Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Options

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2021

Effects shown in research

Positive parenting practices

Findings rated high

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Parent sensitivity- Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

213 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 36.46 Unadjusted mean = 36.04 Mean difference = 0.42 Study reported = 0.09

Not statistically significant, p = 0.53

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Parent sensitivity- Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

222 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 35.65 Unadjusted mean = 35.07 Mean difference = 0.58 Study reported = 0.12

Not statistically significant, p = 0.39

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

225 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 6.45 Unadjusted mean = 5.98 Mean difference = 0.47 Study reported = 0.21

Not statistically significant, p = 0.12

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mother/child dyads Adjusted mean = 6.45 Adjusted mean = 5.98 Difference = 0.43 Study reported = 0.19

Not statistically significant, p= 0.15

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

239 mother/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 5.43 Unadjusted mean = 5.31 Mean difference = 0.12 Study reported = 0.05

Not statistically significant, p = 0.68

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Dyadic synchronicity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mother/child dyads Adjusted mean = 5.43 Adjusted mean = 5.31 Difference = 0.01 Study reported = 0.00

Not statistically significant, p= 0.98

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.40 Adjusted mean = 4.36 Difference = 0.02 Study reported = 0.05

Not statistically significant, p= 0.52

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

243 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.40 Unadjusted mean = 4.36 Mean difference = 0.04 Study reported = 0.11

Not statistically significant, p = 0.38

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.44 Adjusted mean = 4.36 Difference = 0.05 Study reported = 0.12

Not statistically significant, p= 0.10

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Maternal confidence

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

244 mothers Unadjusted mean = 4.44 Unadjusted mean = 4.36 Mean difference = 0.08 Study reported = 0.23

Not statistically significant, p = 0.07

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 36.73 Adjusted mean = 35.32 Difference = 1.28 Study reported = 0.26

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

225 mothers Unadjusted mean = 36.73 Unadjusted mean = 35.32 Mean difference = 1.41 Study reported = 0.32

Statistically significant, p = 0.02

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 33.86 Adjusted mean = 32.38 Difference = 1.24 Study reported = 0.25

Statistically significant, p= 0.05

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Parenting sensitivity

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

238 mothers Unadjusted mean = 33.86 Unadjusted mean = 32.38 Mean difference = 1.48 Study reported = 0.30

Statistically significant, p = 0.02

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 51.84 Adjusted mean = 48.67 Difference = 2.32 Study reported = 0.45

Statistically significant, p <0.001

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

12 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

243 mothers Unadjusted mean = 51.84 Unadjusted mean = 48.67 Mean difference = 3.17 Study reported = 0.64

Statistically significant, p = 0.00

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

244 mothers Unadjusted mean = 52.07 Unadjusted mean = 50.17 Mean difference = 1.90 Study reported = 0.38

Statistically significant, p = 0.00

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Unadjusted mean.

Understanding of toddlers

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months of age

PFR vs. comparison, Washington 2015-2020, full sample

252 mothers Adjusted mean = 52.07 Adjusted mean = 50.17 Difference = 1.06 Study reported = 0.21

Statistically significant, p= 0.03

Adjusted to control for preferred language and baseline measure.

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Parent sensitivity- Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

3 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

215 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 27.77 Unadjusted mean = 27.39 Mean difference = 0.38 HomVEE = 0.08

Not statistically significant, p = 0.55

Parent sensitivity- Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

225 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 27.34 Unadjusted mean = 26.70 Mean difference = 0.64 HomVEE = 0.13

Not statistically significant, p = 0.32

Parent understanding of toddler - Raising a Baby Scale

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

6 months post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

211 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 52.40 Unadjusted mean = 50.81 Mean difference = 1.59 HomVEE = 0.31

Statistically significant, p = 0.03

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Parent understanding of toddler - Raising a Baby Scale

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

225 parent/child dyads Unadjusted mean = 52.09 Unadjusted mean = 50.04 Mean difference = 2.05 Study reported = 0.42

Statistically significant, p < 0.01

Submitted by nwu on

Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Parent sensitivity- Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post- intervention

PFR vs. R&R, Washington state 2011-2014

247 mother/child dyads Adjusted mean = 36.21 Adjusted mean = 35.07 Difference = 1.14 Study reported = 0.23

Statistically significant, p= 0.01

The finding is adjusted for child age, months between baseline and postintervention assessment, and baseline measures of parenting sensitivity and secure base behavior.

Promoting First Relationships®—Home Visiting Intervention Model
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Commitment: This Is My Baby (TIMB)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

169 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Commitment: This Is My Baby (TIMB)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

169 caregivers Adjusted mean = 4.10 Adjusted mean = 4.21 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = -0.17

Not statistically significant, p= 0.35

Engagement: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 9 item subscale)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 children Adjusted mean = 2.08 Adjusted mean = 2.15 Mean difference = -0.07 Study reported = -0.15

Not statistically significant, p= 0.39

Engagement: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 9 item subscale)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 children Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Sensitivity: Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS, without 6 items on child distress)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

167 caregivers Adjusted mean = 13.26 Adjusted mean = 11.76 Mean difference = 1.50 Study reported = 0.41

Statistically significant, p= 0.02

Support: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 15 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 caregivers Adjusted mean = 2.18 Adjusted mean = 2.14 Mean difference = 0.04 Study reported = 0.11

Not statistically significant, p= 0.49

Support: Indicator of Parent-Child Interaction (IPCI, 15 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

173 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Not statistically significant, p= >0.10

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Understanding of toddlers: Raising a Baby (RAB, 16 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available

Statistically significant, p= <0.01

Finding estimated with hierarchical linear model (HLM).

Understanding of toddlers: Raising a Baby (RAB, 16 items)

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

Post-intervention

PFR vs. EES, one county in Washington state, 2007-2010, full sample

175 caregivers Adjusted mean = 52.16 Adjusted mean = 50.92 Mean difference = 1.24 Study reported = 0.36

Statistically significant, p= 0.04

View Revisions