Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Review

Implementation of evidence-based home visiting programs

aimed at reducing child maltreatment: A meta-analytic
review
Katherine L. Casillas, Angèle Fauchier, Bridget T. Derkash, Edward F. Garrido ∗
Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Colorado School of Medicine, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years there has been an increase in the popularity of home visitation programs
Received 31 July 2015 as a means of addressing risk factors for child maltreatment. The evidence supporting the
Accepted 5 October 2015 effectiveness of these programs from several meta-analyses, however, is mixed. One poten-
Available online 25 December 2015
tial explanation for this inconsistency explored in the current study involves the manner in
which these programs were implemented. In the current study we reviewed 156 stud-
Keywords: ies associated with 9 different home visitation program models targeted to caregivers
Home visiting
of children between the ages of 0 and 5. Meta-analytic techniques were used to deter-
Implementation
mine the impact of 18 implementation factors (e.g., staff selection, training, supervision,
Child maltreatment prevention
Meta-analysis fidelity monitoring, etc.) and four study characteristics (publication type, target population,
study design, comparison group) in predicting program outcomes. Results from analyses
revealed that several implementation factors, including training, supervision, and fidelity
monitoring, had a significant effect on program outcomes, particularly child maltreatment
outcomes. Study characteristics, including the program’s target population and the com-
parison group employed, also had a significant effect on program outcomes. Implications
of the study’s results for those interested in implementing home visitation programs are
discussed. A careful consideration and monitoring of program implementation is advised
as a means of achieving optimal study results.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs: Literature Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs: Criteria for Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Meta-Analysis: Literature Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Meta-Analysis: Criteria for Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Between- and Within-Study Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Effect Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Analytic Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Implementation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

∗ Corresponding author at: The Gary Pavilion at the Children’s Hospital, Anschutz Medical Campus, 13123 E 16th Ave., B390, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.009
0145-2134/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 65

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Organizational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Moderator Analyses: Study Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Publication Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Target Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Comparison Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Moderator Analyses: Outcome Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Analyses of Implementation by Outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Within-Study Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

According to the latest National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System report of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), an estimated 679,000 children were victims of child maltreatment in 2013, defined here as serious
harm (e.g., neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse or neglect) caused to children by parents or primary
caregivers, such as extended family members or babysitters (US DHHS, 2015). Of those children who were victims of abuse
and neglect, almost half were between the ages of 0 and 5, with neglect the primary reason over three quarters of victims
entered out-of-home care. While the number of youth impacted by maltreatment each year is astounding, the effects of child
maltreatment are themselves serious and far reaching. Victims of abuse and neglect are at heightened risk for a number
of deleterious psychosocial problems, including diminished developmental and neurocognitive functioning and increased
rates of psychopathology (see Cicchetti & Toth, 2005 for a thorough review). Given the abundance of negative outcomes
associated with child maltreatment, it is of prime importance to determine those programs that are most efficacious in
preventing child maltreatment from occurring. This is particularly the case for programs that target youth between the ages
of 0 and 5, who are most susceptible to experiencing child maltreatment.
The history of the recognition and treatment of child abuse and neglect began 53 years ago, when child abuse was first
identified in the medical community as a cause of childhood injuries (Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemuller, & Silver,
1962). Just over thirty years thereafter it became a major focus in the clinical intervention literature, with mental health
practitioners typically delivering treatments with which they were most familiar and comfortable. Best practice consisted of
applying existing treatments to child abuse cases, as empirical treatments for this population did not exist. Fortunately, over
the last two decades, great effort has been devoted to developing and evaluating more systematic treatments, with efficacious
treatment protocols emerging at the turn of the century (Cohen, Berliner, & Mannarino, 2000). One type of intervention
program that has grown in popularity in recent years is home visitation. In 2010, the passage of the Affordable Care Act
helped create the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program to increase federal support for evidence-
based home visiting services for pregnant women and new mothers at risk for child maltreatment (Health Resources and
Services Administration, 2015). Currently, home visitation is the most widely used child maltreatment prevention approach
in the United States (Alonso-Marsden et al., 2013), and programs are found in at least 40 states and serve up to 500,000
children nationwide (Astuto & Allen, 2009).
Although all home visitation programs designed to prevent child maltreatment have an underlying belief that working
with high-risk families in their homes will have long-term benefits for children, the programs vary widely in their approach.
Home visitation programs differ from one another, for example, in terms of who provides services to families, the family
risk criteria that determine eligibility, the frequency and intensity of home visits, as well as the content of the curriculum.
In addition to differences in the manner in which home visitation programs are delivered, the empirical evidence suppor-
ting the effectiveness of home visitation programs is also quite varied. While a number of home visitation program models
have demonstrated positive outcomes on parenting attitudes and behaviors (Avellar et al., 2014; Filene, Kaminski, Valle, &
Cachat, 2013; Health Resources and Services Administration, 2015), the evidence supporting the impact of home visitation
programs on preventing child maltreatment is more inconclusive (Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004). Some home visitation pro-
grams, such as the Nurse–Family Partnership and SafeCare, have demonstrated consistent evidence of significantly lower
rates of child welfare involvement between program-involved families and those receiving services as usual (Chaffin, Hecht,
Bard, Silovsky, & Beasley, 2012; Kitzman et al., 1997; Olds, Henderson, Chamberlin, & Tatelbaum, 1986; Olds et al., 2002).
Other programs, however, such as Healthy Families America, have had less success in demonstrating reductions in child
maltreatment (Duggan et al., 2007).
Some of the inconsistency in results evaluating the impact of home visitation programs on child maltreatment is likely
due to differences in the home visitation models being employed. However, it also likely that there is wide variability in the
manner in which home visitation programs are implemented. Some implementations of a home visitation model, more so
than others, may have paid particularly close attention to how the program was being executed, making active attempts to
evaluate implementation practices occurring at multiple levels and using this feedback to guide the program’s roll-out. In
order to examine the impact of implementation factors in determining program outcomes, in the current study we performed
66 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

a systematic review of the home visitation literature and used meta-analytic techniques to measure effect size variation as
a function of differences in implementation factors.
Implementation is a set of activities used to roll out policies, programs, or the like and necessitates quite a number of
changes at multiple levels—from the practitioner on the ground to the state and county official in the office. It has been
the suggestion of those in the field to use an implementation framework to guide the process by accounting for multiple
perspectives and keeping the practice and outcomes on track. Frameworks, such as the one frequently used in the field of
child welfare by the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN), provide guidelines for overcoming barriers (Fixsen,
Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). The NIRN framework refers to the mechanisms used to overcome these barriers
as drivers, which fall into three categories: leadership drivers, competency drivers, and organization drivers. Based on this
framework, leadership can manage challenges by committing to the model both within their organization and with external
models, inviting others to build and sustain the work, and creating space for open communication. Competency drivers
focus on mechanisms such as training, coaching, supervision, staff, and internal and external champions of the work that
help develop, improve, and sustain the competence needed from multiple players. Finally, organization drivers emphasize
the need to assess and use measures of fidelity and outcomes; use, create, or change policies and funding sources; establish
caseload standards; develop a comprehensive array of services; and oversee procurement, contracting, and other vital
partnerships with providers.
In their review of over 700 empirical articles on implementation, Fixsen and colleagues (2005) examined these various
drivers and found a number of core components of successfully implemented programs, including staff selection, staff
training, staff coaching, and staff evaluation and fidelity monitoring, that predicted program outcomes. Other reviews of the
literature (Berkel, Mauricio, Schoenfelder, & Sandler, 2010; Durlak & DuPre, 2008) have corroborated Fixen and colleagues’
seminal work stressing the importance of implementation factors in determining a program’s success. While this growing
body of evidence is encouraging for those interested in implementing evidence-based programs, it is limited in that its focus
has primarily been on programs offering services to adults (Metz, Naoom, Halle, & Bartley, 2015). A review of home visitation
programs targeted to high-risk families with youth ages 0–5 is needed to determine which, if any, implementation factors
determine these programs’ success.
Although there have been a number of meta-analyses conducted examining the impacts of home visiting programs on
promoting positive parenting practices and preventing the occurrence of child maltreatment (Avellar et al., 2014; Filene
et al., 2013; Kendrick et al., 2000; Nievar, Van Egeren, & Pollard, 2010; Olds & Kitzman, 1993; Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004),
to our knowledge, there have been no systematic reviews conducted examining the impact of implementation factors in
determining home visitation programs’ success. Thus, in order to shed light on the possibility that implementation factors
play a crucial role in determining a home visitation program’s success, in the current study we performed a meta-analytic
review of 18 implementation factors. As a guiding framework for choosing those factors included in the meta-analysis, we
utilized the NIRN framework and selected drivers previously studied in reviews of the adult services literature.

