Pfannenstiel, J. (2015). Evaluation of the i3 validation of improving education outcomes for American Indian children. Unpublished manuscript. Overland Park, KS: Research & Training Associates, Inc.
| 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; outcomes not feasible to assess at baseline |
None | None |
Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
This study reports findings for both a RCT and a quasi-experimental design (QED). In the RCT, outcomes that were not assessable at baseline received a moderate rating. Outcomes that were assessable at baseline received a low rating because the study did not establish baseline equivalence for these outcomes.
In the QED, all outcomes received a low rating because treatment and comparison groups were not enrolled in the study at the same time, creating a confounding factor.
| Study participants | The study recruited families from the catchment areas of 20 Bureau of Indian Education schools that had not previously implemented the FACE program (Baby FACE is the home visiting component of FACE). One of the 20 programs withdrew from the grant after two years and is not included in the study. The study included a QED analysis and a smaller RCT. The QED analysis sample included families from the 19 remaining schools. The QED study included 1,329 participants: 853 in the treatment group and 476 in the comparison group. Within the QED, 49 percent of children in the treatment group and 55 percent of children in the comparison group were male. In the treatment group, 25 percent of mothers had completed less than a 12th grade education and 37 percent had a high school diploma or GED. Three percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In the comparison group, 21 percent of mothers had completed less than a 12th grade education and 32 percent had a high school diploma or GED. Seven percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher. A majority of children were from two-parent households. Seventy-three percent of treatment and comparison groups received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The RCT sample included families from one of the 19 Bureau of Indian Education school catchment areas that were included in the QED analysis. The site was selected for the RCT because it had more eligible families than space in the program. Within the RCT, 129 families were randomly assigned, with 63 families assigned to the treatment group (Baby FACE) and 66 assigned to the comparison group (business-as-usual). |
|---|---|
| Setting | The QED study included 20 Bureau of Indian Education school catchment areas located across the following U.S. states: Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Washington. The RCT took place in one of the QED study sites that was oversubscribed. |
| Intervention services | The Baby FACE program is based on the Parents as Teachers (PAT) model. Participants in the treatment group received home visits by certified parent educators, developmental screenings, group meetings with other parents (known as Family Circle), and referrals to community resources. The initial home visits focused on the foundational topics of the model, and the home visitor selected subsequent topics for home visiting sessions based on the family's goals and needs. |
| Comparison conditions | The comparison group was eligible to receive existing business-as-usual services that were available to them within their communities. |
| 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). • Maternal education (high education, level undefined) • Household poverty status (below poverty threshold) • Intergenerational household (yes or no) |
| Funding sources | Institute of Education Sciences (IES) U.S. Department of Education, Grant #U396B100189. |
| Author affiliation | Study authors are not model developers or distributors. They were contracted by the implementers to conduct an independent evaluation of the Baby FACE program. |
| Peer reviewed | Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: None found. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE beginning with the 2014 review.
Findings that rate moderate or high
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Boehm Test of Basic Concepts -3 Preschool, Total Score |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
67 families | Adjusted mean = 26.84 | Adjusted mean = 23.86 | MD = 2.98 | Study reported = 0.34 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.09 |
|
| Moderate | Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-3 Preschool - Total Score |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
67 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Not statistically significant, p=0.050 |
Although authors do not report the effect size, they indicate the finding is significant and favorable. Covariates included child's birth, household poverty, intergenerational living arrangement, and frequency of English spoken to children. |
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Attachment |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
2 years |
66 families | Adjusted mean = 26.63 | Adjusted mean = 26.47 | MD = 0.16 | Study reported = 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.69 |
|
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Attachment |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Adjusted mean = 26.37 | Adjusted mean = 25.90 | MD = 0.47 | Study reported = 0.15 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.26 |
|
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Behavioral concerns |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
2 years |
66 families | Adjusted mean = 11.06 | Adjusted mean = 11.83 | MD = -0.77 | Study reported = -0.19 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.22 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Behavioral concerns |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Adjusted mean = 10.73 | Adjusted mean = 13.00 | MD = -2.27 | Study reported = -0.47 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Behavioral concerns |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | Not available | Statistically significant, p = 0.03 |
Negative effect is favorable to the intervention. Although authors do not report the effect size, they indicate the finding is significant and favorable. Covariates included child's birth, household poverty, intergenerational living arrangement, and frequency of English spoken to children. |
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Initiative |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Adjusted mean = 32.35 | Adjusted mean = 30.58 | MD = 1.77 | Study reported = 1.04 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.19 |
|
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Initiative |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
2 years |
66 families | Adjusted mean = 32.03 | Adjusted mean = 30.37 | MD = 1.66 | Study reported = 0.27 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 |
|
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Self-control |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
2 years |
66 families | Adjusted mean = 20.26 | Adjusted mean = 20.53 | MD = -0.27 | Study reported = -0.38 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.82 |
|
| Moderate | Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) - Self-control |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Adjusted mean = 20.42 | Adjusted mean = 20.00 | MD = 0.42 | Study reported = 0.10 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.35 |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Frequency of home literacy activity |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
67 families | Adjusted mean = 60.08 | Adjusted mean = 55.45 | MD = 4.63 | Study reported = 0.64 | Statistically significant, p = 0.01 |
|
| Moderate | Hours parent reads to child |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
67 families | Adjusted mean = 64.00 | Adjusted mean = 33.73 | MD = 30.27 | Study reported = 0.49 | Statistically significant, p = 0.04 |
|
| Moderate | Protective Factors Survey - Nurturing and Attachment |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
2 years |
66 families | Adjusted mean = 27.06 | Adjusted mean = 26.87 | MD = 0.19 | Study reported = 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.55 |
|
| Moderate | Protective Factors Survey - Nurturing and Attachment |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Adjusted mean = 26.87 | Adjusted mean = 26.70 | MD = 0.17 | Study reported = 0.13 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.56 |
|
| Moderate | Protective Factors Survey - Parent's Child Development Knowledge |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
2 years |
66 families | Adjusted mean = 30.43 | Adjusted mean = 29.57 | MD = 0.86 | Study reported = 0.16 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.21 |
|
| Moderate | Protective Factors Survey - Parent's Child Development Knowledge |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
RCT: BabyFACE vs. comparision |
3 years |
68 families | Adjusted mean = 31.11 | Adjusted mean = 30.03 | MD = 1.08 | Study reported = 0.27 | Not statistically significant, p = 0.13 |