Black or African American
60%
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.
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
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.
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 |
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.
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.
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.
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
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 from the following locations: