Manuscript Details

Peer reviewed?
Yes

Doyle, O., Harmon, C., Heckman, J. J., Logue, C., & Moon, S. H. (2017). Early skill formation and the efficiency of parental investment: A randomized controlled trial of home visiting. Labour Economics, 45, 40-58.

High rating
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 2
Screening Conclusion

Eligible for review

Author Affiliation

Dr. Doyle and the Preparing for Life Evaluation team are affiliated with the University College Dublin Geary Institute for Public Policy. The authors were contracted by the home visiting model developers to evaluate Preparing for Life—Home Visiting.

Funding Sources

The Atlantic Philanthropies and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (Ireland) supported the research.

Study Design
Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Confounding factors Valid, reliable measures?
Randomized controlled trial Low

Not assessed for randomized controlled trials with low attrition

No

Yes

Notes

Information on how certain measures were constructed and their reliability and on the inverse–probability-weighting procedures were based on correspondence with the author. HomVEE's calculations for statistical significance are used because authors' calculations are based on one-tailed statistical tests. Several findings not reported in the tables below, including all findings at 18 months, received a low or indeterminate rating because they had high attrition and did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement or did not satisfy the reliability requirement.

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
Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Fine motor score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.26 Not statistically significant, p = 0.10 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Gross motor score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.07 Not statistically significant, p = 0.64 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Gross motor score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.18 Not statistically significant, p = 0.23 173 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Social-Emotional score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.12 Not statistically significant, p = 0.43 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), Social-Emotional score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.83 173 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), Competence score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.16 Not statistically significant, p = 0.31 161 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA), Problem score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.01 Not statistically significant, p = 0.93 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Developmental Profile-3: Cognitive Section, Cognitive development score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.07 Not statistically significant, p = 0.65 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Infant Characteristics Questionnaire/Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, Difficult temperament, unweighted 6 months old High
0.09 Not statistically significant, p = 0.55 173 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Infant Characteristics Questionnaire/Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, Difficult temperament, unweighted 12 months old High
0.12 Not statistically significant, p = 0.43 164 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale (TABS), Atypical behavior score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.15 Not statistically significant, p = 0.34 164 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Maternal Health
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Parental Cognition and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS), Parental self-efficacy score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p = 0.51 173 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parenting Stress Index (PSI) short version, Dysfunctional interactions score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.23 Not statistically significant, p = 0.14 164 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parenting Stress Index (PSI) short version, Parenting distress score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.06 Not statistically significant, p = 0.69 172 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant
Positive Parenting Practices
Outcome Measure Timing of Follow-Up Rating Direction of Effect Effect Size (Absolute Value) Stastical Significance Sample Size Sample Description
Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory 2 (AAPI-2), Belief in the use of appropriate punishment score, unweighted 12 months old High
0.08 Not statistically significant, p = 0.59 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Condon Maternal Attachment Scale, Absence of hostility score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.04 Not statistically significant, p = 0.81 171 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Condon Maternal Attachment Scale, Quality of attachment score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.06 Not statistically significant, p = 0.70 169 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Mother reads to her child every day, unweighted 12 months old High
0.14 Not statistically significant, p = 0.39 149 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Mother reads to her child, unweighted 12 months old High
0.00 Not statistically significant, p = 1.00 165 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parental Cognition and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS), Baby comparison scale score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.26 Not statistically significant, p = 0.09 172 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parental Cognition and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS), Parental hostile-reactive behaviors score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.22 Not statistically significant, p = 0.15 171 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parental Cognition and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS), Parental overprotection score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.88 172 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parental Cognition and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS), Parental warmth score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.06 Not statistically significant, p = 0.71 171 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parental Cognition and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS), Perceived parental impact score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.10 Not statistically significant, p = 0.52 172 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Parental Locus of Control Scale (PLOC), Control of child's behavior score, unweighted 6 months old High
0.11 Not statistically significant, p = 0.47 173 children High PFL vs. Low PFL; Dublin, Ireland 2008-2010; full sample
Effect rating key
Favorable finding / Statistically significant
Unfavorable finding / Statistically significant
Ambiguous finding / Statistically significant
No effect / Not statistically significant

This study included participants with the following characteristics at enrollment:

Race/Ethnicity

Data not available

Maternal Education

Data not available

Other Characteristics

Data not available

This study included participants from the following locations:

  • State not reported or international
International Locations
Ireland
Study Participants

Study participants were pregnant women recruited in a maternity hospital or in the community. A total of 233 pregnant women were randomly assigned to either the Preparing for Life—Home Visiting group that received home visiting services (“high PFL”; 115 participants) or the comparison condition that did not receive home visiting services (“low PFL”; 118 participants). The study included a total of 173 participants, 83 in the high PFL group and 90 in the low PFL comparison group. Outcomes were measured when the children in the sample were six, 12, and 18 months old. At intake, the average age of the mothers was 25. The percentage of mothers identifying as Irish was 96 percent, and 4 percent identified as Irish Traveller. About half of the women were first-time mothers.

Setting

The study took place in North Dublin, Ireland.

Intervention condition
Comparison Conditions

Participants in the low PFL (comparison) group did not have access to the home visiting services or tip sheets. The comparison group did, however, receive some of the same resources made available to the high PFL (intervention) group, including the package of safety items and toys. These participants had access to an information officer who met with participants before the child’s birth and at various intervals after birth and provided information on Preparing for Life community events and other local services. Participants in the comparison group had access to public health workshops, such as a stress-control program and a healthy food program.

Were any subgroups examined?
No
Subgroups examined

There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.