Manuscript Detail

View Revisions

LeCroy, C. W., & Krysik, J. (2011). Randomized trial of the Healthy Families Arizona home visiting program. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1761–1766.

Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion HomVEE procedures and standards version
Passes screens Eligible for review Version 1
Study design details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Compromised randomization Confounding factors Valid, reliable measure(s)
High Randomized controlled trial Low Established on race/ethnicity. None None Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021
Notes:

footnote90

Submitted by user on

High rating applies to all outcomes except those with baseline differences that were not controlled. The moderate rating applies to the following outcomes: use of resources, emotional loneliness, and pathways to goals.

footnote123

Submitted by user on

These outcomes are rated moderate due to baseline differences in these variables that were not controlled for in the analyses.

Study characteristics
Study participants Following assessment, families meeting Healthy Families Arizona criteria were randomly assigned to the experimental group or the Child Development control group. A total of 195 families enrolled in the study and completed baseline interviews (98 in the experimental group and 97 in the control group). Eighty-five families in the experimental group and 86 families in the control group completed one-year interviews. Twenty-five percent of the mothers in the study were white and 74 percent were Hispanic.
Setting The study took place in a single Healthy Families Arizona site in a large metropolitan area in the state.
Intervention services The Healthy Families Arizona program provides home visiting services to prenatal and new parents. The home visitor first establishes a trusting relationship with the family, then assists parents with their life circumstances, personal issues, parenting needs, and successful adaptation to new infants. Home visitors model good parenting behavior, review the child’s developmental progress, promote safety in the home, establish a medical home for the child, and provide emotional support to parents. They also address substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues.
Comparison conditions Families assigned to the Child Development control group received assessment information about their child’s developmental progress in the context of a consistent and long-term positive relationship. Control group families were also offered opportunities to access services if desired.
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 Arizona Department of Economic Security
Author affiliation None of the authors is a developer of this model.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021.

Findings that rate moderate or high

Family economic self-sufficiency
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High School or training for mother
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean % = 35.20 Mean % = 6.80 Mean difference = 0.28 HomVEE calculated = 1.19 Statistically significant, p = 0.01
Linkages and referrals
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Moderate Use of resources
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.71 Mean = 2.06 Mean difference = 0.65 HomVEE calculated = 4.32 Statistically significant, p =0.007
Maternal health
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Alcohol use
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean % = 16.50 Mean % = 35.20 Mean difference = -18.70 HomVEE calculated = -0.59 Not available
High Alcohol use
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean % = 12.00 Mean % = 20.50 Mean difference = -8.50 HomVEE calculated = -0.40 Statistically significant, p = 0.04
High Using birth control
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean % = 65.80 Mean % = 65.10 Mean difference = 0.70 HomVEE calculated = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.061
High Using birth control
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean % = Mean % = 72.20 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p = 0.54
Moderate Emotional loneliness
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 1.75 Mean = 1.74 Mean difference = 0.01 HomVEE calculated = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p = 0.34
Moderate Pathways to goal
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 13.00 Mean = 13.17 Mean difference = -0.17 HomVEE calculated = -0.89 Not statistically significant, p =0.12
Moderate Pathways to goal
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean = 12.96 Mean = 12.69 Mean difference = 0.27 HomVEE calculated = 1.69 Not statistically significant, p =0.87
Moderate Use of resources
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean = 2.53 Mean = 1.95 Mean difference = 0.58 HomVEE calculated = 1.58 Statistically significant, p =0.001
Positive parenting practices
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Aggressive discipline
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 1.44 Mean = 1.83 Mean difference = -0.39 HomVEE calculated = -2.43 Not statistically significant, p =0.10
High Belief in corporal punishment
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.25 Mean = 2.15 Mean difference = 0.10 HomVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p =0.12
High Belief in corporal punishment (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 2.21 Mean = 2.23 Mean difference = -0.02 HomVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p =0.63
High Inappropriate expectations
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 3.05 Mean = 2.88 Mean difference = 0.17 HomVEE calculated = 0.22 Not statistically significant, p =0.10
High Inappropriate expectations (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 2.77 Mean = 2.77 Mean difference = 0.00 HomVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p =0.91
High Lack of empathy
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 1.95 Mean = 1.94 Mean difference = 0.01 HomVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p = 0.54
High Lack of empathy (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 1.80 Mean = 1.78 Mean difference = 0.02 HomVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p =0.91
High Mother's reading
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 2.26 Mean = 2.22 Mean difference = 0.04 HomVEE calculated = 0.27 Not statistically significant, p =0.85
High Mother's reading
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.46 Mean = 2.72 Mean difference = -0.26 HomVEE calculated = -1.62 Not statistically significant, p =0.28
High Never called name, cursed
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 96.40 Mean % = 94.10 Mean difference = 2.30 HomVEE calculated = 0.26 Not statistically significant, p =0.33
High Never hit elsewhere
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 98.80 Mean % = 96.50 Mean difference = 2.30 HomVEE calculated = 0.68 Not statistically significant, p =0.28
High Never pinched child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 98.80 Mean % = 94.10 Mean difference = 4.70 HomVEE calculated = 1.12 Not statistically significant, p =0.15
High Never shouted, yelled at child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 50.60 Mean % = 34.10 Mean difference = 16.50 HomVEE calculated = 0.43 Statistically significant, p =0.02
High Never slapped hand
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 56.60 Mean % = 38.80 Mean difference = 17.80 HomVEE calculated = 0.42 Statistically significant, p =0.03
High Never slapped on face
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 100.00 Mean % = 97.60 Mean difference = 2.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.99
High Never smacked/threatened, hit
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 69.50 Mean % = 63.50 Mean difference = 6.00 HomVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p =0.30
High Never spanked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 71.10 Mean % = 65.80 Mean difference = 5.30 HomVEE calculated = 0.14 Not statistically significant, p =0.19
High Never threw object at child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean % = 100.00 Mean % = 98.80 Mean difference = 1.20 Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.32
High Oppressing child's independence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = Mean = 3.32 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.68
High Oppressing child's independence (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 3.62 Mean = 3.58 Mean difference = 0.04 HomVEE calculated = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p =0.06
High Reversing roles
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 2.60 Mean = 2.47 Mean difference = 0.13 HomVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p =0.32
High Reversing roles (AAPI-2)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = Mean = 2.25 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p =0.33
High Safety practices
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 17.96 Mean = 17.07 Mean difference = 0.89 HomVEE calculated = 1.17 Not statistically significant, p =0.42
High Safety practices
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 17.95 Mean = 16.05 Mean difference = 1.90 HomVEE calculated = 3.00 Statistically significant, p = 0.04
Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Moderate Family violence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 6 months 180 mothers Mean = 0.51 Mean = 0.43 Mean difference = 0.08 HomVEE calculated = 1.87 Not statistically significant, p =0.15
Moderate Family violence
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Arizona sample 12 months 168 mothers Mean = 0.43 Mean = 0.52 Mean difference = -0.09 HomVEE calculated = -1.12 Not statistically significant, p =0.37