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.
Model(s) Reviewed:
Family Check-Up® For Children
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 1 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Established on race/ethnicity, parents’ education, and baseline outcomes. | None | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
| Study participants | The study included 120 mothers who participated in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program and had sons between ages 17 and 27 months at the time of recruitment in 2001. Families also must have demonstrated at least two of three possible risk factors: (1) socioeconomic status; (2) family risk factors (maternal depression or substance abuse); and (3) child risk factors, or conduct problems. Most study participants were African American (48%) or white (40%); the remaining 12% of participants were biracial. Half of the study participants were single and never married, 45% were married or living with their partner, and 5% were separated, divorced, or widowed. Two-thirds of participating mothers had a high school diploma or less, and the average family income was $15,374. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study recruited participants from eight sites of the WIC program in the Pittsburgh, PA, area. |
| Intervention services | Family Check-Up typically involves three meetings (initial contact, assessment session, and feedback session). For the purposes of this study, the assessment was completed prior to random assignment, and thus the program group received the assessment (conducted by research staff), an interview session, a feedback session, and possible follow-ups. A trained parent consultant conducted the subsequent interview and feedback sessions. During the interview, the consultant explored parent concerns; in the feedback session, the consultant provided the results of the assessment and explored parents’ willingness to change in problem areas, reinforced parenting strengths, and identified services appropriate for the family. After the feedback session, families possibly also received up to six follow-up sessions focusing on parenting practices, family management issues, and contextual issues (such as child care resources and housing). Fifty-five of the 60 families assigned to the intervention participated in the interview and feedback sessions with the parent consultant. |
| Comparison conditions | Families in the comparison condition received the same WIC services as the intervention group but did not receive visits or intervention from parent consultants. The comparison group also received an assessment session, conducted by research staff. Although this session typically is part of the Family Check-Up program, for the purposes of this study, the assessment was conducted prior to randomization. |
| Subgroups examined |
This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report). Subgroups are not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
| Funding sources | National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH06291 and National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant DA016110. |
| Author affiliation | Thomas Dishion, a study author, is a developer of this model. |
| Peer reviewed | Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
Findings that rate moderate or high
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | CBCL Aggression Scale (Revised version for age 4 follow-up) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Pittsburgh sample | Age 3 and Age 4 | 92 children | Mean at age 3 = 9.85 (SD 4.04). Mean at age 4 = 6.96, (SD 4.76) = 9.85 | Mean = 8.93 | Difference = -1.16 | HomVEE calculated = 30.22 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | HomVEE calculated the difference in growth rates as the change over time (mean at age 4 minus mean at age 3) for the program group minus the change over time for the comparison group. Statistical significance is based on the results of the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. |
| High | CBCL Destructive Scale (Revised version for age 4 follow-up) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Pittsburgh sample | Age 3 and Age 4 | 92 children | Mean at age 3 = 2.66 (SD 1.82), Mean at age 4 = 1.87 (SD 1.87) = 2.66 | Mean = 3.21 | Difference = 0.15 | HomVEE calculated = 3.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | Statistical significance is based on the results of the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. |
| High | CBCL Physical Aggression | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Pittsburgh sample | Age 3 and Age 4 | 92 children | Mean at age 3=0.96, (SD=1.07). Mean at age 4=0.65, (SD= 0.95). = 0.96 | Mean = 0.67 | Difference = -0.42 | HomVEE calculated = 30.27 | Statistical significance not reported | HomVEE calculated the difference in growth rates as the change over time (mean at age 4 minus mean at age 3) for the program group minus the change over time for the comparison group. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | HOME Involvement | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Pittsburgh sample | Age 3 and Age 4 | 92 families | Mean = 2.00 | Mean = 1.72 | Difference = 0.82 | HomVEE calculated = 30.27 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
Statistical significance is based on the authors’ analysis using a two-way repeated measures analysis of covariance. Authors report using a one-tailed test.
|