Manuscript Detail

View Revisions

Lind, T. (2017). Intervening to enhance emotion regulation: Early childhood adversity, parent-child mutual positive affect, and later child regulation capabilities (Publication No. 1972774602) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Model(s) Reviewed: Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant
Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion
Passes screens Eligible for review
Study design details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Reassignment Confounding factors
High Randomized controlled trial Low Established on race/ethnicity and SES; outcomes not feasible to assess at baseline None None
Notes:

Information on attrition and baseline equivalence was based on correspondence with the author. In addition to the findings that received a high rating, findings assessed at age 8 received a moderate rating due to high attrition.

Study characteristics
Study participants In this study, parent-child dyads were randomly assigned to ABC-Infant or a comparison group that also received home visits. The study recruited parents who had been referred to Child Protective Services for potential maltreatment of a child less than 24 months old and were still living with their child through a foster care diversion program. A total of 212 children were enrolled and randomized to the treatment and comparison groups. The analytic sample for this study was 107 parent-child dyads who participated in a follow-up assessment when the child was 24 months old and 81 who participated in a follow-up assessment when the child was 8 years old. Children were mostly African American (about 60 percent) and were an average of 9.9 months old at baseline. At baseline, most mothers in the study did not have a high school diploma (60 percent in the ABC-Infant group; 65 percent in the comparison group) and had household incomes less than $10,000 (68 percent ABC-Infant; 77 percent comparison). At the 24-month follow-up, the average age of mothers was 28.8 years old (ABC-Infant) and 26.7 years old (comparison group).
Setting Philadelphia, PA
Intervention services ABC-Infant consisted of 10 weekly hour-long home visits. The sessions focused on five topic areas: providing nurturance, following the child’s lead, refraining from frightening behavior, parents recognizing the effect of their own childhood experiences on their parenting behavior, and learning the importance of touch and children’s emotions. Across all sessions, parent trainers engaged parents in structured activities with their children and then provided feedback on observations of participants’ parenting behavior, both in real-time and by playing back video recordings from the sessions. 
Comparison conditions Comparison families received Developmental Education for Families (DEF) in home visits that were the same duration (10 hour-long sessions) and frequency (weekly) as ABC-Infant. DEF was designed to enhance cognitive and linguistic development. For this study, DEF was adapted to exclude components related to parental sensitivity.
Staff characteristics and training Not reported.
Funding sources This research was supported by Award Number RO1MH074374 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Author affiliation The author’s dissertation advisor is Mary Dozier, who is a developer of the ABC home visiting model.
Study Registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE beginning with the 2014 review.

Findings details

Child development and school readiness
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.10

Not statistically significant, p= 0.67

Model does not include statistical controls.

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.87

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.08

Not statistically significant, p= 0.73

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.04

Not statistically significant, p= 0.85

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), parent risk (8 to 10 years), instability risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (8 to 10 years).

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.83

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.16

Not statistically significant, p= 0.48

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = -0.13

Not statistically significant, p= 0.55

Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), parent risk (8 to 10 years), instability risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (8 to 10 years).

Moderate

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

Age 8

80 children Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = 0.07

Not statistically significant, p= 0.75

Model does not include statistical controls.

Positive parenting practices
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High

D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System - Parent-child mutual positive affect

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

24 months of age

107 parent/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = 0.42

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Model does not include statistical controls.

High

D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System - Parent-child mutual positive affect

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia

24 months of age

107 parent/child dyads Not reported Not reported Not Reported Study reported = 0.46

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Model controls for child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).

Outcome measure summary

Child development and school readiness
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity

The Emotional Regulation Checklist (cited in Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) is a 24-item checklist that measures emotion lability/negativity and positive emotion regulation in children. Items about emotion lability/negativity focus on child's quick or exaggered changes in mood (lability), reactive anger, and intensity of negative emotions.

Parent report

Not reported by author.

Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation

The Emotional Regulation Checklist (cited in Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) is a 24-item checklist that measures emotion lability/negativity and positive emotion regulation in children. Items about positive emotion regulation focus on child's emotion understanding and empathy.

Parent report

Not reported by author.

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

D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System - Parent-child mutual positive affect

Coding of emotion expression utilized the D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System (Cole, Wiggins, Radzioch, & Pearl, 2007). The D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System assesses child emotion expression and parent emotion expression during a parent-child interaction.

Parent-child interaction

Not reported by author.