Method

Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs: Literature Search

To establish the set of home visiting programs from which the meta-analytic studies would be drawn, we evaluated the
programs described in a range of well-respected databases relevant to evidence-based home visiting including: the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness (HomVEE; http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov); The
California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC; http://www.cebc4cw.org/); Promising Practices Network
on Children, Families and Communities (http://www.promisingpractices.net); Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (CEBP;
http://coalition4evidence.org); and prior meta-analyses on home visiting programs (Filene et al., 2013; Kendrick et al., 2000;
Nievar et al., 2010; Olds & Kitzman, 1993; Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004).

Evidence-Based Home Visiting Programs: Criteria for Inclusion

We initially considered 51 home visiting programs. Following the criteria of the American Psychological Association
Division 12 Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures and the Division 12 Task Force on
Psychological Interventions (Chambless et al., 1996; Chambless, Baker, et al., 1998; Chambless and Hollon, 1998; Task Force
on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, 1995), we created a list of evidence-based home visiting
programs that had shown efficacy in studies conducted by at least two independent research teams. Because many home
visiting programs are conducted in community agencies without strict controls, we broadened the Division 12 definition
beyond randomized controlled trials to include quasi-experimental trials such as those in which randomization occurred
at the agency rather than individual level, as well as non-randomized cohort comparisons such as use of a matched control
population identified after, rather than before, the intervention. We included only programs that focused primarily on
children under 5. We included programs targeting specific parent, child, family, or community factors as well as universal
programs with no particular inclusion criteria. These criteria resulted in a list of 9 evidence-based home visiting programs:
Early Head Start Home Visiting, Healthy Families America (HFA), Healthy Start, Healthy Steps, Home Instruction for Parents
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 67

Fig. 1. PRISMA diagram.

of Preschoolers (HIPPY), Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), Parents as Teachers (PAT), Play and Learning Strategies (PALS), and
SafeCare/Project 12 Ways.

Meta-Analysis: Literature Search

We searched the previously mentioned databases and meta-analyses as well as PsycInfo, Medline, and Google Scholar
(spanning studies published from 1946 to March 2015) to locate as many published and unpublished studies as possible for
each of the 9 home visiting programs. When applicable, we also used the bibliographies listed on each individual program’s
website. Unpublished sources included reports, unpublished manuscripts, conference proceedings, and dissertations. From
this search we identified 358 studies, of which we were able to retrieve 348.

Meta-Analysis: Criteria for Inclusion

As shown in Fig. 1, of the 348 studies we retrieved and reviewed in full, we excluded studies that did not discuss any
implementation factors (k = 2), case studies (k = 17), studies in which more than half of the sessions took place outside the
home (k = 7), and studies in which the treatment group did not consistently receive the treatment (k = 8). We also excluded
studies from which effect sizes could not be calculated, such as qualitative studies, general summaries of program findings,
and studies with data that could not be converted to effect sizes (k = 77). There were 60 studies excluded because they did
not have a comparison group. Studies were excluded for providing data at the population level (k = 11) or home visitor level
(k = 10) rather than the individual/family level. There were no geographical limitations. These exclusions yielded 156 studies
for which we were able to compute effect sizes. When multiple studies (included or excluded) reported on the same sample,
we used all available information about implementation factors. Because some studies reported on more than one sample,
and some studies reported on overlapping samples, the 156 studies yielded 97 distinct samples.

Between- and Within-Study Comparisons

For most of the studies, a given implementation factor was consistent throughout the study, allowing for between-
study comparison of each factor. However, there were 11 studies (providing 8 distinct samples) that compared levels of
68 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Table 1
Coded variables with operationalization.

Variable Operationalization

Study characteristics
Publication type Published (peer-reviewed articles, books); Unpublished (conference publication,
dissertation/thesis, unpublished manuscript)
Target population Universal; Targeted (teen parent, first-time parent, single parent, specific ethnic group, at-risk,
limited English proficiency, immigrant or migrant, parent substance abuse, parent mental
health, low parent education, low parent literacy, low income, domestic violence,
maltreatment history, maltreatment risk, child with special needs, health factors such as low
birth weight)
Study design Randomized clinical trial, randomized at level of individual; Quasi-experimental trial
randomized at level of home visitor, agency, or geographic unit; Non-randomized comparison
Comparison group Control group; Services as usual; Other active treatment

Implementation factors
Selection: Visitor discipline Paraprofessional or peer; Professional (nursing, education or child development,
psychology/mental health, family studies, social work, multiple disciplines in same study);
Teams with both paraprofessionals and professionals
Selection: Visitor education Years of education
Supervision: Content Administrative, case management; Reflective
Supervision: Observation of visitor Live accompaniment to sessions; Video or audio recording
Supervision: Training Supervisor trained in supervision
Training: Methods Role play; Observation during training; Training case(s) required
Fidelity: Timing Never; One-time; Occasional (twice a year or less); Ongoing
Fidelity: Rater Home visitor; Supervisor; Client; Independent observer such as external evaluators, research
staff, or national office of program
Fidelity: Content Adherence to program content; Quality of home visitation
Organizational coordination Child’s or parent’s school; Social services; Mental health; Medical

Outcomes
Parent knowledge and attitudes Parental knowledge; Parenting attitudes; Parenting self-efficacy; Parenting satisfaction
Positive parenting Positive observed parent-child interactions; Positive self-reported quality of relationship (e.g.,
supportive, accepting); Positive behaviors (e.g., nonviolent discipline, praise, provision of play
materials, reading to child); Parent involvement
Negative parenting Negative observed parent-child interactions (e.g., physical intrusiveness, detachment, negative
affect); Negative behaviors (e.g., verbal aggression, harsh punishment, unsafe practices)
Parental promotion of child health Well-child visits; Immunizations; Safety measures (e.g., car seats, outlet covers)
Maltreatment Parent’s maltreatment behaviors; Child victimization; Reports made to child protective
services; Substantiated reports; Maltreatment risk
Parent functioning Parenting stress; Parent mental health; Parent well-being; Parental substance concern; Parent
health outcomes; Parent health behaviors such as tobacco use during pregnancy and health
care utilization
Family environment Family climate; Domestic violence; Marital quality; Marital interaction; Coparenting
Birth outcomes Birth outcomes such as birth weight, birth complications, gestational age
Child behavior Externalizing; Internalizing; Criminal behavior
Child cognitive/education Educational outcomes such as grades, test scores, teacher ratings; Cognitive functioning
Child health Physical health; Illness; Injury; Physical growth
Child social functioning Social development; Adaptive functioning; Child’s interactions with parent

Outcome characteristics
Source of outcome information Family (Parent; Child; Other family member); Non-family (Home visitor; Teacher; Official
report; Independent rater; Coded video or live observation)
Which parent Mother; Father; Both parents
Match between outcome and curriculum Primary outcome (outcome was targeted in study curriculum); Secondary outcome (outcome
not targeted in curriculum). Curriculum codes include: Parenting skills, behavior, or attitudes;
Parent–child interaction; Child development; Adult health behaviors; Child-related health
behaviors; Social support; Child abuse; Child neglect; Domestic violence; Adult mental health;
Child mental health; Caregiver substance use; Caregiver self-esteem, competence, or
empowerment; Self-sufficiency such as education, job skills, literacy, life skills
Timing Mid-program; End of program; 1- to 6-month follow-up; 1- to 2-year follow-up; Long-term
follow-up (3–16 years)

an implementation factor within a single study. Thus, we were able to examine the role of implementation both between
studies and within studies.

