Black or African American
28%
Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Shelleby, E. C., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2016). The long-term effectiveness of the family check-up on peer preference: Parent-child interaction and child effortful control as sequential mediators. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Advance online publication.
Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measures? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Randomized controlled trial | Low | Established on race/ethnicity and SES; not established on baseline measures of the outcomes. |
None |
Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1 |
In addition to the outcome that rated high, several outcomes in this study rated low: positive engagement at ages 3, 4, and 5; coercive engagement at ages 3, 4, and 5; and three measures of effortful control at age 5 (the wrapped-gift task, draw-a-star task, and tower task). These outcomes rated low because we could not assess attrition or baseline equivalence based on information reported in the study, nor was this information 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. In addition, 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).
Outcome Measure | Timing of Follow-Up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect Size (Absolute Value) | Stastical Significance | Sample Size | Sample Description | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive Engagement, Ages 3 to 5, SEM | Ages 3-5 | High | Statistically significant, p | 731 caregiver-child dyads | WIC sites in Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene, OR, and Charlottesville, VA |
This study included participants from the following locations:
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, and who also 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.
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).
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.
Families in the comparison group received the Family Check-Up intervention's comprehensive assessment but did not receive any other interventions or services.
National Institute on Drug Abuse grants 023245 and 2003723 to Shelleby, Dishion, and Wilson.