Hispanic or Latino
100%
Astuto, J., & Allen, L. (2018). Learning more about home visitation: RCT evaluation of the Parent Child+ Program for Latino Spanish speaking children of immigrants. Technical Report. (Study 2). https://parentchildplus.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/study-2-astuto-allen-technical-report-final2018.pdf
Model(s): ParentChild+® Family Home Visiting Model
Study design characteristics contributing to rating
| 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 from the review of this manuscript
Three findings from the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4) and the Parent as a Teacher Inventory (PAAT) received a high rating because they had low attrition. Findings from the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), the Day Night Task, and the Tower Clean-Up Task, as well as the PLS-4: Expressive, received an indeterminate rating. These findings received an indeterminate rating because they had high or unknown attrition and HomVEE could not determine whether the intervention and comparison groups satisfied the baseline equivalence requirement, or because HomVEE could not determine the measure’s reliability.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preschool Language Scale – Fourth Edition (PLS-4): Auditory | 2 years after enrollment | High | 0.38 | Statistically significant, p= 0.03 | 133 children | Parent Child+ vs. comparison RCT, large northeastern city, full sample | |
| Preschool Language Scale – Fourth Edition (PLS-4): Total Score | 2 years after enrollment | High | 0.37 | Statistically significant, p= 0.04 | 127 children | Parent Child+ vs. comparison RCT, large northeastern city, full sample |
Positive Parenting Practices
| Outcome Measure | Timing of Follow-Up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect Size (Absolute Value) | Stastical Significance | Sample Size | Sample Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent as a Teacher Inventory (PAAT), Spanish-language translation: Total Score | 2 years after enrollment | High | 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.64 | 144 parents | Parent Child+ vs. comparison RCT, large northeastern city, full sample |
Study Participants
Families were eligible to participate if their children were ages 18 to 30 months, the family was Spanish speaking, and the family was within 100 percent of the federal poverty level and eligible for government assistance programs (including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; Medicaid; and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The study team recruited most families from community-based organizations serving mainly low-income, immigrant, Spanish-speaking families and delivering the ParentChild+ model. Study team members randomly assigned 166 parent-child dyads to the ParentChild+ intervention group (83 dyads) or the comparison condition (83 dyads). They measured outcomes two years after the families enrolled in the study. All parents identified as Latino and were born outside of the United States. On average, the children were 2.4 years old at the start of the study and 3.8 years old at the end.
Setting
The study took place in a large city in the northeastern United States.
Intervention condition
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.
Comparison Conditions
Families assigned to the comparison condition were not eligible to receive intervention services through ParentChild+. Participants took part in three data collection interviews over two years.
Subgroups examined
There were no subgroups reported in this manuscript.
Funding Sources
This research was supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts, Heising-Simons Foundation, Edith Glick Shoolman Children’s Foundation, and the Edward & Ellen Roche Relief Foundations.