Coding

We coded each study for the study characteristics, implementation factors, and outcomes described in Table 1. We initially
coded based on the information available in each study, as well as any other studies we could locate that described a given
sample. Most studies mentioned only a few aspects of implementation, and we were concerned that some implementation
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 69

factors might have been present in many studies but had not explicitly been described. To address this missing information,
we contacted the national office for each model as well as individual authors of each study. Of the 156 included studies, we
succeeded in obtaining additional implementation details from authors of 139 studies. We attempted to contact the authors
of each study at least three times but were unsuccessful for 17 studies; for 14 of those, the national office of the model
provided some additional information, leaving 3 studies for which we could not obtain any additional information beyond
what was described in the study.

Effect Sizes

We computed standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) effect sizes using the statistics provided in each study, including
means and standard deviations, F tests, t tests, graphical representations of data, and correlations. In cases where multiple
studies reported on the same sample, we used redundant effect sizes that reported on the same measure at the same time
point only once, attributing it to the published version when publication type differed. Because some studies addressed
the same samples as other studies and some studies included multiple samples, we based our analyses at the level of the
sample rather than the level of the study. We included multiple studies reporting on the same sample when they contributed
different outcome measures or data from different time points. There were a total of 1,674 between-study effect sizes and
121 within-study effect sizes across the 97 samples.
We have presented two types of summary effect sizes: unweighted with effect sizes averaged across each sample to
produce a single effect size per sample for each level of analysis; and weighted by number of effect sizes, allowing studies
with more available effect sizes (whether through multiple outcome measures, multiple reporters, multiple points of data
collection, etc.) to contribute more to the estimated effect size.

Analytic Plan

We first evaluated the 18 implementation factors, averaging across multiple effect sizes (outcomes and outcome charac-
teristics) to obtain an aggregate unweighted effect size for each sample. We calculated unweighted effect sizes, effect sizes
weighted by the number of effect sizes per sample (that is, not aggregated), as well as Zcontrast scores for significance testing
(Rosenthal, Rosnow, & Rubin, 2000). Zcontrast evaluates the significance of the difference between implementation groups’
unweighted means. We applied Bonferroni corrections for Zcontrast to address the 18 categorical comparisons, setting the
p-value to .0028, which corresponds to a critical two-tailed z-score of 4.19.
Next, we conducted moderator analyses for study characteristics and for outcome characteristics using strategies
described above. We have presented only unweighted mean effect sizes in the interest of brevity. To account for the four
study moderators and four outcome moderators, we set a Bonferroni-corrected p-value of .00625, corresponding to a critical
two-tailed z-score of 4.00.
Finally, we examined the 11 outcome categories using the above strategies, on their own as well as analyzing them
in relation to implementation factors. For the outcome categories, because we were comparing across all 11 categories
we compared 95% confidence intervals rather than using contrast analyses. We applied Bonferroni corrections for the 11
outcomes times 18 implementation factors (p = .00025, critical value of Zcontrast = 4.71).
For all of the analyses, we set a minimum requirement of 2 models and 3 samples per category to avoid allowing a single
model or sample to bias the findings.

Results

Implementation Factors

Selection. There was no significant difference among paraprofessionals, teams that combined paraprofessionals and profes-
sionals, and professionals in terms of effect size; see Table 2. There was also no significant effect of home visitors’ educational
background on effect size.

Training. Role play during initial home visitor training was associated with higher effect sizes (unweighted d = .21) than
trainings with no role play (d = .12). Requiring practice cases during training had a significant effect on unweighted effect
sizes, but in the opposite direction of prediction. There was no significant effect of direct observation on effect sizes.

Supervision. Reflective supervision yielded a higher mean effect size (d = .21) than supervision addressing only administrative
issues and/or case management (d = .02). Supervision involving observation of home visitors, either live or via recording,
yielded a higher effect size (d = .23) than supervision with no observation (d = .12). Supervisors’ training in supervision also
had an impact, with programs involving training in supervision having a higher effect size (d = .24) than those with no
supervisor training (d = .07).

Fidelity. Timing of fidelity monitoring had a significant relationship to effect size, with one-time or occasional monitoring
having a higher effect size (d = .31) than no fidelity monitoring (d = .11) and, surprisingly, than ongoing fidelity monitoring
70 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Table 2
Unweighted and weighted mean Cohen’s d effect sizes for each implementation factor.

Unweighted (one ES per study) Weighted by #ES Zcontrast

# Models # Samples Total N Mean d d 95% CI Total #ES Mean d

Selection: Background −1.17NS

Paraprofessional/peer 5 38 18,316 .25 (.24) .17, .33 598 .14 (.27)
Combination 3 6 5,515 .15 (.25) −.12, .41 92 .04 (.26)
Professional 8 46 51,142 .17 (.16) .12, .21 959 .12 (.28)
Selection: Education −1.82NS
High School 4 13 154,082 .14 (.10) .08, .20 463 .10 (.21)
Some college/Associates 5 15 6,354 .19 (.19) .09, .30 354 .10 (.26)
Bachelors 5 15 25,380 .17 (.19) .07, .28 271 .17 (.25)
Graduate 2 7 5,986 .09 (.10) .00, .19 136 .08 (.16)
Training: Role play 7.90*
No 4 5 1,440 .12 (.21) −.14, .39 137 .08 (.27)
Yes 9 61 197,637 .21 (.22) .15, .27 1,045 .12 (.27)
Training: Direct observation −2.76NS
No 7 36 21,457 .24 (.25) .15, .32 820 .09 (.20)
Yes 7 25 155,214 .18 (.15) .11, .24 380 .18 (.36)
Training: Practice case −5.22*
No 8 51 193,597 .23 (.25) .16, .30 896 .10 (.22)
Yes 7 19 7,977 .18 (.11) .13, .23 549 .15 (.34)
Supervision: Content 9.35*
Administrative or case management only 4 6 2,466 .02 (.11) −.09, .13 107 .03 (.24)
Reflective 9 72 209,126 .21 (.21) .16, .26 1,432 .12 (.27)
Supervision: Observation 5.73*
No 9 34 28,784 .12 (.17) .06, .18 797 .10 (.29)
Observed live and/or recorded 9 60 192,265 .23 (.23) .18, .29 877 .14 (.26)
Supervision: Trained in supervision 7.22*
No 6 16 13,276 .07 (.12) .01, .13 304 .07 (.23)
Yes 8 50 163,619 .24 (.22) .18, .31 888 .13 (.29)
Fidelity: Timing 6.02*
None 3 5 5,314 .11 (.24) −.18, .41 81 .05 (.29)
One-time or occasional 6 25 15,336 .31 (.25) .20, .41 322 .18 (.36)
Ongoing 9 52 190,893 .15 (.17) .11, .20 1,189 .11 (.24)
Fidelity: Rated by home visitor −1.54NS
No home visitor 8 33 19,409 .27 (.24) .19, .36 547 .14 (.27)
Home visitor (with or without others) 9 46 188,489 .14 (.17) .09, .19 986 .10 (.27)
Fidelity: Rated by supervisor .38NS
No supervisor 8 39 24,432 .20 (.23) .12, .27 758 .11 (.23)
Supervisor (with or without others) 8 38 181,771 .21 (.20) .15, .28 774 .13 (.31)
Fidelity: Rated by client −2.79NS
No client 8 46 22,579 .23 (.24) .16, .30 847 .13 (.29)
Client (with or without others) 7 32 165,326 .18 (.18) .12, .25 698 .11 (.25)
Fidelity: Rated by independent observer 4.84*
No independent 7 26 159,631 .16 (.16) .09, .22 646 .11 (.25)
Independent (with or without others) 9 55 47,639 .22 (.23) .16, .28 964 .12 (.28)
Fidelity: Type of rating 8.03*
Content Only 5 13 5,454 .11 (.18) .00, .21 221 .16 (.36)
Quality (with or without Content) 9 65 201,841 .22 (.21) .17, .27 1,290 .12 (.25)
Organizational: School 3.23NS
No 7 38 46,907 .12 (.14) .07, .16 1,011 .10 (.27)
Yes 5 37 167,988 .24 (.25) .16, .33 502 .15 (.29)
Organizational: Social services −.51NS
No 8 31 17,889 .15 (.19) .08, .22 902 .10 (.28)
Yes 7 28 162,671 .15 (.21) .07, .23 430 .11 (.26)
Organizational: Mental health −2.95NS
No 9 49 49,149 .16 (.21) .10, .22 1,092 .10 (.28)
Yes 6 23 160,995 .16 (.20) .07, .24 273 .09 (.21)
Organizational: Medical 1.55NS
No 7 28 8,363 .13 (.19) .06, .20 654 .11 (.31)
Yes 7 39 181,314 .14 (.18) .08, .20 800 .10 (.24)
*
p < .0028.

