Black or African American
28%
Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., Winter, C. C., & Patterson, G. R. (2014). Coercive family process and early-onset conduct problems from age 2 to school entry. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4 Pt. 1), 917.
Model(s) Reviewed
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
Funding Sources
This research was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA016110, awarded to Thomas Dishion, Daniel Shaw, and Melvin Wilson. Justin Smith received support from research training grant T32 MH20012 from the National Institute of Mental Health, awarded to Elizabeth Stormshak.
Study Design
| Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measures? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | Low | Not established on race/ethnicity, SES, or baseline measures of the outcomes. |
None |
Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1 |
In addition to the reported outcomes that rated moderate, several outcomes in this study rated low: child noncompliance at ages 3, 4, and 5; dyadic coercion at ages 3, 4, and 5; and three outcomes analyzed from ages 2 to 5 with an intent-to-treat approach: oppositional/aggressive behavior, child noncompliance, and dyadic coercion. These outcomes rated low because we could not assess attrition or baseline equivalence based on information reported in the study, nor was it available from the author. HomVEE reports results for interventions delivered to families with children from birth to kindergarten entry. Given that the FCU intervention continued to be delivered to families at the time of later assessment, child and parent outcomes reported within this study that were assessed after children were age 5 were excluded from review. This study is part of a large RCT described by Dishion et al. (2008).
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 3, Correlation | Age 3 | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 657 children | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 4, Correlation | Age 4 | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 627 children | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, Correlation | Age 5 | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 612 children | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA |
Study Participants
The study included 731 families that met two criteria. Firs, they participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) when their son or daughter was between 2 years 0 months old and 2 years 11 months old. Second, they met the study’s criteria for being at risk for behavior problems—defined as one standard deviation or more above normative averages in at least two of three domains: (1) child behavior problems (for example, conduct problems or high-conflict relationships with adults); (2) primary caregiver problems (for example, maternal depression, daily parenting challenges, self-report of substance or mental health diagnosis, or status as a teen parent at first birth); and (3) socioeconomic status (a caregiver with low educational achievement or low family income based on WIC criteria). Screening was conducted in 2002 and 2003. Of the 731 primary caregivers who agreed to participate, 50 percent were European American, 28 percent were African American, 13 percent were biracial, and 9 percent were from another racial group. Thirteen percent were Hispanic. More than two-thirds of the randomized sample had an annual income below $20,000. Forty-one percent of the sample had a high school diploma or GED and 24 percent had less than a high school diploma or GED. The 731 children in the study were 29.9 months old on average at the time of the age 2 assessments. Forty-nine percent of the children were female and 58 percent lived in two-parent households.
Setting
Families were recruited from WIC program sites in and around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (37 percent of sample); Eugene, Oregon (37 percent of sample); and Charlottesville, Virginia (26 percent of sample).
Home Visiting Services
The Family Check-Up program typically involves three meetings: an initial contact meeting (a “get to know you” meeting); an assessment meeting, during which families participate in a comprehensive assessment of child and family functioning; and a feedback meeting to discuss the results of the assessment. After the feedback meeting, families can choose to participate in additional follow-up meetings. For this study, the order of the meetings was changed. All families participating in the study were given the comprehensive assessment. The researchers then randomized families into intervention and comparison groups. Following randomization, families in the intervention group participated in the initial contact and feedback meetings, which were led by parent consultants. These consultants discussed family issues and family functioning during the initial contact meeting and, during the feedback meeting, used motivational interviewing techniques to discuss the results of the assessment, areas of strength, areas for improvement, and recommended services that might help the family. After the feedback meetings, families could choose to participate in additional follow-up meetings. Families assigned to the intervention group received the intervention once yearly when their children were 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old.
Model(s) Reviewed
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
Comparison Conditions
Families assigned in the comparison group received the Family Check-Up intervention's comprehensive assessment but did not receive any other interventions or services.
This study included participants from the following locations:
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Virginia