Frequently Asked Questions

MIECHV’s authorizing statute (Social Security Act, Section 511(d)(3)(A)(i)(1) [42 U.S.C. 711(d)(3)(A)(i)(1)]) requires that models implemented through MIECHV be evaluated using well-designed and rigorous randomized controlled research designs or quasi-experimental designs (QEDs). Therefore, HomVEE only reviews studies using these types of designs. In addition to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HomVEE reviews three types of QEDs: (1) single-case designs (SCDs), (2) regression discontinuity designs (RDDs), and (3) non-experimental comparison group designs (NEDs). These are the only study designs that are eligible for review by HomVEE.

Study designs vary in their relative risk of bias—that is, they vary in the extent to which researchers can be confident that impacts are due to home visiting rather than other factors. HomVEE accounts for risk of bias when assigning ratings to research. Generally, HomVEE assigns manuscripts about impact studies a rating of high, moderate, or low. Research with a higher risk of bias receives a lower rating. HomVEE routinely contacts authors if additional details are needed to assess the appropriate rating to assign to the manuscript. The fourth rating HomVEE can assign is “indeterminate.” An indeterminate rating means that HomVEE reviewers lacked sufficient information on one or more features of the study design to rate the manuscript as high or moderate. A rating of indeterminate is not a statement about the quality of the research or the research design. For more details, please see Chapter 3 of the Handbook of Procedures and Evidence Standards located on the Resources page.

HomVEE focuses its resources on reviewing manuscripts about impact studies that answer the review’s core question of whether an early childhood home visiting model is effective. Research that answers other questions is not eligible for review by HomVEE. For example, questions about for whom and under what circumstances a model is effective are valuable to the field but beyond the scope of the HomVEE review.

Research evaluating the impact of an isolated model feature or group of features is generally ineligible for HomVEE’s annual review, as are certain types of findings based on (1) covariate-unadjusted analyses, (2) item-level measures, and (3) binary variables. Additionally, analyses designed to answer questions other than whether a model is effective are generally ineligible for review. A longer discussion of contrasts that HomVEE reviews and ineligible and preferred analyses can be found in Chapter 3 of the Handbook of Procedures and Evidence Standards.

HomVEE’s Reporting Guide for Authors provides guidance about how to describe each eligible research design and how to report findings in a way that is clear, complete, and transparent. Reporting the information described in the Reporting Guide for Authors is considered a best practice in general, but it can also help HomVEE reviewers determine the appropriate rating to assign to the manuscript.

Tribal MIECHV grant recipients may select home visiting models that are either evidence-based among Tribal populations (as determined by HomVEE) or that qualify as a promising approach. Currently, models on HomVEE’s website qualify as either evidence-based or a promising approach and are therefore eligible for Tribal MIECHV funding. Model selection is designed to be driven by the needs of a particular community, as determined by a community needs and readiness assessment. For additional information about the Tribal MIECHV Program, see the ACF website.

Yes. In addition to the main HomVEE review, HomVEE periodically updates a review of models that were implemented with Indigenous communities or included substantial proportions of Indigenous peoples (such as American Indian and Alaska Native families) in the study samples. The results of this review are presented in a report that can be accessed on the Home visiting resources for Indigenous peoples and communities page.