(d = .15). Studies with fidelity ratings by independent observers such as external evaluators, research staff, or the national
office of the program (d = .22) had significantly higher effect sizes than those that did not have independent fidelity ratings
(d = .16). There were no significant effects for fidelity monitoring by home visitors, supervisors, or clients. Fidelity monitoring
addressing home visitors’ quality showed a higher mean effect size (d = .22) than monitoring that addressed only content
(d = .11).
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 71

Table 3
Moderator analyses of study characteristics.

# Models # Samples Total #ES Total N Unweighted mean d Zcontrast

95% CI

Publication type Z = 3.97NS

Published (peer-reviewed article, 9 71 1,263 66,087 .19 (.22) .13, .24
book)
Unpublished (report, dissertation, 7 34 411 161,592 .18 (.22) .10, .25
unpublished manuscript,
presentation)
Target population Z = 6.29*
Universal program 4 20 283 15,428 .18 (.18) .09, .26
Targeted based on risk factor(s) 8 73 1,391 204,555 .20 (.22) .15, .25
Study design Z = −3.32NS
Quasi-experimental or 8 52 416 203,886 .23 (.25) .16, .30
Non-randomized
Randomized clinical trial 9 41 1,258 16,097 .15 (.15) .10, .20
Comparison group Z = 6.06*
Control 7 59 1,133 200,422 .20 (.18) .15, .24
Services as Usual 7 23 250 19,087 .17 (.23) .07, .27
Other Active Treatment 7 14 291 5,183 .20 (.30) .03, .37
*
p < .00625.

Organizational. There were no significant effects of ties to school, social service, mental health, or medical systems.

Moderator Analyses: Study Characteristics

Publication Type. As shown in Table 3, the unweighted effect size for published journal articles and books was equivalent
to unpublished manuscripts, reports, dissertations, and presentations. Although publication bias is a major concern in most
meta-analyses, the large number of unpublished studies, particularly reports, in the home visiting literature makes any
publication bias highly unlikely.

Target Population. We examined whether family risk impacted effect sizes by comparing universal programs to programs that
targeted families based on one or more risk factors. Targeted programs had a larger effect (d = .20) than universal programs
(d = .18).

Study Design. Contrast analyses indicated that randomized studies did not significantly differ from non-randomized or
quasi-experimental studies.

Comparison Group. As shown in Table 3, different comparison conditions produced significantly different effect sizes. That is,
treatment groups who were compared to a group that received another active treatment (d = .20) or to a group that received
no special services (true controls; d = .20) had higher effect sizes than those compared to services as usual (d = .17).

Moderator Analyses: Outcome Characteristics

Next we examined methodological moderators, as depicted in Table 4. Effect sizes for outcomes reported by non-family
members (including home visitors, teachers, official reports, and independent observers) did not significantly differ from
outcomes reported by family members. Effect sizes were significantly higher for mother-related (d = .18) and father-related
(d = .15) outcomes than for outcomes related to both parents (d = .09). Consistent with expectation, outcomes that had been
a target of the intervention showed significantly higher effect sizes (d = .19) than secondary outcomes (d = .16). There was
no significant impact of timing of outcome measurement on effect sizes.

Outcomes

Next we examined effect sizes for different parent and child outcomes. Table 5 presents overall effect sizes for each of the
11 outcome types. Based on comparison of 95% confidence intervals, positive parenting had larger effect sizes than parent
functioning, child health, and child social functioning. Child cognitive functioning/education had larger effect sizes than
parent functioning and child health.

Analyses of Implementation by Outcome

We examined the role of implementation factors for each outcome type. We first examined whether outcomes were
primary (that is, specifically targeted by the intervention) or secondary (not targeted by the intervention), but there were
72 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Table 4
Moderator analyses of outcome characteristics.

# Models # Samples Total #ES Total N Unweighted Mean d Zcontrast

95% CI

Reporter of outcome Z = 3.42NS

Family 9 51 931 39,522 .14 (.28) .06, .22
Non-family 9 73 726 210,362 .19 (.21) .14, .24
Which parent’s behavior Z = −5.68*
Mother 9 56 846 53,413 .18 (.25) .11, .25
Mother & father 4 9 43 22,577 .09 (.22) −.08, .26
Father 5 9 71 2,547 .15 (.20) −.01, .30
Match between outcome and curriculum Z = 8.96*
Primary 9 93 1,627 219,980 .19 (.22) .15, .23
Secondary 5 9 47 23,821 .16 (.21) .00, .32
Timing of outcome measurement Z = −2.68NS
Mid-program 9 57 803 177,522 .16 (.24) .10, .23
End of program 9 32 393 36,012 .15 (.18) .09, .22
1–6 months post 3 5 83 352 .11 (.20) −.14, .36
1–2 years post 6 20 112 12,020 .20 (.17) .12, .28
Long-term follow-up 6 26 283 21,032 .20 (.21) .12, .29
*
p < .00625.

Table 5
Effect size by outcome.

# Models # Samples Total #ES Total N Unweighted mean d 95% CI

Parenting knowledge or attitude 8 27 138 7,733 .21 (.30) .09, .33

Positive parenting 6 39 241 34,025 .26 (.40) .13, .39
Negative parenting 5 14 87 9,922 .11 (.07) .07, .15
Parent promotion of child health 6 19 76 32,630 .14 (.17) .06, .22
Maltreatment 5 19 137 157,462 .22 (.49) −.02, .45
Parent functioning 9 38 239 29,342 .06 (.16) .01, .12
Family relationships and environment 6 20 154 7,995 .06 (.16) −.02, .13
Birth outcomes 3 15 51 17,991 .08 (.20) −.03, .19
Child health 5 14 43 30,156 .03 (.10) −.03, .09
Child behavior 6 17 98 11,053 .05 (.19) −.04, .15
Child cognitive/education 7 51 312 26,652 .19 (.23) .12, .25
Child social functioning 7 26 98 12,480 .07 (.14) .01, .12

not enough studies using secondary outcomes to allow analysis. Instead, we focused on separate outcome types. Table 6
depicts significant Zcontrast scores with mean effect sizes, non-significant Zcontrast scores, and analyses that we did not run
because there were insufficient samples (<3) or models (<2) for a group. In most cases, higher levels of implementation
were associated with improved outcomes. Implementation factors seemed particularly relevant for maltreatment, with five
implementation factors significantly influencing maltreatment outcomes.

