Manuscript Detail

View Revisions

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.

Model(s) Reviewed: Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)®
Additional sources:

WWHV014611

Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998). The effects of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool  Youngsters on children’s school performance at the end of the program and one year later. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(4), 571–586.
Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion
Passes screens Eligible for review
Study design details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Reassignment Confounding factors
Moderate Randomized controlled trial High Established on race/ethnicity, SES, and outcomes (for all included samples). None None
Notes:

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 characteristics
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.
Staff characteristics and training Program participants were visited by paraprofessionals from their communities. These paraprofessionals received weekly trainings and were supervised by a HIPPY program coordinator with professional training.
Funding sources The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Author affiliation None of the study authors are developers of this model.

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 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 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 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 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 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 (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 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Outcome measure summary

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

Academic Self-Image Measure

A 23-item assessment that asked respondents to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 based upon how good they think they are at a series of academic, social, and athletic areas Child assessment

Not reported by author

Child Classroom Adaptation Index

The CCAI assesses the motivation, adaption to the classroom, and interest in learning of young children. Teacher report

Not reported by author

Combined reading and math grade

Combined reading and math grades, where each letter grade was converted to a number resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 11. Review of school records

Not reported by author

Cooperative Preschool Inventory

The CPI assesses the cognitive skills of young children. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Delayed entry into school

Proportion of children who had a delayed entry into school Review of school records

Not reported by author

Grade placement at beginning of year

Percentage of children in their appropriate grade at the beginning of the academic year Review of school records

Not reported by author

Grade placement at end of year

Percentage of children in their appropriate grade at the end of the academic year Review of school records

Not reported by author

Metropolitan Achievement Test – Reading and Math

The MAT assesses the general language, arithmetic, and reading comprehension skills of children. The test was used as a standardized first-grade assessment in City B of the study. Review of school records

Not reported by author

Metropolitan Readiness Test – Reading & Math

The MRT assesses the development of language and mathematical skills in young children. The assessment was used as a standardized Kindergarten test in City B of the study. Review of school records

Not reported by author

Percentage of days attended

Percentage of total school days the child attended

Review of school records

Not applicable

Stanford Early Achievement Test

The SEAT assesses the acquisition of arithmetic, language, and communication concepts in children. Review of school records

Not reported by author