Wagner, M., Clayton, S., Gerlach-Downie, S., & McElroy, M. (1999). An evaluation of the northern California 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Randomized controlled trial | Low | Not applicable | None | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
In 2020, HomVEE updated this review in two ways. First, HomVEE moved to two findings about "child treated for injury in the past year" from the Child Health domain to the Reductions in Child Maltreatment domain because the review initially misclassified it. HomVEE places findings related to medical care for injury and ingestions in the Reductions in Child Maltreatment domain. Second, HomVEE removed eight findings related to family structure and mother's partnership status from the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency domain because ACF determined that mother's partnership status is ineligible for review by HomVEE.
| Study participants | The sample presented here includes 375 mothers with children who were assessed at 2 years of age and 363 mothers with children who were assessed at 3 years of age. (This report also includes a sample of mothers followed up when the child was 1 year of age. These analyses received a low rating, however. See Study Ratings for details.) Over the course of one year, families with a child up to 6 months of age were recruited for enrollment in the Parents as Teachers (PAT) program. In the 2-year-old sample, most mothers had an education level of high school or less (77%); more than three-quarters of study participants were Latina mothers (80%); the majority of participating households received Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program (60%), while a minority received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (18%); and 59% of mothers were married. The 3-year-old sample had similar characteristics. |
|---|---|
| Setting | A single site in the Salinas Valley in Northern California |
| Intervention services | Families enrolled in PAT received monthly home visits and other program services for as long as they remained in the program, up to the child’s third birthday. Among those families enrolled in PAT , 57% participated and remained in the program for all three years. |
| 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). • Race/ethnicity (Latina or non-Latina) |
| Funding sources | The David and Lucile Packard 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | BSID Mental Development Index (in normal range) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 184 children | % = 67.60 | % = 69.60 | = -2.00 | Study reported = -0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | BSID Mental Development Index (mean) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 184 children | Mean = 91.00 | Mean = 92.20 | Mean difference = -1.20 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | BSID Physical Development Index (in normal range) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 184 children | % = 85.70 | % = 79.80 | = 5.90 | Study reported = 0.16 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | BSID Physical Development Index (mean) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 184 children | Mean = 99.80 | Mean = 98.40 | Mean difference = 1.40 | Study reported = 0.12 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Cognitive Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | % = 44.80 | % = 41.20 | = 3.60 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Cognitive Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | % = 68.60 | % = 67.70 | = 0.90 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Cognitive Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | Mean = 1.80 | Mean = 1.80 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Cognitive Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | Mean = -0.50 | Mean = -1.10 | Mean difference = 0.60 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Communication Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | % = 82.70 | % = 74.80 | = 7.90 | Study reported = -0.02 | 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). |
| High | DPII Communication Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | % = 78.60 | % = 77.10 | = 1.50 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Communication Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | Mean = 4.30 | Mean = 4.40 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Communication Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | Mean = 5.40 | Mean = 5.30 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Physical Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | % = 86.40 | % = 85.20 | = 1.20 | Study reported = 0.03 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Physical Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | % = 78.10 | % = 79.10 | = -1.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Physical Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | Mean = 4.60 | Mean = 4.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Physical Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | Mean = 3.90 | Mean = 3.70 | Mean difference = 0.20 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Self-Help Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | % = 96.40 | % = 95.50 | = 0.90 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Self-Help Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | % = 92.90 | % = 90.80 | = 2.10 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Self-Help Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | Mean = 7.30 | Mean = 7.40 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Self-Help Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | Mean = 13.00 | Mean = 10.80 | Mean difference = 2.20 | Study reported = 0.25 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | DPII Social Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | % = 91.60 | % = 93.20 | = -1.60 | Study reported = 0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Social Development Scale (at or above chronological age) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | % = 83.30 | % = 73.90 | = 9.40 | Study reported = 0.23 | 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). |
| High | DPII Social Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 363 children | Mean = 7.40 | Mean = 5.90 | Mean difference = 1.50 | Study reported = 0.17 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | DPII Social Development Scale (mean months differential) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 375 children | Mean = 4.70 | Mean = 5.80 | Mean difference = -1.10 | Study reported = -0.24 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | PPVT ator above chronological age | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 320 children | % = 50.00 | % = 49.20 | = 0.80 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PPVT mean months differential | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 320 children | Mean = 0.30 | Mean = -0.20 | Mean difference = 0.50 | Study reported = 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 352 children | % = 56.90 | % = 57.60 | = -0.70 | Study reported = -0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Child saw doctor for well-child care in past 6 months | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 365 children | % = 84.70 | % = 86.90 | = -2.20 | Study reported = -0.24 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Child treated for illness in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 365 children | % = 39.30 | % = 33.30 | = 6.00 | Study reported = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Child treated for illness in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 352 children | % = 51.00 | % = 50.20 | = 0.80 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Child went to the emergency room in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 352 children | % = 20.30 | % = 24.50 | = -4.20 | Study reported = -0.10 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Child went to the emergency room in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 365 children | % = 29.70 | % = 33.60 | = -3.90 | Study reported = -0.08 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Any postsecondary education | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 363 mothers | % = 27.00 | % = 33.10 | = -6.10 | HomVEE calculated = -0.18 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Any postsecondary education | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 29.30 | % = 38.80 | = -9.50 | HomVEE calculated = -0.26 | 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). |
