Lind, T., Bernard, K., Yarger, H. A., & Dozier, M. (2019). Promoting compliance in children referred to child protective services: A randomized clinical trial. Child Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13207
| 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 manuscript analyzes findings from the same randomized controlled trial as Bernard et al. (2012). Additional contextual information about the study is from Bernard et al. (2012). Information on attrition for the 1-month post-intervention follow-up was based on correspondence with the author.
| Study participants | This randomized controlled trial (RCT) assigned eligible families to either ABC-Infant or a comparison program that also included home visits. Eligible families were participants in a foster care diversion program with children younger than 2 who were referred from Child Protective Services for various issues placing children at risk (for example, domestic violence, parental substance use, homelessness, or neglect). At the 36 month follow-up, the analytic sample consisted of 101 mother-child dyads (45 in the ABC-Infant group and 56 in the comparison group). In the analytic sample, 69 percent of children were African American, 6 percent were White, 11 percent were Hispanic, and 14 percent were biracial. All caregiver participants in the study were biological mothers, 70 percent of whom were African American, 9 percent White, 14 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent biracial. The majority of the caregivers had less than a high school degree (58 percent) and most (64 percent) reported an annual income of less than $10,000. |
|---|---|
| Setting | The study was conducted 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 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 | This research was supported by Award Numbers R01MH052135, R01MH074374, and R01MH084135 from the National Institute of Mental Health. |
| Author affiliation | Mary Dozier, one of the authors of the study, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Child compliance composite |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
36 months of age |
101 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 0.26 | Unadjusted mean = -0.21 | Mean difference = 0.47 | Study reported = 0.53 | Statistically significant, p= 0.01 |
Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D. |
| Moderate | Child compliance: child touched toys |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
36 months of age |
101 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted proportion = 0.33 | Unadjusted proportion = 0.54 | Mean difference = -0.21 | Study reported = -0.52 | Statistically significant, p <.05 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. Authors used Chi-Square Test of significance to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups. |
| Moderate | Child compliance: duration of child touching toys (seconds) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
36 months of age |
101 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 4.35 | Unadjusted mean = 11.78 | Mean difference = -7.43 | Study reported = -0.42 | Statistically significant, p= 0.04 |
Negative effect is favorableNegative effect is favorable to the intervention. Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D. |
| Moderate | Child compliance: latency to child touching toys (seconds) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
36 months of age |
101 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 263.47 | Unadjusted mean = 199.89 | Mean difference = 63.58 | Study reported = 0.68 | Statistically significant, p= 0.00 |
Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D. |
| Rating | Outcome measure | Effect | Sample | Timing of follow-up | Sample size | Intervention group | Comparison group | Group difference | Effect size | Statistical significance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Parent sensitivity |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
1 month post-intervention |
89 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 2.49 | Unadjusted mean = 1.94 | Mean difference = 0.55 | Study reported = 0.47 | Statistically significant, p= 0.03 |
Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D. |
| Moderate | Parent sensitivity: duration (seconds) |
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect |
ABC-Infant vs. DEF; Large mid-Atlantic city |
36 months of age |
101 mother/child dyads | Unadjusted mean = 31.23 | Unadjusted mean = 21.37 | Mean difference = 9.86 | Study reported = 0.40 | Not statistically significant, p= 0.05 |
Authors used ANOVA to estimate the difference between the ABC and DEF groups; effect size is Cohen's D. |
