Video-Feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting-Sensitive Discipline® (VIPP-SD)

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2023

Effects shown in research

Child development and school readiness

Findings rated high

Negrão, M., Pereira, M., Soares, I., & Mesman, J. (2014). Enhancing positive parent-child interactions and family functioning in a poverty sample: A randomized control trial. Attachment & Human Development, 16(4), 315-328.

Video-Feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting-Sensitive Discipline^® (VIPP-SD)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Child involvement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 4.85	Unadjusted mean = 4.27	Mean difference = 0.58	HomVEE calculated = 0.64	Statistically significant, p= <.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Child responsiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 5.19	Unadjusted mean = 4.55	Mean difference = 0.64	HomVEE calculated = 0.76	Statistically significant, p= <.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Positive child behavior	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 5.02	Unadjusted mean = 4.41	Mean difference = 0.61	HomVEE calculated = 0.72	Statistically significant, p= <.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate

O’Farrelly, C., Watt, H., Babalis, D., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Barker, B., Byford, S., ... & Ramchandani, P. G. (2021). A brief home-based parenting intervention to reduce behavior problems in young children: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(6), 567-576.

Video-Feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting-Sensitive Discipline^® (VIPP-SD)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Preschool Parental Account of Childhood Symptoms (PPACS): Total behavior problems score	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	5-month follow-up	VIPP-SD vs. usual care, England 2015-2018, full sample	286 children	Adjusted mean = 28.21	Adjusted mean = 30.30	Mean difference = -2.09	HomVEE calculated = -0.22	Statistically significant, p <0.05	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Green, J., Charman, T., Pickles, A., Wan, M. W., Elsabbagh, M., Slonims, V., . . . Jones, E. J. (2015). Parent-mediated intervention versus no intervention for infants at high risk of autism: A parallel, single-blind, randomized trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(2), 133–140.

British Autism Study of Infant Siblings (iBASIS-VIPP)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant affect	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	5 months	iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012	53 families	Unadjusted mean = 4.85	Unadjusted mean = 4.84	Mean difference = 0.01	Study reported = 0.19	Not statistically significant, p= >0.05
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant attentiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	5 months	iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012	53 families	Unadjusted mean = 4.22	Unadjusted mean = 4.19	Mean difference = 0.31	Study reported = 0.29	Not statistically significant, p= >.05

Whitehouse, A. J., Varcin, K. J., Pillar, S., Billingham, W., Alvares, G. A., Barbaro, J., ... & Hudry, K. (2021). Effect of preemptive intervention on developmental outcomes among infants showing early signs of autism: a randomized clinical trial of outcomes to diagnosis. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(11), e213298-e213298.

British Autism Study of Infant Siblings (iBASIS-VIPP)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant attentiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 months after baseline	BASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, Australia, 2016-2018	84 parent/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 4.60	Unadjusted mean = 4.19	Mean difference = 0.41	HomVEE calculated = 0.34	Not statistically significant, p = 0.12	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant attentiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months after baseline	BASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, Australia, 2016-2018	80 parent/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 5.02	Unadjusted mean = 5.15	Mean difference = -0.13	HomVEE calculated = -0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.61	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant attentiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Treatment end point (6 months after baseline)	BASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, Australia, 2016-2018	94 parent/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 4.43	Unadjusted mean = 4.70	Mean difference = -0.27	HomVEE calculated = -0.24	Not statistically significant, p = 0.24	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant positive affect	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	12 months after baseline	BASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, Australia, 2016-2018	84 parent/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 3.18	Unadjusted mean = 3.21	Mean difference = -0.03	HomVEE calculated = -0.02	Not statistically significant, p = 0.94	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant positive affect	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	24 months after baseline	BASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, Australia, 2016-2018	80 parent/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 4.02	Unadjusted mean = 4.28	Mean difference = -0.26	HomVEE calculated = -0.13	Not statistically significant, p = 0.56	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Infant positive affect	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Treatment end point (6 months after baseline)	BASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, Australia, 2016-2018	94 parent/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 3.69	Unadjusted mean = 4.40	Mean difference = -0.71	HomVEE calculated = -0.49	Statistically significant, p = 0.02	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

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.

Video-Feedback Intervention to Promote Positive Parenting adapted to Autism (VIPP-AUTI)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Initiating Joint Attention (IJA)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3-month follow-up	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	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 significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Initiating Joint Attention (IJA)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	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 significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Responding to Joint Attention (RJA)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	3-month follow-up	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	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 significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Early Social and Communication Scales (ESCS) - Responding to Joint Attention (RJA)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	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 significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Child Involvement	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	76 children	Unadjusted mean = 5.02	Unadjusted mean = 4.99	Mean difference = 0.03	HomVEE calculated = 0.09	Not statistically significant, p= 0.78
Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Child Responsiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	76 children	Unadjusted mean = 5.25	Unadjusted mean = 5.19	Mean difference = 0.06	HomVEE calculated = 0.08	Not statistically significant, p= 0.83

Klein Velderman, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant attachment: Differential susceptibility of highly reactive infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(2), 266-274.

Video-Feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting (VIPP)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Children's attachment security	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	13 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	81 infants	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.10	Not statistically significant, p = 0.67	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. Authors' reported effect size is Cohen's d
Children's attachment security: Secure attachment	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	13 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	81 infants	Unadjusted proportion = 0.67	Unadjusted proportion = 0.56	Mean difference = 0.11	Study reported = 0.22	Not statistically significant, p= 0.17	Authors' reported effect size is Cohen's d

Klein Velderman, M., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Zevalkink, J. (2006). Preventing preschool externalizing behavior problems through video‐feedback intervention in infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27(5), 466-493.

Video-Feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting (VIPP)

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Attachment Q-Sort (AQS): Security score	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.05	Not statistically significant, p = 0.83	HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations. Authors' reported effect size is Cohen's d
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Aggressive (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.10	Unadjusted proportion = 0.12	Mean difference = -0.02	HomVEE calculated = -0.11	Not statistically significant, p = 0.81	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Anxious (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.16	Unadjusted proportion = 0.04	Mean difference = 0.12	HomVEE calculated = 0.93	Not statistically significant, p = 0.16	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.24	Unadjusted proportion = 0.35	Mean difference = -0.11	HomVEE calculated = -0.33	Not statistically significant, p = 0.31	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Internalizing (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.31	Unadjusted proportion = 0.46	Mean difference = -0.15	HomVEE calculated = -0.38	Not statistically significant, p = 0.21	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Oppositional (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.12	Unadjusted proportion = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.04	HomVEE calculated = 0.28	Not statistically significant, p = 0.58	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Overactive (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.08	Unadjusted proportion = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.00	HomVEE calculated = 0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.98	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Sleep problems (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.08	Unadjusted proportion = 0.08	Mean difference = 0.00	HomVEE calculated = 0.01	Not statistically significant, p = 0.98	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Total problems (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.24	Unadjusted proportion = 0.42	Mean difference = -0.19	HomVEE calculated = -0.53	Statistically significant, p= 0.04	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Withdrawn/depressed (proportion of children in clinical range)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 children	Unadjusted proportion = 0.10	Unadjusted proportion = 0.15	Mean difference = -0.06	HomVEE calculated = -0.31	Not statistically significant, p = 0.48	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. HomVEE calculated significance Submitted by nwu on Fri, 04/12/2019 - 18:31 Statistical significance is based on HomVEE calculations.

View Revisions