Source
Klein Velderman, M., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Zevalkink, J. (2006). Preventing preschool externalizing behavior problems through video‐feedback intervention in infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 27(5), 466-493.
Note: Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the study manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.
The study was supported by a Pioneer Award of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NWO (Grant PGS 59-256).
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, details reported below for findings on valid, reliable outcomes that otherwise rate at least moderate |
The manuscript reports findings separately for a subset of the intervention group that was randomly assigned to receive video feedback and brochures to enhance sensitive parenting (referred to in the manuscript as the “VIPP group”) and another subset of the intervention group that in addition to the video feedback and brochures was randomly assigned to participate in discussions about the mother’s childhood attachment experiences in relation to their current parenting style (referred to in the manuscript as the “VIPP-R group”). The developers indicated the VIPP and VIPP-R groups received the same intervention. Therefore, this review focused on the findings for the intervention group that received the VIPP home visiting model (which combines the VIPP and VIPP-R subsets). Findings for all outcomes rated high except for the findings for the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Somatic problems. Findings for CBCL Somatic problems did not meet HomVEE’s requirements for measure reliability and rated low.
Study participants included first-time mothers with 4-month-old children; these participants were identified through administrative records in one city and five villages in the Netherlands. The study recruited women with low educational levels, defined as more than eight but fewer than 14 years of schooling. Using the Adult Attachment Interview to screen mothers, the study team selected mothers classified as having an insecure attachment style for the study. The study randomly assigned mothers to one of three groups: the Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting (VIPP) intervention group (28 mothers), the VIPP-R (VIPP with a representational focus) intervention group (26 mothers), or the business-as-usual comparison group (27 mothers). The full intervention sample included both VIPP and VIPP-R. The analytic sample included 52 participants in the intervention group and 26 participants in the comparison group. Study follow-up took place when children were 40 months old (that is, 36 months after enrollment). At enrollment, the mean age of mothers was 27.8.
The study took place in West Netherlands.
VIPP consisted of one preliminary home visit, followed by four subsequent home visits when infants were 7 to 10 months old. Each visit took place at the mother and child’s home and typically lasted 90 minutes. During home visits, home visitors recorded video observations of each mother–infant pair to assess the mother’s sensitive responsiveness during free play or other activities with the child. The home visitor then provided feedback based on the prior session’s video, selecting specific episodes to bring to the mother’s attention and preparing feedback on a specific theme such as the child’s contact-seeking and exploration behavior. Home visitors also provided brochures about sensitive parenting. Mothers in the VIPP-R group participated in additional discussions about their attachment experiences.
Note: Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model. See the study manuscript for more information about how the model was implemented in this study.
Families assigned to the comparison condition were not eligible to receive intervention services through VIPP. The sole purpose of home visits during the study was for data collection purposes.
There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.
Findings that rate moderate or high in this manuscript
| 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 (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.28 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.58 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Withdrawn/depressed (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.31 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.48 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Aggressive (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.11 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.81 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Anxious (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.93 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.16 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Overactive (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.98 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Sleep problems (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.98 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Internalizing (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.38 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.21 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.33 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.31 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Total problems (proportion of children in clinical range) |
40 months old |
High | 0.53 | Statistically significant, p= 0.04 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
||
Attachment Q-Sort (AQS): Security score |
40 months old |
High | 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.83 |
77 children | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emotional Availability Scales (EAS): Maternal sensitivity scale |
40 months old |
High | 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.88 |
77 mothers | VIPP vs. comparison, Netherlands, full sample |
This study included participants with the following characteristics at enrollment:
Race/Ethnicity
Maternal Education
Other Characteristics
This study included participants from the following locations:
- State not reported or international