Sitnick, S. L., Shaw, D. S., Gill, A., Dishion, T., Winter, C., Waller, R., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2015). Parenting and the family check-up: Changes in observed parent-child interaction following early childhood intervention. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 970–984.
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, SES, and baseline measures of the outcomes. | None | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
Notes:
Some outcomes in the structural equation models reported in this study were not eligible for review because the model did not estimate the direct, total effect of the intervention on the outcome. This study is part of a large RCT described by Dishion et al. (2008).
| Study participants | The study included 731 families that met two criteria. First, they participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) when their son or daughter was between 2 years 0 months old and 2 years 11 months old. Second, they met the study’s criteria for being at risk for behavior problems—defined as one standard deviation or more above normative averages in at least two of three domains: (1) child behavior problems (for example, conduct problems or high-conflict relationships with adults); (2) primary caregiver problems (for example, maternal depression, daily parenting challenges, self-report of substance or mental health diagnosis, or status as a teen parent at first birth); and (3) socioeconomic status (low caregiver educational achievement or low family income based on WIC criteria). Screening was conducted in 2002 and 2003. Of the 731 primary caregivers who agreed to participate, 41 percent had a high school diploma or GED, 32 percent had one or two years of post-high school training, and 24 percent had less than a high school diploma or GED. More than two-thirds of the randomized sample had an annual income below $20,000. Of the 731 children in the study, 50 percent were European American, 28 percent were African American, 13 percent were biracial, and 9 percent were from another racial group. Thirteen percent were Hispanic. The children were 29.9 months old on average at the time of the age 2 assessments. Forty-nine percent of the children were female, and 58 percent lived in two-parent households. |
|---|---|
| Setting | Families were recruited from WIC program sites in and around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (37 percent of sample); Eugene, Oregon (37 percent of sample); and Charlottesville, Virginia (26 percent of sample). |
| Intervention services | The Family Check-Up program typically involves three meetings: an initial contact meeting (a “get to know you” meeting); an assessment meeting, during which families participate in a comprehensive assessment of child and family functioning; and a feedback meeting to discuss the results of the assessment. After the feedback meeting, families can choose to participate in additional follow-up meetings. For this study, the order of the meetings was changed. All families participating in the study were given the comprehensive assessment. The researchers then randomized families into intervention and comparison groups. Following randomization, families in the intervention group participated in the initial contact and feedback meetings, which were led by parent consultants. These consultants discussed family issues and family functioning during the initial contact meeting and, during the feedback meeting, used motivational interviewing techniques to discuss the results of the assessment, areas of strength, areas for improvement, and recommended services that might help the family. After the feedback meetings, families could choose to participate in additional follow-up meetings. Families assigned to the intervention group received the intervention once yearly when their children were 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old. |
| Comparison conditions | Families in the comparison group received the Family Check-Up intervention's comprehensive assessment but did not receive any other interventions or services. |
| 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 | Not reported. |
| 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. |
Study Registration:
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE beginning with the 2014 review.
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 | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 5 | 614 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 5 | 614 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.43 | Unadjusted mean = 0.47 | Mean difference = -0.04 | HomVEE calculated = 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
|
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Dyadic Coercion - Age 3 (T-test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 3 | 635 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Mean difference = -0.01 | HomVEE calculated = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
|
| High | Dyadic Coercion - Age 4 (T-test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 4 | 561 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Unadjusted mean = 0.09 | Mean difference = 0.01 | HomVEE calculated = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
|
| High | Dyadic Coercion - Age 5 (T-test) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 5 | 572 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.06 | Unadjusted mean = 0.07 | Mean difference = -0.01 | HomVEE calculated = 0.12 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | Negative value is favorable to the intervention.
|
| High | Dyadic Coercion, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 3 | 635 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 4 | 731 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.052 | Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2).
|
| High | Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 4 | 561 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Dyadic Coercion, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 5 | 572 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 3 | 731 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.012 | Authors used structural equation models to estimate the impact, and reported a beta coefficient, standard error, and p-value. The following covariates were reported: child race, ethnicity, and gender; family income; mother's education; site location; positive engagement (age 2), coercion (age 2), OPP/AGG (age 2).
|
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 3, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 3 | 635 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.01 | |
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 3, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 3 | 635 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.37 | Unadjusted mean = 0.34 | Mean difference = 0.03 | HomVEE calculated = -0.24 | Statistically significant, p<0.01 | |
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 4, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 4 | 561 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 4, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 4 | 561 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.28 | Unadjusted mean = 0.27 | Mean difference = 0.01 | HomVEE calculated = -0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 5, Correlation | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 5 | 572 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p<0.05 | |
| High | Positive Engagement, Age 5, T-test | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | Age 5 | 572 families | Unadjusted mean = 0.38 | Unadjusted mean = 0.36 | Mean difference = 0.02 | HomVEE calculated = -0.17 | Statistically significant, p<0.05 |