Manuscript Details

Baker, A. J. L., & Piotrkowski, C. S. (1996). Parents and children through the school years: The effects of the home instruction program for preschool youngsters. New York: National Council of Jewish Women, Center for the Child.

Moderate rating
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1
Author Affiliation

None of the study authors are developers of this model.

Funding Sources

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Study Design
Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Confounding factors Valid, reliable measures?
Randomized controlled trial High

Established on race/ethnicity, SES, and outcomes (for all included samples).

None

Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to move child school attendance measures from the Positive Parenting Practices to the Child Development and School Readiness domain because ACF determined that HomVEE should place all school attendance and absence measures in that domain.

In addition to the randomized controlled trial, this study also reported findings from a matched comparison group design study. Outcomes from this comparison received a moderate rating when baseline equivalence was established on race/ethnicity, SES, and baseline measures of the outcomes. Several outcomes from this comparison received a low rating because the intervention and comparison groups were not equivalent on the cognitive pretest at baseline.

Findings that rate moderate or high in this manuscript

Child development and school readiness
Outcome measure Timing of follow-up Rating Direction of Effect Effect size (absolute value) Stastical significance Sample size Sample description
Cooperative Preschool Inventory End of program Moderate
0.10 Not statistically significant,p = 0.67 84 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Delayed entry into school End of program Moderate
0.41 Statistically significant,p = 0.01 78 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Stanford Early Achievement Test End of program Moderate
0.41 Not statistically significant, p = 0.11 78 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Child Classroom Adaptation Index End of program Moderate
0.42 Not statistically significant,p = 0.08 84 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Grade placement at beginning of year 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.44 Statistically significant,p = 0.04 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Stanford Early Achievement Test 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.12 Not statistically significant,p = 0.64 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Combined reading and math grade 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.34 Not statistically significant,p = 0.21 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Academic Self-Image Measure 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.62 Statistically significant,p = 0.02 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Grade placement at end of year 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.16 Not statistically significant,p = 0.44 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Child Classroom Adaptation Index 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.59 Statistically significant,p = 0.02 78 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Cooperative Preschool Inventory End of program Moderate
0.47 Not statistically significant,p = 0.06 78 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort II
Cooperative Preschool Inventory End of program Moderate
0.56 Not statistically significant,p = 0.06 59 families City in New York (site B), Cohort I
Metropolitan Readiness Test – Reading End of program Moderate
0.28 Not statistically significant,p = 0.39 56 families City in New York (site B), Cohort I
Metropolitan Readiness Test – Math End of program Moderate
0.34 Not statistically significant,p = 0.29 56 families City in New York (site B), Cohort I
Child Classroom Adaptation Index End of program Moderate
0.76 Statistically significant,p = 0.03 49 families City in New York (site B), Cohort I
Cooperative Preschool Inventory End of program Moderate
0.21 Not statistically significant,p = 0.33 101 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Metropolitan Readiness Test – Reading End of program Moderate
0.09 Not statistically significant,p = 0.72 97 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Metropolitan Readiness Test – Math End of program Moderate
0.21 Not statistically significant,p = 0.39 97 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Child Classroom Adaptation Index End of program Moderate
0.20 Not statistically significant,p = 0.36 97 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Metropolitan Achievement Test – Reading 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.04 Not statistically significant,p = 0.85 91 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Metropolitan Achievement Test – Math 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.10 Not statistically significant,p = 0.68 91 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Combined reading and math grade 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.33 Not statistically significant,p = 0.17 91 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Child Classroom Adaptation Index 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.12 Notstatistically significant,p = 0.60 95 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) End of program Moderate
0.39 Statistically significant,p = 0.05 78 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Percentage of days attended (parametric test) End of program Moderate
0.21 Not statistically significant,p = 0.44 78 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.17 Not statistically significant,p = 0.44 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Percentage of days attended (parametric test) 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.23 Not statistically significant,p = 0.33 86 families City in Arkansas (site A), Cohort I
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) End of program Moderate
0.10 Not statistically significant,p = 0.71 56 families City in New York (site B), Cohort I
Percentage of days attended (parametric test) End of program Moderate
0.15 Not statistically significant,p = 0.62 56 families City in New York (site B)Cohort I
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) End of program Moderate
0.08 Not statistically significant,p = 0.68 97 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Percentage of days attended (parametric test) End of program Moderate
0.07 Not statistically significant,p = 0.75 97 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Percentage of days attended (nonparametric test) 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.02 Not statistically significant,p = 0.91 91 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Percentage of days attended (parametric test) 1-year follow-up Moderate
0.04 Not statistically significant,p = 0.87 91 families City in New York (site B), Cohort II
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Study Participants

This study took place in two unnamed cities in Arkansas and New York. In Arkansas, families were recruited by word of mouth and with flyers. In New York, students were recruited through the city’s Public School Early Childhood Center. The participants in the two cities were quite different. In Arkansas, 93% of the participants were African American, 6% were white, 0% were Hispanic, 1% were another ethnicity, 42% received public assistance as their primary source of income, and 37% had not completed high school. In New York, 27% of the participants were African American, 24% were white, 30% were Hispanic, 19% were another ethnicity, 29% received public assistance as their primary source of income, and 26% had not completed high school.

Setting

The study was conducted in two unnamed cities, one in Arkansas and one in New York. The Arkansas city was relatively small and the school district served only 6,200 students, but the New York city has a population of 200,000 and is the fourth-largest in the state.

Home Visiting Services

The model was in line with the HIPPY model. Program recipients received services for two years. In each year, there were 30 weeks of scheduled activities that coincided with the school year. Families participated in two 30- to 60-minute home visits per month and two group meetings per month. The curriculum was available in both English and Spanish.

Comparison Conditions

Comparison families did not receive any of the HIPPY services. In the New York site, all study children were in preschool during the first study year and kindergarten during the second year. In the Arkansas site, the comparison children did not receive any preschool services. Most children at this site entered kindergarten in the second year of the study, but 8% were late kindergarten starters so were one year behind the other participants in formal schooling.

This study included participants with the following characteristics at enrollment:

Race/Ethnicity

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if Hispanic ethnicity was reported separately or respondents could select two or more race or ethnicity categories.

Black or African American
60%
Hispanic or Latino
15%
White
15%
Unknown
10%

Maternal Education

Less than a high school diploma
32%
High school diploma or GED
44%
Unknown
25%

Other Characteristics

Enrollment in means-tested programs
36%