parental responsivity subscale
  • Language- and literacy-promoting behaviors
  • Mother-child interaction
  • Discipline
The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. The researchers examined the total score, as well as the following subscales: acceptance of child’s behavior, opportunity for stimulation, organization of the environment, parental involvement, parental responsivity, appropriate play materials, language promoting behaviors, mother-child interaction, and discipline. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Primary
Outcome Domain: Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Outcome Measures
Rating Outcome Measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure Outcome Type
High

Any postsecondary education

Percentage of mothers who had some postsecondary education Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Attending school in the past year

Percentage of mothers who attended school in the past year Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Average highest grade level

An average of the highest level of school that the mother had completed Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Father living in household

Percentage of fathers who lived in the same household as the study’s focal child Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

High school graduate

Percentage of mothers who had completed high school Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Household income $10,000–$29,999

Percentage of households with incomes between $10,000 and $29,000 Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Household income $30,000 or more

Percentage of households with incomes of $30,000 or greater Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Household income less than $10,000

Percentage of households with incomes less than $10,000 Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Household receiving AFDC

Percentage of households that received AFDC Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Household receiving Medi-Cal

Percentage of households that received Medi-Cal Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Less than high school

Percentage of mothers who had less than a high school education Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Married

Percentage of mothers who were married Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Married, two-parent household

Percentage of households in which there were two married parents Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Mother working/in job training

Percentage of mothers who were working or in job training Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
High

Sole-adult household

Percentage of households in which the mother was the only adult Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary