American Indian or Alaska Native
100%
Pfannenstiel, J. (2015). Evaluation of the i3 validation of improving education outcomes for American Indian children. Unpublished manuscript. Overland Park, KS: Research & Training Associates, Inc.
Model(s): Parents as Teachers (PAT)®
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boehm Test of Basic Concepts -3 Preschool, Total Score | 3 years | Moderate | 0.34 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.09 | 67 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-3 Preschool - Total Score | 3 years | Moderate | Not available | Not statistically significant, p=0.050 | 67 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Attachment | 2 years | Moderate | 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.69 | 66 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Attachment | 3 years | Moderate | 0.15 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.26 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Behavioral concerns | 3 years | Moderate | Not available | Statistically significant, p = 0.03 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Behavioral concerns | 2 years | Moderate | 0.19 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.22 | 66 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Behavioral concerns | 3 years | Moderate | 0.47 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Initiative | 2 years | Moderate | 0.27 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 | 66 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Initiative | 3 years | Moderate | 1.04 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.19 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Self-control | 2 years | Moderate | 0.38 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.82 | 66 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Self-control | 3 years | Moderate | 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.35 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
Positive Parenting Practices
| Outcome Measure | Timing of Follow-Up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect Size (Absolute Value) | Stastical Significance | Sample Size | Sample Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of home literacy activity | 3 years | Moderate | 0.64 | Statistically significant, p = 0.01 | 67 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Hours parent reads to child | 3 years | Moderate | 0.49 | Statistically significant, p = 0.04 | 67 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Protective Factors Survey - Nurturing and Attachment | 2 years | Moderate | 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.55 | 66 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Protective Factors Survey - Nurturing and Attachment | 3 years | Moderate | 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Protective Factors Survey - Parent's Child Development Knowledge | 3 years | Moderate | 0.27 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.13 | 68 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision | |
| Protective Factors Survey - Parent's Child Development Knowledge | 2 years | Moderate | 0.16 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.21 | 66 families | RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
This study included participants from the following locations:
- State not reported or international
Study Participants
- The study sample included families from one Bureau of Indian Education school catchment area taking part in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 129 families were randomly assigned in this area, with 63 families assigned to the home visiting intervention group and 66 assigned to the comparison group.
- Seventy-three percent of families in the study received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Twenty-four percent of mothers had completed less than a 12th grade education, 37 percent had a high school diploma or GED, and 39 percent had some college or a degree.
Setting
The study took place in a single, unnamed Bureau of Indian Education school catchment area.
Intervention condition
Note: Navigate to the model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the source manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.
Comparison Conditions
The comparison group was eligible to receive existing business-as-usual services that were available to them within their communities.
Subgroups examined
• Maternal education (high education, level undefined) • Household poverty status (below poverty threshold) • Intergenerational household (yes or no)
Funding Sources
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) U.S. Department of Education, Grant #U396B100189.
Study design characteristics contributing to rating
| Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors? | Valid, reliable measures? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | High |
Established on race/ethnicity and SES; outcomes not feasible to assess at baseline |
None |
Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1 |
Notes from the review of this manuscript
This study reports findings for both a RCT and a quasi-experimental design (QED). In the RCT, outcomes that were not assessable at baseline received a moderate rating. Outcomes that were assessable at baseline received a low rating because the study did not establish baseline equivalence for these outcomes.
In the QED, all outcomes received a low rating because treatment and comparison groups were not enrolled in the study at the same time, creating a confounding factor.