Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Gerlach-Downie, S. (1996). Intervention in support of adolescent parents and their children: A final report on the Teen Parents as Teachers Demonstration. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
| Screening decision | Screening conclusion | HomVEE procedures and standards version |
|---|---|---|
| Passes screens | Eligible for review | Version 1 |
| Rating | Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Compromised randomization | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measure(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Randomized controlled trial | High | Established on race/ethnicity, and SES. Lack of equivalence on baseline contraceptive use and experience with infants. | Yes | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to remove four findings related mother's partnership status/family structure and two about the teen mother being the only adult in the household from the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency domain because ACF determined that these outcomes are ineligible for review by HomVEE.
Although some effect sizes are included in the study tables, HomVEE was unable to determine if they pertain to the one-year or two-year results and excluded the study-reported effect sizes from this table.
| Study participants | Four sites in California recruited 717 teens to participate in the study. Teens were eligible if they (1) were less than 19 years of age, and (2) were pregnant or had babies younger than 6 months. Teens were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) PAT , (2) case management, (3) PAT plus case management, or (4) control group. The HomVEE report focuses on the comparison between PAT and the control group. At enrollment, over half of the mothers were Latina (56%), 20% were African American, 21% were white, and the remainder were classified as “other” race/ethnicity. The average age was 16.7 years, and approximately 30% had dropped out of high school. Follow-ups were conducted around the time of the child’s 1- and 2-year birthdays. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study was conducted in four sites: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Santa Barbara. The sponsoring agencies at the sites included three youth-serving organizations and one partnership between a local YWCA and the county health department. |
| Intervention services | Families enrolled in PAT received monthly home visits and group meetings for as long as they remained in the program, up to the child’s second birthday. During the home visits, parent educators provided lessons using the PAT curriculum. Families received 10 visits on average over the two-year period. The study indicates that the PAT services began to “blend” with the case management services, even though this was designed to be a separate condition in the study. For example, some parent educators addressed family planning and postponing subsequent pregnancies, which was a focus of case management, but not part of the PAT curriculum. |
| Comparison conditions | The comparison families received only the services that were normally available in the community and that they sought of their own accord. In addition, they received age-appropriate toys at regular quarterly intervals, which were used as a means of tracking their locations. |
| Subgroups examined |
This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report). Subgroups are not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
| Funding sources | Office of Child Abuse Prevention in the California Department of Social Services; Center for the Future of Children of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; and the Stuart Foundation. |
| Author affiliation | None of the study authors are developers of this model. |
| Peer reviewed | Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: cognitive development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 196 children | Mean = 2.60 | Mean = 2.20 | Mean difference = 0.40 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: cognitive development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 children | Mean = 3.90 | Mean = 3.60 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: communication development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 196 children | Mean = 3.50 | Mean = 3.20 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: communication development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 children | Mean = 2.60 | Mean = 2.30 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: physical development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 196 children | Mean = 5.60 | Mean = 5.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: physical development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 children | Mean = 3.60 | Mean = 3.80 | Mean difference = -0.20 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: self-help | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 196 children | Mean = 9.00 | Mean = 9.40 | Mean difference = -0.40 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: self-help | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 children | Mean = 2.70 | Mean = 2.60 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: social development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 196 children | Mean = 7.80 | Mean = 6.80 | Mean difference = 1.00 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | DPII average months differential: social development | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 children | Mean = 6.10 | Mean = 6.60 | Mean difference = -0.50 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Child had a regular source of medical care | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 232 children | % = 92.00 | % = 94.10 | = -2.10 | HomVEE calculated = -0.20 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Child had a regular source of medical care | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 192 children | % = 90.30 | % = 92.90 | = -2.60 | HomVEE calculated = -0.21 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 232 children | % = 97.40 | % = 95.80 | = 1.60 | HomVEE calculated = 0.30 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote61In contrast to the study-reported results, HomVEE calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). The HomVEE tests of statistical significance are based on the HomVEE calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA). |
| Moderate | Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 194 children | % = 87.10 | % = 92.10 | = -5.00 | HomVEE calculated = -0.33 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | footnote61In contrast to the study-reported results, HomVEE calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). The HomVEE tests of statistical significance are based on the HomVEE calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA). |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Receiving AFDC at assessment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 234 mothers | % = 50.40 | % = 58.00 | = -7.60 | HomVEE calculated = -0.19 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Receiving AFDC at assessment | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 192 mothers | % = 61.30 | % = 54.60 | = 6.70 | HomVEE calculated = 0.17 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Working or in job training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 234 mothers | % = 16.50 | % = 18.50 | = -2.00 | HomVEE calculated = -0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | Working or in job training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 194 mothers | % = 26.60 | % = 29.00 | = -2.40 | HomVEE calculated = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | HOME appropriate play materials subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 7.60 | Mean = 7.20 | Mean difference = 0.40 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | HOME appropriate play materials subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 7.60 | Mean = 8.00 | Mean difference = -0.40 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | HOME involvement with child subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 4.70 | Mean = 4.90 | Mean difference = -0.20 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME involvement with child subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 5.00 | Mean = 4.70 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 4.00 | Mean = 3.70 | Mean difference = 0.30 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 3.50 | Mean = 3.40 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME organization of the environment subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 5.60 | Mean = 5.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME organization of the environment subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 5.70 | Mean = 5.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 6.10 | Mean = 6.00 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 6.30 | Mean = 6.30 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME parental responsivity subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 9.80 | Mean = 9.90 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME parental responsivity subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 9.90 | Mean = 9.40 | Mean difference = 0.50 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| Moderate | HOME total scale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 2 year | 195 mothers | Mean = 38.00 | Mean = 38.50 | Mean difference = -0.50 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| Moderate | HOME total scale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Teen mothers sample | 1 year | 236 mothers | Mean = 37.60 | Mean = 36.20 | Mean difference = 1.40 | Not available | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