Within-Study Comparisons

Eight samples from 11 studies compared levels of one or more implementation factors within a study, with a total
of 121 effect sizes; see Table 7. Two of the implementation factors, fidelity and selection, had data for at least 2 models
and 3 different samples, our minimum criteria for analysis. For studies that compared different levels of fidelity, the mean
unweighted effect size was d = .30, with increasing levels of fidelity related to greater improvements in outcomes. For studies
that compared selection in terms of home visitors from different backgrounds, the mean unweighted effect size was d = .21,
with professional home visitors showing larger outcomes than paraprofessional home visitors.

Discussion

In the current study, we set out to perform a systematic evaluation of 18 implementation factors hypothesized to play a
crucial role in determining the individual and/or family-level effectiveness of home visitation programs targeting families
with children under the age of 5. We also performed moderator analyses to determine whether a variety of study and
outcome characteristics had a significant impact on program effectiveness. Results from the meta-analysis indicated that
several implementation factors, including the type of training and supervision that home visitors received, as well as the
timing and type of fidelity monitoring performed, were associated with statistically significantly differences in program
effectiveness.
In terms of the type of training home visitors received, we found that the inclusion of role plays significantly increased
overall program effectiveness relative to trainings that did not provide role play opportunities. These results were not
Table 6
Outcome by implementation analyses.
Parenting Positive Negative Parent Maltxt Parent Family envi- Birth Child Child cogni- Child health Child social
knowledge parenting parenting promotion functioning ronment behavior tive/education
of child
health

K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Selection
Background NS NS – NS – NS NS NS NS NS – NS
Education NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Training
Role play – – – – – NS – – – N .19, Y .21* – –
Observation NS NS NS NS N .07, Y .38* NS NS – NS NS – NS
Case NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS N .22, Y .16* – NS

Supervision
Content N .06, Y .26* – – – – NS NS – – – – –
Observation NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Trained sup NS NS – NS NS NS NS – NS N .01, Y .25* NS NS

Fidelity
Timing 1/occ .13, 1/occ .52, – NS NS NS NS – – NS – NS
ongoing .26* ongoing .23*
*
HV NS NS NS NS N .08, Y .30 NS NS – – NS – NS
Supervisor NS NS NS NS N .03, Y .37* NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Client NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Independent NS NS NS NS N .08, Y .30* NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Type rating NS N .23, Y .30* – – N .03, Y .27* NS NS NS NS NS – NS

Organizational
School NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS – NS – NS
Social NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS – NS
Mental health NS NS NS NS NS NS NS – – NS – –
Medical NS NS NS NS NS NS NS – NS NS NS NS
NS: non-significant; – did not run analysis because fewer than 2 models or 3 samples in a group.
*
p < .00025.

73
74 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Table 7
Within-study comparisons of implementation factors.

# Models # Samples Total N Unweighted mean d # ES Weighted mean d

Fidelity 3 4 11,715 .30 (.22) 62 .19 (.27)

Supervision 1 1 1,153 – 7 –
Selection 2 3 532 .21 (.14) 40 .12 (.19)
Training 1 1 10,865 – 2 –
Organizational 2 2 10,813 – 10 –

surprising since role playing has, for a number of years, been recognized as an effective means of imparting the knowledge
and skills necessary to carry out EBPs in the health care and education fields (Berkhof, Jolanda van Rijssen, Schellart, Anema,
& van der Beek, 2011; Joyce & Showers, 2002). From a program effectiveness standpoint, the inclusion of a role playing
component into home visitation training likely offers trainees an opportunity to practice the skills they are in the process
of acquiring in a safe and supportive environment. Feedback obtained during the role playing process may bolster trainees’
confidence to implement the program in the field, which, we would hypothesize, would lead to greater overall program
effectiveness.
Interestingly, although the inclusion of role playing into training was associated with greater program effectiveness, the
requirement that trainees complete a practice case was actually associated with reduced program effectiveness. While these
results may appear to contradict the ability-to-practice benefits derived from role playing, they may suggest that asking some
trainees to hone their skills on actual families may undermine their ability to confidently deliver the program in an effective
manner. It may be case that trainees view the practice case situation as more anxiety provoking than role playing, in which
case trainees who are unsure of their abilities may need more role playing scenarios before tackling a practice case.
In addition to role playing during training, supervision was found to be a key aspect of determining a program’s effec-
tiveness. Consistent with previous studies (Miller, Yahne, Moyers, Martinez, & Pirritano, 2004; Sholomskas et al., 2005), the
inclusion of a reflective supervision component into a program’s implementation resulted in greater program effectiveness
relative to supervision involving only administrative issues and/or case management. By exploring the thoughts, experiences,
and feelings associated with providing home visitation services to families, reflective supervision can help a practitioner in
their decision making and problem solving abilities, all the while providing emotional support to help manage stress levels
(Gatti, Watson, & Siegel, 2011). Reflective supervision is also designed to provide home visitors with a model for listening
and providing emotional support to families. In other words, as a result of being heard and supported by a supervisor, it is
thought that the practitioner can themselves better listen and provide support to the families they serve (Heffron, Ivins, &
Weston, 2005). Of course, a supervisor’s skills in providing reflective supervision are dependent on the training they receive
and the ability they have to observe a practitioner’s visits with families. Thus, it is not surprising that we found that programs
which trained supervisors and offered supervisors the ability to observe home visitors had significantly greater program
effects than programs that did not provide these opportunities. What we were unable to examine in the current study was
the length of time home visitors received supervision. While there is considerable variability in supervision length across
programs, future studies may find it beneficial to determine whether greater levels of supervision are indeed associated
with greater levels of program effectiveness.
Closely linked to supervision, we found significant program effectiveness differences associated with the type of fidelity
monitoring programs employed. Not surprisingly, one-time or occasional fidelity monitoring was associated with greater
program effectiveness than programs without fidelity monitoring. This is consistent with a growing body of evidence that
suggests that a program’s intended outcomes are unlikely to be achieved if treatment fidelity is not monitored and fidelity
levels are not high (see Borrelli, 2011 for a review). Contrary to our expectations, however, program effectiveness associated
with ongoing fidelity monitoring was significantly less than effectiveness associated with one-time or occasional monitoring.
What this may suggest is that the quality of the fidelity monitoring is a more important factor to consider than the sheer
volume. Consistent with this hypothesized explanation, we found that fidelity monitoring addressing the quality of a home
visitor’s delivery of the program was associated with greater program effects than monitoring focused solely on content
delivery. Finally, our results point to the importance of having independent raters of program fidelity. Supervisors or others
who have ongoing relationships with home visitors may provide a biased perspective on adherence to the model and, in the
process, may inadvertently sustain ineffective practice of the program.
When we examined moderating factors of program effectiveness, we found that published and unpublished studies did
not significantly differ from one another in effect size, nor did study design types (randomized versus non-randomized
studies). We did find, however, that those programs targeting families with one or more risk factors had significantly greater
effect sizes than universal programs. One obvious explanation for this finding is that a targeted approach to enrolling families
allows for a larger pool of families at greatest need of program resources (Daro & McCurdy, 1994). Secondly, there may have
been greater levels of attrition in targeted intervention programs, which may have resulted in a selection bias whereby only
those families who were most motivated to affect change remained in the program. Indeed while a number of studies find
that high risk families are more difficult to engage in home visitation services (Josten, Mullett, Savik, Campbell, & Vincent,
1995; Osofsky, Culp, & Ware, 1988), those who do remain involved evidence greater positive changes than low risk families
(Olds, Holmberg, et al., 2014).
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 75

