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

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2023

Effects shown in research

Positive parenting practices

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: Nonhostility	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 = 5.44	Unadjusted mean = 5.25	Mean difference = 0.19	HomVEE calculated = 0.24	Not statistically significant, p= >.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Nonintrusiveness	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 = 4.59	Unadjusted mean = 4.02	Mean difference = 0.57	HomVEE calculated = 1.08	Statistically significant, p= <.001	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Positive parenting	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 = 4.60	Mean difference = 0.25	HomVEE calculated = 0.63	Statistically significant, p= <.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Sensitivity	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 = 4.74	Unadjusted mean = 4.45	Mean difference = 0.29	HomVEE calculated = 0.42	Not statistically significant, p= >.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Emotional Availability (EA) Scales: Structuring	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 = 4.63	Unadjusted mean = 4.65	Mean difference = -0.02	HomVEE calculated = 0.38	Not statistically significant, p= >.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Family Environment Scale (FES): Cohesion	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 43.72	Unadjusted mean = 38.05	Mean difference = 5.67	HomVEE calculated = 0.89	Statistically significant, p= <.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Family Environment Scale (FES): Conflict	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 39.86	Unadjusted mean = 37.71	Mean difference = 2.15	HomVEE calculated = 0.43	Not statistically significant, p= >.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Family Environment Scale (FES): Expressiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 39.64	Unadjusted mean = 40.48	Mean difference = -0.84	HomVEE calculated = 0.08	Not statistically significant, p= >.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate
Family Environment Scale (FES): Family relational functioning	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 month after last home visit/telephone call	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Portugal, full sample	43 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 41.08	Unadjusted mean = 38.75	Mean difference = 2.33	HomVEE calculated = 0.57	Statistically significant, p= <.05	HomVEE calculated effect size from the difference-in-differences estimate

Van Zeijl, J., Mesman, J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., Stolk, M. N., . . . Alink, L. R. (2006). Attachment-based intervention for enhancing sensitive discipline in mothers of 1-to 3-year-old children at risk for externalizing behavior problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 994–1005.

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
Maternal Attitudes Towards Sensitive Discipline	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 year after enrollment	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Netherlands 2001-2003, full sample	237 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 60.71	Unadjusted mean = 57.37	Mean difference = 3.34	HomVEE calculated = 0.28	Statistically significant, p <.05
Maternal Attitudes Towards Sensitivity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 year after enrollment	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Netherlands 2001-2003, full sample	237 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 65.01	Unadjusted mean = 59.24	Mean difference = 5.77	HomVEE calculated = 0.58	Statistically significant, p <.01
Maternal Discipline: Positive Discipline	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	1 year after enrollment	VIPP-SD vs. comparison, Netherlands 2001-2003, full sample	237 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 0.35	Unadjusted mean = -0.36	Median difference = 0.71	HomVEE calculated = 0.36	Statistically significant, p <.01

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): Caregiver non-directiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	5 months	iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012	53 families	Unadjusted mean = 4.67	Unadjusted mean = 3.92	Mean difference = 0.75	Study reported = 0.81	Statistically significant, p= <0.05
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Caregiver sensitive responding	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	5 months	iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012	53 families	Unadjusted mean = 4.30	Unadjusted mean = 4.58	Mean difference = -0.28	Study reported = -0.06	Not statistically significant, p= >0.05
Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI): Dyadic mutuality	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	5 months	iBASIS-VIPP vs. usual care RCT, United Kingdom, 2011-2012	53 families	Unadjusted mean = 3.22	Unadjusted mean = 3.46	Mean difference = -0.24	Study reported = 0.05	Not statistically significant, p= >0.05

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
Parental Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Non-intrusiveness	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	76 caregivers	Unadjusted mean = 4.06	Unadjusted mean = 3.94	Mean difference = 0.12	HomVEE calculated = 0.51	Statistically significant, p= 0.04
Parental Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Sensitivity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	76 caregivers	Unadjusted mean = 6.34	Unadjusted mean = 6.36	Mean difference = -0.02	HomVEE calculated = 0.26	Not statistically significant, p= 0.56
Parental Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Structuring	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	Immediate post-intervention	VIPP-AUTI vs. usual care, 2015, the Netherlands, full sample	76 caregivers	Unadjusted mean = 3.74	Unadjusted mean = 3.82	Mean difference = -0.08	HomVEE calculated = 0.05	Not statistically significant, p= 0.59

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
Ainsworth Maternal Sensitivity Scale	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	11 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	81 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 5.35	Unadjusted mean = 4.81	Mean difference = 0.54	HomVEE calculated = 0.53	Statistically significant, p= 0.03
Ainsworth Maternal Sensitivity Scale	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	13 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	81 mothers	Unadjusted mean = 6.03	Unadjusted mean = 5.27	Mean difference = 0.76	HomVEE calculated = 0.46	Not statistically significant, p= 0.054

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
Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Maternal sensitivity scale	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	40 months old	VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample	77 mothers	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.04	Not statistically significant, p = 0.88	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

View Revisions