| High | Attending school in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 363 mothers | % = 27.70 | % = 30.70 | = -3.00 | HomVEE calculated = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Attending school in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 25.80 | % = 23.50 | = 3.30 | HomVEE calculated = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Average highest grade level | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 363 mothers | Mean = 10.50 | Mean = 11.20 | Mean difference = -0.70 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Average highest grade level | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | Mean = 10.80 | Mean = 11.60 | Mean difference = -0.80 | Not available | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | High school graduate | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 363 mothers | % = 23.20 | % = 22.70 | = 0.50 | HomVEE calculated = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | High school graduate | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 24.50 | % = 20.40 | = 4.10 | HomVEE calculated = 0.14 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Household income $10000 - $29999 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 366 mothers | % = 57.90 | % = 44.90 | = 13.00 | HomVEE calculated = 0.32 | 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). |
| High | Household income $10000 - $29999 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 55.30 | = | = 7.90 | HomVEE calculated = 0.19 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Household income $30000 or more | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 366 mothers | % = 22.60 | % = 33.60 | = -11.00 | 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). |
| High | Household income $30000 or more | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 25.30 | % = 36.80 | = -11.50 | HomVEE calculated = -0.33 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | Household income less than $10000 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 366 mothers | % = 19.50 | % = 21.50 | = -2.00 | HomVEE calculated = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Household income less than $10000 | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 19.30 | % = 15.80 | = 3.50 | HomVEE calculated = 0.15 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Household receiving AFDC | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 366 mothers | % = 16.10 | % = 22.20 | = -6.10 | HomVEE calculated = -0.24 | 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). |
| High | Household receiving AFDC | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 15.40 | % = 17.90 | = -2.50 | HomVEE calculated = -0.11 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Household receiving Medi-Cal | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 366 mothers | % = 39.90 | % = 45.10 | = -5.20 | HomVEE calculated = -0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Household receiving Medi-Cal | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 37.00 | % = 36.40 | = 0.60 | HomVEE calculated = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Less than high school | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 46.20 | % = 40.80 | = 5.40 | HomVEE calculated = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Less than high school | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 363 mothers | % = 49.80 | % = 44.20 | = 5.60 | HomVEE calculated = 0.14 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Mother working/in job training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 366 mothers | % = 48.80 | % = 36.20 | = 12.60 | HomVEE calculated = 0.31 | 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). |
| High | Mother working/in job training | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 354 mothers | % = 55.40 | % = 46.00 | = 9.40 | HomVEE calculated = 0.23 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Mother had additional births | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 371 mothers | % = 14.80 | % = 16.30 | = -1.50 | HomVEE calculated = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Mother had additional births | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 343 mothers | = | % = 27.50 | = -6.70 | HomVEE calculated = -0.22 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Discipline (from HOME items) | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 5.70 | Mean = 5.90 | Mean difference = -0.20 | Study reported = -0.27 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 6.40 | Mean = 6.70 | Mean difference = -0.30 | Study reported = -0.28 | Statistically significant, p < 0.05 |
|
| High | HOME involvement with child subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 4.60 | Mean = 4.60 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME involvement with child subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 4.00 | Mean = 4.00 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.01 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 3.40 | Mean = 3.50 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 6.40 | Mean = 6.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.32 | Statistically significant, p < 0.001 |
|
| High | HOME appropriate play materials subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 6.60 | Mean = 6.50 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME appropriate play materials subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 6.70 | Mean = 6.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME language- and literacy-promoting behaviors | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 5.80 | Mean = 5.80 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 3.50 | Mean = 3.60 | Mean difference = -0.10 | Study reported = -0.13 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME organization of the environment subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 5.70 | Mean = 5.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME organization of the environment subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 5.70 | Mean = 5.70 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME parental responsivity subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 10.00 | Mean = 10.00 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = 0.00 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME parental responsivity subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 9.90 | Mean = 9.80 | Mean difference = 0.10 | Study reported = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME total scale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 36.60 | Mean = 37.20 | Mean difference = -0.60 | Study reported = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | HOME total scale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 36.20 | Mean = 36.40 | Mean difference = -0.20 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | KIDI | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 350 mothers | Mean = 0.66 | Mean = 0.69 | Mean difference = -0.02 | Study reported = -0.18 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | KIDI | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 367 mothers | Mean = 0.65 | Mean = 0.65 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSOC parenting efficacy subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 357 mothers | Mean = 27.20 | Mean = 27.00 | Mean difference = 0.02 | Study reported = 0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSOC parenting efficacy subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 341 mothers | Mean = 27.10 | Mean = 26.60 | Mean difference = 0.50 | Study reported = 0.15 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSOC parenting satisfaction subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 357 mothers | Mean = 24.60 | Mean = 25.20 | Mean difference = -0.06 | Study reported = -0.09 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSOC parenting satisfaction subscale | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 341 mothers | Mean = 25.40 | Mean = 26.40 | Mean difference = -1.00 | Study reported = -0.18 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSOC total score | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 357 mothers | Mean = 51.80 | Mean = 52.20 | Mean difference = -0.40 | Study reported = -0.05 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | PSOC total score | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 341 mothers | Mean = 52.40 | Mean = 52.90 | Mean difference = -0.50 | Study reported = -0.06 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | |
| High | Home mother-child interaction | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 335 mothers | Mean = 5.20 | Mean = 5.20 | Mean difference = 0.00 | Study reported = -0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Child treated for injury in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 3 year | 352 children | % = 8.10 | % = 11.90 | = -3.80 | Study reported = -0.12 | 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). |
| High | Child treated for injury in the past year | FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
Northern California sample | 2 year | 365 children | % = 12.00 | % = 14.90 | = -2.90 | Study reported = -0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 |
