Research Manuscript Database

Search for a study manuscript by keyword or select any filter to see results. For more information about how HomVEE reviews studies, see HomVEE's Methods and Standards Resources.

Filter By

Model

Manuscript Rating

Outcome domains examined

States in which the research was conducted

Manuscripts with subgroup findings

Populations served

Child age at the time of enrollment

Delivery Method

Intervention delivered in non-English language

Setting in which research was conducted

Search By

Displaying 1 - 10 of 86, sorted alphabetically Export list of citations

Alonso-Marsden, S., Dodge, K. A., O’Donnell, K. J., Murphy, R. A., Sato, J. M., & Christopoulos, C. (2013). Family risk as a predictor of initial engagement and follow-through in a universal nurse home visiting program to prevent child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37, 555-565.

Model(s) Reviewed: Family Connects

View Manuscript
Not applicable (NA) - implementation study
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Arthur, M. M. (2001). Qualitative evaluation of Kentucky’s health access: Nurturing development services program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 1B, 535.

Model(s) Reviewed: Health Access Nurturing Development Services (HANDS) Program

View Manuscript
Not applicable (NA) - implementation study
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Barth, R. (1990). Theories guiding home-based intensive family preservation services. In J. K. Whittaker, J. Kinney, E. M. Tracey, & C. Booth (Eds.), Reaching high-risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services (pp. 89-112). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Model(s) Reviewed: HOMEBUILDERS (Birth to Age 5)®

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: Ineligible study design
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Bath, H. I., Richey, C. A., & Haapala, D. A. (1992). Child age and outcome correlates in intensive family preservation services. Children and Youth Services Review, 14(5), 389-406.

Model(s) Reviewed: HOMEBUILDERS (Birth to Age 5)®

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: Ineligible study design
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Bergquist, C., Pope, G., & Corliss, K. (1995). Evaluation of Michigan’s Families First program, summary report. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Social Services.

Model(s) Reviewed: HOMEBUILDERS (Birth to Age 5)®

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: The text of this study did not arrive in time for the review.
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Blythe, B. J., & Kelly, S. A. (1993). Keeping families and children safe. Reclaiming Children and Youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 1(4), 23-26.

Model(s) Reviewed: HOMEBUILDERS (Birth to Age 5)®

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: This citation is not a primary study
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Burns, M. K. (2002). Cementing the cracks: A qualitative study of how parents interpret their experiences as recipients of family preservation services. (Pennsylvania State University; 0176 Advisor: Daniele Flannery). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (05A), 267-1666. (AAI3051628)

Model(s) Reviewed: HOMEBUILDERS (Birth to Age 5)®

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: Study does not examine a relevant target population
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Campbell, L. (1998). Translating intensive family preservation services across national boundaries: An australian experience. Child Welfare, 77(1), 79-93.

Model(s) Reviewed: HOMEBUILDERS (Birth to Age 5)®

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: This citation is not a primary study
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Comfort, M., & Gordon, P. R. (2009). KIPS longitudinal study with Kentucky HANDS (2007-2009) final results. Unpublished manuscript.

Model(s) Reviewed: Health Access Nurturing Development Services (HANDS) Program

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: Home visiting is not a substantial element of the program
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1

Comfort, M., Gordon, P. R., English, B., Hacker, K., Hembree, R., Knight, C. R., & Miller, C. K. (2010). The keys to interactive parenting scale: KIPS shows how parents grow. Zero to Three, 30(4), 33–39.

Model(s) Reviewed: Health Access Nurturing Development Services (HANDS) Program

View Manuscript
Does not pass screens
Screening conclusion: Ineligible study design
Study reviewed under: Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1
Download