Black or African American
28%
Sitnick, S. L., Shaw, D. S., Gill, A., Dishion, T., Winter, C., Waller, R., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2015). Parenting and the family check-up: Changes in observed parent-child interaction following early childhood intervention. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 970–984.
Model(s) Reviewed
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
Funding Sources
Not reported.
Study Design
| Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measures? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | Low | Established on race/ethnicity, SES, and baseline measures of the outcomes. |
None |
Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1 |
Some outcomes in the structural equation models reported in this study were not eligible for review because the model did not estimate the direct, total effect of the intervention on the outcome. 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 5, T-test | Age 5 | High | 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 614 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Oppositional/Aggressive, Age 5, Correlation | Age 5 | High | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 614 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA |
Positive parenting practices
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dyadic Coercion - Age 3 (T-test) | Age 3 | High | 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 635 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Dyadic Coercion - Age 4 (T-test) | Age 4 | High | 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 561 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Dyadic Coercion - Age 5 (T-test) | Age 5 | High | 0.12 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 572 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Positive Engagement, Age 3, SEM | Age 3 | High | Statistically significant, p | 731 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, SEM | Age 4 | High | Statistically significant, p | 731 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Positive Engagement, Age 3, T-test | Age 3 | High | 0.24 | Statistically significant, p | 635 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Positive Engagement, Age 4, T-test | Age 4 | High | 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 561 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Positive Engagement, Age 5, T-test | Age 5 | High | 0.17 | Statistically significant, p | 572 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | ||
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 3, Correlation | Age 3 | High | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 635 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Positive Engagement, Age 3, Correlation | Age 3 | High | Statistically significant, p | 635 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 4, Correlation | Age 4 | High | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 561 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Positive Engagement, Age 4, Correlation | Age 4 | High | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 561 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Dyadic Coercion, Age 5, Correlation | Age 5 | High | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 572 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA | |||
| Positive Engagement, Age 5, Correlation | Age 5 | High | Statistically significant, p | 572 families | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA |
Study Participants
The study included 731 families that met two criteria. First, 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 (low caregiver 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, 41 percent had a high school diploma or GED, 32 percent had one or two years of post-high school training, and 24 percent had less than a high school diploma or GED. More than two-thirds of the randomized sample had an annual income below $20,000. Of the 731 children in the study, 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. The children 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 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