Manuscript Detail | Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness

Lind, T. (2017). Intervening to enhance emotion regulation: Early childhood adversity, parent-child mutual positive affect, and later child regulation capabilities (Publication No. 1972774602) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Manuscript screening details
Screening decision	Screening conclusion	HomVEE procedures and standards version
Passes screens	Eligible for review	Version 1

Study design details
Rating	Design	Attrition	Baseline equivalence	Compromised randomization	Confounding factors	Valid, reliable measure(s)
High	Randomized controlled trial	Low	Established on race/ethnicity and SES; outcomes not feasible to assess at baseline	None	None	Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021

Notes:

Information on attrition and baseline equivalence was based on correspondence with the author. In addition to the findings that received a high rating, findings assessed at age 8 received a moderate rating due to high attrition.

Study characteristics
Study participants	In this study, parent-child dyads were randomly assigned to ABC-Infant or a comparison group that also received home visits. The study recruited parents who had been referred to Child Protective Services for potential maltreatment of a child less than 24 months old and were still living with their child through a foster care diversion program. A total of 212 children were enrolled and randomized to the treatment and comparison groups. The analytic sample for this study was 107 parent-child dyads who participated in a follow-up assessment when the child was 24 months old and 81 who participated in a follow-up assessment when the child was 8 years old. Children were mostly African American (about 60 percent) and were an average of 9.9 months old at baseline. At baseline, most mothers in the study did not have a high school diploma (60 percent in the ABC-Infant group; 65 percent in the comparison group) and had household incomes less than $10,000 (68 percent ABC-Infant; 77 percent comparison). At the 24-month follow-up, the average age of mothers was 28.8 years old (ABC-Infant) and 26.7 years old (comparison group).
Setting	Philadelphia, PA
Intervention services	ABC-Infant consisted of 10 weekly hour-long home visits. The sessions focused on five topic areas: providing nurturance, following the child’s lead, refraining from frightening behavior, parents recognizing the effect of their own childhood experiences on their parenting behavior, and learning the importance of touch and children’s emotions. Across all sessions, parent trainers engaged parents in structured activities with their children and then provided feedback on observations of participants’ parenting behavior, both in real-time and by playing back video recordings from the sessions.
Comparison conditions	Comparison families received Developmental Education for Families (DEF) in home visits that were the same duration (10 hour-long sessions) and frequency (weekly) as ABC-Infant. DEF was designed to enhance cognitive and linguistic development. For this study, DEF was adapted to exclude components related to parental sensitivity.
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	This research was supported by Award Number RO1MH074374 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Author affiliation	The author’s dissertation advisor is Mary Dozier, who is a developer of the ABC home visiting 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

Child development and school readiness
Rating	Outcome measure	Effect	Sample	Timing of follow-up	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.04	Not statistically significant, p= 0.87	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.08	Not statistically significant, p= 0.73	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.04	Not statistically significant, p= 0.85	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), parent risk (8 to 10 years), instability risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (8 to 10 years).
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child emotion lability/negativity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.10	Not statistically significant, p= 0.67	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Model does not include statistical controls.
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.07	Not statistically significant, p= 0.75	Model does not include statistical controls.
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.05	Not statistically significant, p= 0.83	Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months.
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.16	Not statistically significant, p= 0.48	Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).
Moderate	Emotion Regulation Checklist - Child positive emotion regulation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	Age 8	80 children	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = -0.13	Not statistically significant, p= 0.55	Model controls for mutual positive affect at 24 months, child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), parent risk (8 to 10 years), instability risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (8 to 10 years).

Positive parenting practices
Rating	Outcome measure	Effect	Sample	Timing of follow-up	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
High	D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System - Parent-child mutual positive affect	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	24 months of age	107 parent/child dyads	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.46	Statistically significant, p= 0.02	Model controls for child risk, parent risk (0 to 24 months), and instability risk (0 to 24 months).
High	D.O.T.S. Emotion Coding System - Parent-child mutual positive affect	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Philadelphia	24 months of age	107 parent/child dyads	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Study reported = 0.42	Statistically significant, p= 0.03	Model does not include statistical controls.