Family Check-Up^® For Children

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2021

Effects shown in research

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Proactive parenting and children's effortful control: Mediating role of language and indirect intervention effects. Social Development, 24(1), 206-223.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Proactive Parenting, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregivers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.01¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient and p-value.

Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Shelleby, E. C., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2016). The long-term effectiveness of the family check-up on peer preference: Parent-child interaction and child effortful control as sequential mediators. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Advance online publication.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Positive Engagement, Ages 3 to 5, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Ages 3-5	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregiver-child dyads	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.01¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of the outcome.

Dishion, T. J., Mun, C. J., Drake, E. C., Tein, J. Y., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. (2015). A transactional approach to preventing early childhood neglect: The family check-up as a public health strategy. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4 Pt. 2), 1647.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Dyadic Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregiver-child dyads	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.01¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of outcome.

Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson, M. (2008). The family check-up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior support in early childhood. Child Development, 79(5), 1395–1414.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregivers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.33	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome.
Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregivers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome.
Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregivers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value. Model controls for income, ethnicity, gender, and baseline (age 2) measure of child behaviors and outcome.

Hyde, L. W., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Cheong, J., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. (2013). Dimensions of callousness in early childhood: Links to problem behavior and family intervention effectiveness. Development and Psychopathology, 25(2), 347–363.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	726 caregivers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.01¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

Lunkenheimer, E. S., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Connell, A. M., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., & Skuban, E. M. (2008). Collateral benefits of the family check-up on early childhood school readiness: Indirect effects of parents’ positive behavior support. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1737–1752.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 caregivers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.24	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported an estimate, coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

Shaw, D. S., Connell, A., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2009). Improvements in maternal depression as a mediator of intervention effects on early childhood problem behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 417–439.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 5	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 mothers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.
Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 6	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 mothers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.
Positive Parenting, Age 3, SEM, Figure 7	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 mothers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, and p-value.

Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Supplee, L., Gardner, F., & Arnds, K. (2006). Randomized trial of a family-centered approach to the prevention of early conduct problems: 2-year effects of the family check-up in early childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 1–9.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
HOME Involvement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3 and Age 4	Pittsburgh sample	92 families	Mean = 2.00	Mean = 1.72	Difference = 0.82	HomVEE calculated = 30.27	Statistically significant, p < 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Statistical significance is based on the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of covariance. Authors report using a one-tailed test.

Sitnick, S. L., Shaw, D. S., Gill, A., Dishion, T., Winter, C., Waller, R., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2015). Parenting and the family check-up: Changes in observed parent-child interaction following early childhood intervention. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 970–984.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Dyadic Coercion - Age 3 (T-test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	635 families	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Mean difference = -0.01	HomVEE calculated = 0.07	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Dyadic Coercion - Age 4 (T-test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 4	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	561 families	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Unadjusted mean = 0.09	Mean difference = 0.01	HomVEE calculated = -0.01	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Dyadic Coercion - Age 5 (T-test)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 5	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	572 families	Unadjusted mean = 0.06	Unadjusted mean = 0.07	Mean difference = -0.01	HomVEE calculated = 0.12	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
Dyadic Coercion, Age 3, Correlation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	635 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 4	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05²	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2).
Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, Correlation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 4	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	561 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Dyadic Coercion, Age 5, Correlation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 5	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	572 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	731 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.01²	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2).
Positive Engagement, Age 3, Correlation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	635 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.01
Positive Engagement, Age 3, T-test	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	635 families	Unadjusted mean = 0.37	Unadjusted mean = 0.34	Mean difference = 0.03	HomVEE calculated = -0.24	Statistically significant, p<0.01
Positive Engagement, Age 4, Correlation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 4	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	561 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 4, T-test	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 4	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	561 families	Unadjusted mean = 0.28	Unadjusted mean = 0.27	Mean difference = 0.01	HomVEE calculated = -0.03	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 5, Correlation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 5	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	572 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not available	Statistically significant, p<0.05
Positive Engagement, Age 5, T-test	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 5	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	572 families	Unadjusted mean = 0.38	Unadjusted mean = 0.36	Mean difference = 0.02	HomVEE calculated = -0.17	Statistically significant, p<0.05

Findings rated moderate

Brennan, L. M., Shelleby, E. C., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. (2013). Indirect effects of the family check-Up on school-age academic achievement through improvements in parenting in early childhood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 762.

Family Check-Up^® For Children

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
Positive Behavior Support, Age 3, SEM	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Age 3	WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA	725 families	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.33	Statistically significant, p<0.05¹	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a coefficient, standard error, effect size, and p-value. Covariates included positive behavior support at age 2, child gender, child race/ethnicity (minority status = 1), project site, primary caregiver education, and average child aggression at ages 2-3.

View Revisions

Family Check-Up® For Children

Effects shown in research

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

Findings rated moderate

Family Check-Up^® For Children