Our analyses also focused on program outcomes. We found the greatest program effects in increasing positive parenting
and reducing likelihood of maltreatment. Furthermore, implementation factors such as supervision and fidelity monitoring,
were critical components in bringing about these outcomes, particularly maltreatment outcomes. These results are to be
expected given that the majority of programs investigated primarily focus their attention on parenting and maltreatment.
In comparison to parenting effects, programs investigated were significantly less impactful in affecting children’s health
and behavior. These results may suggest that longitudinal follow-up studies are necessary to detect the benefits of home
visitation for children (Olds, Kitzman, et al., 2014).
The current study had several strengths. First, the meta-analysis performed incorporated both published and unpublished
studies. A commonly noted problem with collecting the available evidence on a particular topic for the purposes of a meta-
analysis is what Rosenthal (1979) referred to as the “file drawer problem.” In the “file drawer problem” the magnitude of
an effect can be overestimated when researchers rely solely on published studies, which are more likely than unpublished
studies to report statistically significant effect sizes. In order to address this issue, we made a concerted effort to obtain and
include in the meta-analysis as many unpublished reports as possible. Furthermore, we were able, for a large percentage
of studies included in the meta-analysis, to contact study authors for additional information on implementation factors
examined in their investigations. Thus, as a result of these two processes described above, we were able to obtain the most
informed and complete understanding of the impact of implementation factors in home visitation programs’ effectiveness.
As the development and evaluation of evidence-based home visitation programs progresses, more and more agencies
and practitioners will, for good reason, look to implement these programs with their clients. Results from the current study
suggest that while these programs have proven success in affecting change in families, the manner in which they are imple-
mented plays a crucial role in determining whether success can be replicated. Thus, being mindful of these implementation
factors in delivering a home visitation program has the potential to improve the overall effectiveness of these programs at
local, state, and national levels.

References

Alonso-Marsden, S., Dodge, K. A., O’Donnell, K. J., Murphy, R. A., Sato, J. M., & Christopoulos, C. (2013). Family risk as a predictor of initial engagement and
follow-through in a universal nurse home visiting program to prevent child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(8), 555–565.
Astuto, J., & Allen, L. (2009). Home visitation and young children: An approach worth investing in? Social Policy Report, XXII(IV), 3–21.
Avellar, S., Paulsell, D., Sama-Miller, E., Del Grosso, P., Akers, L., & Kleinman, R. (2014). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary.
Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Berkel, C., Mauricio, A. M., Schoenfelder, E., & Sandler, I. N. (2010). Putting the pieces together: An integrated model of program implementation. Prevention
Science, 12, 23–33.
Berkhof, M., Jolanda van Rijssen, H., Schellart, A. J. M., Anema, J. R., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Effective training strategies for teaching communication
skills to physicians: An overview of systematic reviews. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 152–162.
Borrelli, B. (2011). The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71,
S52–S63.
Chaffin, M., Hecht, D., Bard, D., Silovsky, J. F., & Beasley, W. H. (2012). A statewide trial of the SafeCare home-based services model with parents in child
protective services. Pediatrics, 129, 509–515.
Chambless, D. L., Baker, M., Baucom, D. H., Beutler, L. E., Calhoun, K. S., Crits-Cristoph, P., Daiuto, A., DeRubeis, R., Detweiler, J., Haaga, D. A. F., Johnson, S. B.,
McCurry, S., Mueser, K. T., Pope, K. S., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Stickle, T., Williams, D. A., & Woody, S. R. (1998). Update on empirically validated
therapies. II. The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 3–16.
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18.
Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., Baker, B., Johnson, B., Woody, S. R., Sue, S., Beutler, L.,
Williams, D. A., & McCurry, S. (1996). An update on empirically validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5–18.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 409–438.
Cohen, J. A., Berliner, L., & Mannarino, A. P. (2000). Treating traumatized children: A research review and synthesis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 29–46.
Daro, D., & McCurdy, K. (1994). Preventing child abuse and neglect: Programmatic interventions. Child Welfare, 73, 405–430.
Duggan, A., Caldera, D., Rodriguez, K., Burrell, L., Rohde, C., & Crowne, S. S. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 31, 801–827.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors
affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.
Filene, J. H., Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., & Cachat, P. (2013). Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics,
132(Suppl. 2), S100–S109.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).
Gatti, S. N., Watson, C. L., & Siegel, C. F. (2011). Step back and consider: Learning from reflective practice in infant mental health. Young Exceptional Children,
14, 32–45.
Health Resources and Services Administration. (2015). The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program: Partnering with parents to help
children succeed.. Retrieved from mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/homevisiting/programbrief.pdf
Heffron, M. C., Ivins, B., & Weston, D. R. (2005). Finding an authentic voice use of self: Essential learning processes for relationship-based work. Infants &
Young Children, 18, 323–336.
Josten, L. E., Mullett, S. E., Savik, K., Campbell, R., & Vincent, P. (1995). Client characteristics associated with not keeping appointments for public health
nursing home visits. Public Health Nursing, 12, 305–311.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F. N., Steele, B. F., Droegemuller, W., & Silver, H. K. (1962). The battered child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association,
181, 17–24.
Kendrick, D., Elkan, R., Hewitt, M., Dewey, M., Blair, M., Robinson, J., Williams, D., & Brummell, K. (2000). Does home visiting improve parenting and the
quality of the home environment? A systematic review and meta analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 82, 443–451.
Kitzman, H. J., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Tatelbaum, R., McConnochie, K. M., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., Shaver, D., Engelhardt, K.,
James, D., & Barnard, K. (1997). Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated
childbearing: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 644–652.
76 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

Metz, A., Naoom, S. F., Halle, T., & Bartley, L. (2015). An integrated stage-based framework for implementation of early childhood programs and systems (OPRE
Research Brief OPRE 2015-48). Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
Miller, W., Yahne, C., Moyers, T., Martinez, J., & Pirritano, M. (2004). A randomized trial of methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1050–1062.
Nievar, M. A., Van Egeren, L. A., & Pollard, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of home visiting programs: Moderators of improvements in maternal behavior. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 31, 499–520.
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation.
Pediatrics, 78, 65–78.
Olds, D. L., Holmberg, J. R., Donelan-McCall, N., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., & Robinson, J. (2014). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by
nurses on children: Age-six and nine follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 114–121.
Olds, D. L., & Kitzman, H. J. (1993). Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children, 3, 53–92.
Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H. J., Knudtson, M. D., Anson, E., Smith, J. A., & Cole, R. (2014). Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality results
of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 800–806.
Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettit, L. M., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Ng, R. K., Sheff, K. L., Korfmacher, J., Hiatt, S., & Talmi, A. (2002). Home
visiting by paraprofessional and by nurses: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110, 486–496.
Osofsky, J. D., Culp, A. M., & Ware, L. M. (1988). Intervention challenges with adolescent mothers and their infants. Psychiatry, 51, 236–241.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer” problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge University Press.
Sholomskas, D. E., Syracuse-Siewert, G., Rounsaville, B. J., Ball, S. A., Nuro, K. F., & Carroll, K. M. (2005). We don’t train in vain: A dissemination trial of three
strategies of training clinicians in cognitive-behavioral therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 106–115.
Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young
children. Child Development, 75(5), 1435–1456.
Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. (1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically validated psychological
treatments. The Clinical Psychologist, 48, 3–23.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Children’s Bureau (2015). Child Maltreatment,. Available from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/
statistics-research/child-maltreatment

