Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2020

Effects shown in research

Child development and school readiness

Findings rated high

Yarger, H. A. (2018). Investigating longitudinal pathways to dysregulation: The role of anomalous parenting behavior (Publication No. 2130944494) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	7 months post-intervention	ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	109 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.33 Unadjusted proportion	Unadjusted proportion = 0.45 Unadjusted proportion	Mean difference = -0.12	HomVEE calculated = -0.31	Not statistically significant, p= 0.17	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Findings rated moderate

Bernard, K., Dozier, M., Bick, J., Lewis-Morrarty, E., Lindhiem, O., & & Carlson, E. (2012). Enhancing attachment organization among maltreated children: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Child Development, 83(2), 623–636.

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized Attachment	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Approximately 1 month after program end, or longer if child not yet old enough to measure outcome.	Full analytic sample	120 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.32	Unadjusted proportion = 0.57	Mean difference = -0.25	HomVEE calculated = 0.67	Statistically significant, p = 0.01²	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Strange Situation Procedure - Secure Attachment	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Approximately 1 month after program end, or longer if child not yet old enough to measure outcome.	Full analytic sample	120 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.52	Unadjusted proportion = 0.33	Mean difference = 0.19	HomVEE calculated = 0.46	Not statistically significant, p = 0.08²	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Effect size and significance based on adjusted odds ratio provided to HomVEE by the authors.

Bernard, K., Frost, A., Jelinek, C., & Dozier, M. (2019). Secure attachment predicts lower body mass index in young children with histories of child protective services involvement. Pediatric Obesity, 14(7), e12510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12510

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Strange Situation Procedure - Secure attachment	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	First post-intervention visit where child was at least 1-year old (range 11.8 to 31.9 months old)	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Delaware	105 children	Adjusted proportion = 0.52	Adjusted proportion = 0.32	Mean difference = 0.20	HomVEE calculated = 0.43	Statistically significant, p= 0.03	Model controls for child gender and cumulative social risk index.

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.

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.04	Not statistically significant, p= 0.85	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. 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).
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.10	Not statistically significant, p= 0.67	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model does not include statistical controls.
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.04	Not statistically significant, p= 0.87	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.08	Not statistically significant, p= 0.73	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	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.
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	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).
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	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).
Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 8	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.07	Not statistically significant, p= 0.75	Model does not include statistical controls.

Lind, T., Bernard, K., Yarger, H. A., & Dozier, M. (2019). Promoting compliance in children referred to child protective services: A randomized clinical trial. Child Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13207

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Child compliance composite	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months of age	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 0.26	Unadjusted mean = -0.21	Mean difference = 0.47	Study reported = 0.53	Statistically significant, p= 0.01	Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.
Child compliance: child touched toys	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months of age	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.33	Unadjusted proportion = 0.54	Mean difference = -0.21	Study reported = -0.52	Statistically significant, p <.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Authors used Chi-Square Test of significance to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups.
Child compliance: duration of child touching toys (seconds)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months of age	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 4.35	Unadjusted mean = 11.78	Mean difference = -7.43	Study reported = -0.42	Statistically significant, p= 0.04	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.
Child compliance: latency to child touching toys (seconds)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months of age	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 263.47	Unadjusted mean = 199.89	Mean difference = 63.58	Study reported = 0.68	Statistically significant, p= 0.00	Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.

Yarger, H. A., Bronfman, E., Carlson, E., & Dozier, M. (2019). Intervening with Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up to decrease disrupted parenting behavior and attachment disorganization: The role of parental withdrawal. Development and Psychopathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000786

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	7 months after enrollment (1 month post-intervention)	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	105 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.32	Unadjusted proportion = 0.46	Mean difference = -0.14	HomVEE calculated = -0.34	Not statistically significant, p= 0.16	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Zajac, L., Raby, K. L., & Dozier, M. (2019). Sustained effects on attachment security in middle childhood: Results from a randomized clinical trial of the Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch‐up (ABC) intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(4), 417–424. https://doi:10.1111/jcpp.13146

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Infant

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Kerns Security Scale - Attachment security	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	100 children	Adjusted mean = 3.49 Adjusted mean	Adjusted mean = 3.28 Adjusted mean	Mean difference = 0.21	HomVEE calculated = 0.48	Statistically significant, p= 0.02	Model controls for receipt of financial assistance from the government.
Kerns Security Scale - Attachment security	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 9	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	100 children	Unadjusted mean = 3.49 Unadjusted mean	Unadjusted mean = 3.28 Unadjusted mean	Mean difference = 0.21	HomVEE calculated = 0.46	Statistically significant, p= 0.02	Model does not include statistical controls.

Raby, K. L., Freedman, E., Yarger, H. A., Lind, T., & Dozier, M. (2018). Enhancing the language development of toddlers in foster care by promoting foster parents’ sensitivity: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Developmental Science, 22(2), e12753. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12753

Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up (ABC) -Toddler

Show findings details

Table help

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	36 months of age	ABC-Toddler vs. DEF; Delaware	32 children	Unadjusted mean = 93.60	Unadjusted mean = 80.30	Mean difference = 13.30	HomVEE calculated = 0.86	Statistically significant, p= 0.02
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	48 months of age	ABC-Toddler vs. DEF; Delaware	53 children	Unadjusted mean = 99.60	Unadjusted mean = 97.00	Mean difference = 2.60	HomVEE calculated = 0.17	Not statistically significant, p= 0.52
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) - Receptive Vocabulary	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	60 months of age	ABC-Toddler vs. DEF; Delaware	58 children	Unadjusted mean = 105.10	Unadjusted mean = 95.50	Mean difference = 9.60	HomVEE calculated = 0.60	Statistically significant, p= 0.03

View Revisions