Yarger, H. A. (2018). Investigating longitudinal pathways to dysregulation: The role of anomalous parenting behavior (Publication No. 2130944494) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
| 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 | Established on race/ethnicity and SES; outcomes not feasible to assess at baseline | None | None | Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021 |
This manuscript analyzes findings from the same randomized controlled trial as Bernard et al. (2012). Additional contextual information about the study and to determine attrition is from Bernard et al. (2012) and based on correspondence with the author.
| Study participants | Agencies contracted by a mid-Atlantic city’s child welfare agency referred families to the study who were identified as being at risk for child removal and placement into foster care and had substantiated or unsubstantiated reports of maltreatment. Parent-child dyads were randomly assigned to receive ABC-Infant or an alternate home visiting intervention. A total of 109 parent-child dyads were included in the study (52 in the ABC-Infant group and 57 in the comparison group). Children ranged in age from 2 to 21 months. Ninety-six percent of parents in the study were female. The majority (63 percent) of parents identified as African American and 21 percent identified as Hispanic. Household income was less than $10,000 for 66 percent of families. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study took place in a large mid-Atlantic city. |
| Intervention services | ABC-Infant consisted of 10 weekly hour-long home visits. The sessions focused on five topic areas: providing nurturance, following the child’s lead, refraining from frightening behavior, parents recognizing the effect of their own childhood experiences on their parenting behavior, and learning the importance of touch and children’s emotions. Across all sessions, parent trainers engaged parents in structured activities with their children and then provided feedback on observations of participants’ parenting behavior, both in real-time and by playing back video recordings from the sessions. |
| Comparison conditions | Comparison families received Developmental Education for Families (DEF) in home visits that were of the same duration (10 hour-long sessions) and frequency (weekly) as ABC-Infant. DEF was designed to enhance cognitive and linguistic development. For this study, the components related to following children’s cues were removed to distinguish it from ABC-Infant. |
| 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 | Not reported. |
| Author affiliation | The author’s dissertation advisor is Mary Dozier, who is a developer of the ABC home visiting model. |
| Peer reviewed | Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021. |
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02093052. Study registration was assessed by HomVEE beginning with the 2014 review.
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Strange Situation Procedure - Disorganized attachment |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 children | Unadjusted proportion = 0.33 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.45 | Mean difference = -0.12 | HomVEE calculated = -0.31 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.17 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE) - Affective communication errors |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 parents | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | HomVEE calculated = 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.27 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE) - Disrupted parenting |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 parents | Unadjusted proportion = 0.50 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.61 | Mean difference = -0.11 | HomVEE calculated = -0.27 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.23 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE) - Fearful/disorientation |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 parents | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | HomVEE calculated = 0.14 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.46 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE) - Intrusive/negativity |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 parents | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | HomVEE calculated = 0.09 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.64 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE) - Parental withdrawal |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 parents | Unadjusted mean = 3.77 | Unadjusted mean = 4.46 | Mean difference = -0.69 | HomVEE calculated = -0.44 | Statistically significant, p= 0.02 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
| High | Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE) - Role/boundary confusion |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-I vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
7 months post-intervention |
109 parents | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | HomVEE calculated = 0.04 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.84 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. |