Further reading1

*
Akai, C. E., Guttentag, C. L., Baggett, K. M., Noria, C. C., & The Centers for the Prevention of Child Neglect. (2008). Enhancing parenting practices of at-risk
mothers. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29(3), 223–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10935-008-0134-z
*
Albritton, S., Klotz, J., & Roberson, T. (2003). Parents as Teachers: Advancing parent involvement in a child’s education. Biloxi, MS: Paper presented at the Mid
South educational researcher association’s annual meeting.
*
Albritton, S., Klotz, J., & Roberson, T. (2004). The effects of participating in a Parents as Teachers program on parental involvement in the learning process
at school and in the home. E-Journal of Teaching & Learning in Diverse Settings, 1(2), 189–208.
*
Arnold, J. M. (2012). The Parents as Teachers program in Missouri and the resulting difference in academic effects for fifth- and sixth-grade students (Doctoral
dissertation). Liberty University.
*
Bair-Merritt, M. H., Jennings, J. M., Chen, R., Burrell, L., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., & Duggan, A. K. (2010). Reducing maternal intimate partner violence after
the birth of a child: A randomized controlled trial of the Hawaii Healthy Start Home Visitation Program. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
164(1), 16–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.237
*
Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998). The effects of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) on children’s
school performance at the end of the program and one year later. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(4), 571–588.
*
Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY). The Future of Children, 9(1),
116–133.
*
Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Program effectiveness and parent involvement in HIPPY. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents making
a difference: International research on the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program (pp. 147–168). Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes
Press.
*
Baker, A. J. L., & Piotrowski, C. S. (1996). Parents and children through the school years: The effects of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters.
New York, NY: NCJW Center for the Child.
*
BarHava-Monteith, G., Harré, N., & Field, J. (2003a). An evaluation of a HIPPY early intervention program: Can parents benefit too? In M. Westheimer (Ed.),
Parents making a difference: International research on the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program (pp. 193–206). Jerusalem,
Israel: Magnes Press.
*
BarHava-Monteith, G., Harré, N., & Field, J. (2003b). A promising start: An evaluation of the HIPPY program in New Zealand. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents
making a difference: International research on the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program (pp. 102–116). Jerusalem, Israel:
Magnes Press.
*
Barhava-Mònteith, G., Harré, N., & Field, J. (1999). A promising start: An evaluation of the HIPPY program in New Zealand. Early Child Development and
Care, 159(1), 145–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443991590112
*
Barlow, A., Mullany, B., Neault, N., Goklish, N., Billy, T., Hastings, R., Lorenzo, S., Kee, C., Lake, K., Redmond, C., Carter, A., & Walkup, J. T. (2015).
Paraprofessional-delivered home-visiting intervention for American Indian teen mothers and children: 3-year outcomes from a randomized controlled
trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(2), 154–162.
*
Barlow, A., Varipatis-Baker, E., Speakman, K., Ginsburg, G., Friberg, I., Goklish, N., Cowboy, B., Fields, P., Hastings, R., Pan, W., Reid, R., Santosham, M.,
& Walkup, J. (2006). Home-visiting intervention to improve child care among American Indian adolescent mothers: A randomized trial. Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 1101–1107.
*
Bill, D. E., Hock-Long, L., Mesure, M., Bryer, P., & Zambrano, N. (2009). Healthy Start Programa Madrina: A promotora home visiting outreach and education
program to improve perinatal health among Latina pregnant women. The Health Educator, 41(2), 68–76.
*
Boyce, L., Innocenti, M. S., Roggman, L. A., Norman, V. K. J., & Ortiz, E. (2010). Telling stories and making books: Evidence for an intervention to help parents
in Migrant Head Start families support their children’s language and literacy. Early Education & Development, 21(3), 343–371.
*
Bradley, R. H., & Gilkey, B. (2002). The impact of the Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) on school performance in 3rd and 6th
grades. Early Education & Development, 13(3), 301–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1303 4
*
Bradley, R. H., & Gilkey, B. (2003). The impact of HIPPY on school performance in third and sixth grades. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents making a difference:
International research on the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program (pp. 91–101). Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press.

1
References marked with an asterisk indicate inclusion in the meta-analysis.
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 77

*
Brown, A. L., & Lee, J. (2014). School performance in elementary, middle, and high school: A comparison of children based on HIPPY participation during
the preschool years. School Community Journal, 24(2), 83–106.
*
Brown, A. L., & Lee, J. (2015). Evaluating the efficacy of children participating in Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters and Head Start.
Journal of Early Childhood Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15577006
*
Caldera, D., Burrell, L., Rodriguez, K., Crowne, S. S., Rohde, C., & Duggan, A. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child
health and development. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31(8), 829–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.008
*
Caughy, M. O. B., Huang, K.-Y., Miller, T., & Genevro, J. L. (2004). The effects of the Healthy Steps for Young Children Program: Results from observations of
parenting and child development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), 611–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.004
*
Caughy, M. O. B., Miller, T. L., Genevro, J. L., Huang, K.-Y., & Nautiyal, C. (2003). The effects of Healthy Steps on discipline strategies of parents of young
children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(5), 517–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.08.004
*
Chaffin, M., Bard, D., Bigfoot, D. S., & Maher, E. J. (2012). Is a structured, manualized, evidence-based treatment protocol culturally competent and equiva-
lently effective among American Indian parents in child welfare? Child Maltreatment, 17(3), 242–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559512457239
*
Chaffin, M., Hecht, D., Bard, D., Silovsky, J. F., & Beasley, W. H. (2012). A statewide trial of the SafeCare home-based services model with parents in Child
Protective Services. Pediatrics, 129(3), 509–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1840
*
Chambliss, J. W. (1998). An experimental trial of a home visiting program to prevent child maltreatment (Doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University.
Dissertation Abstracts International 61 (03B), 1628 (AAI9967277).
*
Chatterji, S. (2014). The long-term effect of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program on academic achievement: Evidence from
a school district in Texas (Undergraduate honors thesis). Stanford University.
*
Cooper, B. P., Scharff, D. P., Elliott, M., & Rotter, B. (2013). The impact of SLHS program on perinatal indicators. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 17(6),
1158–1165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1101-0
*
Coughlin, R. L., Kushman, E. K., Copeland, G. E., & Wilson, M. L. (2013). Pregnancy and birth outcome improvements for American Indi-
ans in the Healthy Start project of the Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, 1998–2008. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 17(6), 1005–1015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1075-y
*
Daro, D., McCurdy, K., & Harding, K. (1998). The role of home visiting in preventing child abuse: An evaluation of the Hawaii Healthy Start Program. Chicago,
IL: Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
*
DeSocio, J. E., Holland, M. L., Kitzman, H. J., & Cole, R. E. (2013). The influence of social-developmental context and nurse visitation intervention on
self-agency change in unmarried adolescent mothers. Research in Nursing & Health, 36(2), 158–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.21525
*
Dieterich, S. E., Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., & Hebert, H. M. (2006). Impact of community mentors on maternal behaviors and child outcomes.
Journal of Early Intervention, 28(2), 111–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105381510602800203
*
Donna, D., Klagholz, Ph. D., & Associates, L. L. C. (2005). Healthy Families District of Columbia: Starting early starting smart: Final report. Great Falls, VA: Author.
*
Drazen, S. M., & Haust, M. (1993). Raising reading readiness in low-income children by parent education. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Paper presented at the
101st annual convention of the American Psychological Association.
*
Drotar, D., Robinson, J., Jeavons, L., & Kirchner, H. L. (2009). A randomized, controlled evaluation of early intervention: The Born to Learn curriculum. Child:
Care, Health, and Development, 35(5), 643–649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00915.x
*
Duggan, A., Caldera, D., Rodriguez, K., Burrell, L., Rohde, C., & Crowne, S. S. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 31(8), 801–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.011
*
Duggan, A., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., McFarlane, E., Windham, A., & Sia, C. (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to
prevent child abuse: Impact in reducing parental risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28(6), 623–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.008
*
Duggan, A., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., Windham, A., & Sia, C. (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program: Impact
in preventing child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28(6), 597–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.007
*
Duggan, A. K., Berlin, L. J., Cassidy, J., Burrell, L., & Tandon, S. D. (2009). Examining maternal depression and attachment insecurity as mod-
erators of the impacts of home visiting for at-risk mothers and infants. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 788–799.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015709
*
Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Rosenberg, L. A., Buchbinder, S. B., & Sia, C. C. J. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii’s
Healthy Start program. The Future of Children, 9(1), 66–90.
*
DuMont, K., Kirkland, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Ehrhard-Dietzel, S., Rodriguez, M. L., Lee, E., Layne, C., & Greene, R. (2010). A randomized trial of Healthy
Families New York (HFNY): Does home visiting prevent child maltreatment? Rensselaer, NY: New York State Office of Children & Family Services/Albany,
NY: The University of Albany, State University of New York.
*
DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., Rodriguez, M., & Dorabawila, V. (2008). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized
trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(3), 295–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.07.007
*
DuMont, K., Rodriguez, M. L., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Walden, N., Kirkland, K., Greene, R., & Lee, E. (2008). Effects of Healthy Families New York on maternal
behaviors: Observational assessments of positive and negative parenting. Rensselaer, NY: New York State Office of Children and Family Services.
*
Easterbrooks, M. A., Jacobs, F. H., Bartlett, J. D., Goldberg, J., Contreras, M. M., Kotake, C., Raskin, M., & Chaudhuri, J. H. (2012). Initial findings from a randomized,
controlled trial of Healthy Families Massachusetts: Early program impacts on young mothers’ parenting. Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States.
*
Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. (2010). Long-term
effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 9–15.
*
El-Kamary, S. S., Higman, S. M., Fuddy, L., McFarlane, E., Sia, C., & Duggan, A. K. (2004). Hawaii’s healthy start home visiting program: Determinants and
impact of rapid repeat birth. Pediatrics, 114(3), e317–e326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0618
*
Elicker, J., Wen, X., Kwon, K.-A., & Sprague, J. B. (2013). Early Head Start relationships: Association with program outcomes. Early Education & Development,
24(4), 491–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.695519
*
Falconer, M. K., Clark, M. H., & Parris, D. (2011). Validity in an evaluation of Healthy Families Florida—A program to prevent child abuse and neglect. Children
and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.014
*
Galano, J., Credle, W., Perry, D., Berg, S. W., Huntington, L., & Stief, E. (2001). Developing and sustaining a successful community prevention initiative: The
Hampton Healthy Families Partnership. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(4), 495–509.
*
Garcia, M. G. (2006). The impact of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) program on reading, mathematics, and language achievement
of Hispanic English language learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas.
*
Gershater-Molko, R. M. (1999). A comprehensive evaluation of Project SafeCare: Health, safety, bonding, and recidivism in families reported for, and at-
risk for, child maltreatment, and finishing treatment (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas. Dissertation Abstracts International 62 (10B), 4768
(AAI3029136).
*
Gershater-Molko, R. M., Lutzker, J. R., & Wesch, D. (2002). Using recidivism data to evaluate Project Safecare: Teaching bonding, safety, and health care
skills to parents. Child Maltreatment, 7(3), 277–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559502007003009
*
Gessner, B. D. (2008). The effect of Alaska’s home visitation program for high-risk families on trends in abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(3),
317–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.004
*
Giarratano, G., Harville, E. W., de Mendoza, V. B., Savage, J., & Parent, C. M. (2015). Healthy start: Description of a safety net for perinatal support during
disaster recovery. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(4), 819–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-014-1579-8
*
Gill, S., Greenberg, M. T., Moon, C. A., & Knights, M. V. (2012). Early Head Start intervention effects on child outcomes Unpublished manuscript. Pennsylvania
State University.
78 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

