Poslawsky, I. E., Naber, F. B., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Daalen, E., van Engeland, H., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting adapted to Autism (VIPP-AUTI): A randomized controlled trial. Autism, 19(5), 588–603.
Poslawsky, I. E., Naber, F. B., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., De Jonge, M. V., van Engeland, H., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2014). Development of a Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting for Children with Autism (VIPP-AUTI). Attachment & Human Development, 16(4), 343–355.
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 2 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition |
No | No |
Yes, details reported below for findings on valid, reliable outcomes that otherwise rate at least moderate |
Findings about parent efficacy, parent stress, and measures of child play received a low rating because they had high attrition and did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement. All models controlled for baseline measures of outcomes; analyses examining the Emotional Availability Scales (EAS) also controlled for father's employment. Findings from the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) were ineligible for review because they are not in one of HomVEE's eligible outcome domains.
| Study participants | The study invited primary caregivers of children ages birth to 5 years old who had been newly diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to participate, along with their children. The study randomly assigned participants to intervention and comparison groups. A total of 78 parent–child dyads were randomly assigned into the Video-feedback Intervention to Promote Positive Parenting Adapted to Autism (VIPP-AUTI) group (40 dyads) or usual care (38 dyads). Eighty-six percent of the children who participated in the study were boys. Children’s ages ranged from 16 to 61 months. All children had received an ASD diagnosis from a board-certified child psychiatrist. The vast majority (90 percent) of the primary caregivers were mothers. Parents’ ages ranged from 25 to 52 years. Most parents (90 percent) had Dutch nationality. Most families (96 percent) had a middle to high socioeconomic status based on their levels of education, employment, and income. |
|---|---|
| Setting | This study took place in Utrecht, in the Netherlands. |
| Intervention services | VIPP-AUTI consisted of five home visits, lasting about 60 to 90 minutes each, over the course of three months. Visits occurred every two weeks. All VIPP-AUTI sessions occurred in the home. During these visits, home visitors recorded interactions between the parent and child, and they provided and discussed with the parent video feedback from interactions recorded during previous sessions. The first four sessions of VIPP-AUTI had a specific theme: (1) exploration versus attachment, (2) “speaking for the child” and joint attention, (3) “sensitivity chains” and adequate parental responses to children’s behaviors, and (4) sharing emotions. The fifth session aimed to weave together information from all four previous sessions and consolidate the shared feedback and advice. The partner of the primary caregiver could also attend the last session. |
| Comparison conditions | Participants assigned to the comparison condition received the home-based care typically provided after parents received an ASD diagnosis of their children at the university Department of Psychiatry. Home-based care sessions were offered to participants in the comparison condition over a period of six months, and caregivers could indicate how many sessions they would like to receive. Caregivers received at least three and at most seven visits. As the number of visits varied across caregivers, the time between home visits also varied, ranging from one to four weeks. The sessions typically focused on providing caregivers with general advice about parenting a child with ASD. |
| 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). • Child attends school or daycare |
| Funding sources | This research was supported by Award Number 453-09-003 and the Spinoza prize from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. |
| Author affiliation | The authors adapted VIPP-AUTI from VIPP as part of a collaborative project of University Medical Center Utrecht (UMC Utrecht, Department of Psychiatry) and Leiden University (Center for Child and Family Studies). |
| Peer reviewed | Yes |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. SocialScienceRegistry.org Identifier: None found. Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE for Clinicaltrials.gov beginning with the 2014 review, and for other registries beginning with the 2021 review.
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Initiating Joint Attention (IJA) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
72 children | Unadjusted mean = 33.79 | Unadjusted mean = 36.09 | Mean difference = -2.30 | HomVEE calculated = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.71 |
HomVEE calculated significanceStatistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. |
| High | Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Initiating Joint Attention (IJA) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
3-month follow-up |
72 children | Unadjusted mean = 33.42 | Unadjusted mean = 34.41 | Mean difference = -0.99 | HomVEE calculated = 0.29 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.22 |
HomVEE calculated significanceStatistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. |
| High | Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Responding to Joint Attention (RJA) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
72 children | Unadjusted mean = 48.63 | Unadjusted mean = 54.06 | Mean difference = -5.43 | HomVEE calculated = -0.19 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.43 |
HomVEE calculated significanceStatistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. |
| High | Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Responding to Joint Attention (RJA) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
3-month follow-up |
72 children | Unadjusted mean = 51.68 | Unadjusted mean = 52.94 | Mean difference = -1.26 | HomVEE calculated = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.77 |
HomVEE calculated significanceStatistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. |
| High | Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Child Involvement |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
76 children | Unadjusted mean = 5.02 | Unadjusted mean = 4.99 | Mean difference = 0.03 | HomVEE calculated = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.78 |
|
| High | Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Child Responsiveness |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
76 children | Unadjusted mean = 5.25 | Unadjusted mean = 5.19 | Mean difference = 0.06 | HomVEE calculated = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.83 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Parental Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Non-intrusiveness |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
76 caregivers | Unadjusted mean = 4.06 | Unadjusted mean = 3.94 | Mean difference = 0.12 | HomVEE calculated = 0.51 | Statistically significant, p= 0.04 |
|
| High | Parental Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Sensitivity |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
76 caregivers | Unadjusted mean = 6.34 | Unadjusted mean = 6.36 | Mean difference = -0.02 | HomVEE calculated = 0.26 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.56 |
|
| High | Parental Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Structuring |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample |
Immediate post-intervention |
76 caregivers | Unadjusted mean = 3.74 | Unadjusted mean = 3.82 | Mean difference = -0.08 | HomVEE calculated = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.59 |
