Manuscript Detail | Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness

Lind, T., Bernard, K., Yarger, H. A., & Dozier, M. (2019). Promoting compliance in children referred to child protective services: A randomized clinical trial. Child Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13207

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)
Moderate	Randomized controlled trial	High	Established on race/ethnicity and SES; outcomes not feasible to assess at baseline	None	None	Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021

Notes:

This manuscript analyzes findings from the same randomized controlled trial as Bernard et al. (2012). Additional contextual information about the study is from Bernard et al. (2012). Information on attrition for the 1-month post-intervention follow-up was based on correspondence with the author.

Study characteristics
Study participants	This randomized controlled trial (RCT) assigned eligible families to either ABC-Infant or a comparison program that also included home visits. Eligible families were participants in a foster care diversion program with children younger than 2 who were referred from Child Protective Services for various issues placing children at risk (for example, domestic violence, parental substance use, homelessness, or neglect). At the 36 month follow-up, the analytic sample consisted of 101 mother-child dyads (45 in the ABC-Infant group and 56 in the comparison group). In the analytic sample, 69 percent of children were African American, 6 percent were White, 11 percent were Hispanic, and 14 percent were biracial. All caregiver participants in the study were biological mothers, 70 percent of whom were African American, 9 percent White, 14 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent biracial. The majority of the caregivers had less than a high school degree (58 percent) and most (64 percent) reported an annual income of less than $10,000.
Setting	The study was conducted in a large mid-Atlantic city.
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, the components related to following children’s cues were removed to distinguish it from ABC-Infant.
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 Numbers R01MH052135, R01MH074374, and R01MH084135 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Author affiliation	Mary Dozier, one of the authors of the study, 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: NCT02093052. 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	Child compliance composite	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	36 months of age	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 0.26	Unadjusted mean = -0.21	Mean difference = 0.47	Study reported = 0.53	Statistically significant, p= 0.01	Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.
Moderate	Child compliance: child touched toys	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	36 months of age	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted proportion = 0.33	Unadjusted proportion = 0.54	Mean difference = -0.21	Study reported = -0.52	Statistically significant, p <.05	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Authors used Chi-Square Test of significance to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups.
Moderate	Child compliance: duration of child touching toys (seconds)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	36 months of age	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 4.35	Unadjusted mean = 11.78	Mean difference = -7.43	Study reported = -0.42	Statistically significant, p= 0.04	Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.
Moderate	Child compliance: latency to child touching toys (seconds)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	36 months of age	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 263.47	Unadjusted mean = 199.89	Mean difference = 63.58	Study reported = 0.68	Statistically significant, p= 0.00	Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.

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
Moderate	Parent sensitivity	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	1 month post-intervention	89 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 2.49	Unadjusted mean = 1.94	Mean difference = 0.55	Study reported = 0.47	Statistically significant, p= 0.03	Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.
Moderate	Parent sensitivity: duration (seconds)	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city	36 months of age	101 mother/child dyads	Unadjusted mean = 31.23	Unadjusted mean = 21.37	Mean difference = 9.86	Study reported = 0.40	Not statistically significant, p= 0.05	Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D.