*
Green, B. L., Brekhus, J., Mackin, J. R., Tarte, J. M., Snoddy, A. M., & Warren, J. M. (2007). Healthy Start of Oregon 2005–2006 maltreatment report. Portland,
OR: NPC Research.
*
Green, B. L., Lambarth, C. H., Tarte, J. M., & Snoddy, A. M. (2008). Healthy Start of Oregon, annual report on maltreatment prevention 2006–07. Portland, OR:
NPC Research.
*
Green, B. L., Lambarth, C. H., Tarte, J. M., & Snoddy, A. M. (2009). Oregon’s Healthy Start maltreatment prevention report 2007–08. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
*
Green, B. L., Mackin, J. R., Tarte, J. M., Brekhus, J., & Andrews, A. (2006). Healthy Start of Oregon 2004–2005 status report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
*
Green, B. L., & Tarte, J. M. (2013). Healthy Families Oregon Maltreatment Prevention Report: Program Year 2010–2011. Portland, OR: NPC Research.
*
Green, B. L., Tarte, J. M., Aborn, J. A., & Talkington, A. (2013). Statewide evaluation results 2011–2012: Healthy Start–Healthy Families Oregon. Portland, OR:
NPC Research.
*
Green, B. L., Tarte, J. M., Harrison, P. M., Nygren, M., & Sanders, M. B. (2014). Results from a randomized trial of the Healthy Fam-
ilies Oregon accredited statewide program: Early program impacts on parenting. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 288–298.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.006
*
Guttentag, C. L., Landry, S. H., Williams, J. M., Baggett, K. M., Noria, C. W., Borkowski, J. G., Swank, P. R., Farris, J. R., Crawford, A., Lanzi, R. G., Carta, J. J.,
Warren, S. F., & Ramey, S. L. (2014). “My Baby & Me”: Effects of an early, comprehensive parenting intervention on at-risk mothers and their children.
Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1482–1496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035682
*
Guyer, B., Barth, M., Bishai, D., Caughy, M., Clark, B., Burkom, D., & Tang, C. (2003). Healthy Steps: The first three years: The Healthy Steps for Young Children
program national evaluation. Women’s and Children’s Health Policy Center, Department of Population and Family Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health.
*
Hackett, E. A. M. (2011). A longitudinal study on the achievement of children whose parents participated in a Parents as Teachers program (Doctoral dissertation).
Oakland University. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 75/03(E) (AAI3576683).
*
Harden, B. J., Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., & Vogel, C. (2012). Early Head Start home visitation: The role of implementation in bolstering program benefits.
Journal of Community Psychology, 40(4), 439–455.
*
Holmberg, J., Luckey, D., & Olds, D. (2011). Teacher data for the Denver Year-9 follow-up Unpublished report. U.S. Department of Justice.
*
Howell, E. M., Zimmerman, B., & Closter, E. (1999). Infant mortality prevention in American Indian communities: Northern Plains Healthy Start. Washington,
DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
*
Johns Hopkins University. (2005). Evaluation of the Healthy Families Alaska program: Report to Alaska State Department of Health and Social Services, Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority. Baltimore, MD: Author.
*
Johnson, U. Y., Martinez-Cantu, V., Jacobson, A. L., & Weir, C.-M. (2012). The Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters program’s relationship
with mother and school outcomes. Early Education & Development, 23(5), 713–727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.596002
*
Johnston, B. D., Huebner, C. E., Anderson, M. L., Tyll, L. T., & Thompson, R. S. (2006). Healthy steps in an integrated delivery system: Child and parent
outcomes at 30 months. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160(8), 793–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.8.793
*
Johnston, B. D., Huebner, C. E., Tyll, L. T., Barlow, W. E., & Thompson, R. S. (2004). Expanding developmental and behavioral services for new-
borns in primary care: Effects on parental well-being, practice, and satisfaction. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26(4), 356–366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2003.12.018
*
Jungmann, T., Ziert, Y., Kurtz, V., & Brand, T. (2009). Preventing adverse developmental outcomes and early onset conduct problems through prenatal and
infancy home visitation: The German pilot project “Pro Kind”. European Journal of Developmental Science, 3(3), 292–298.
*
Keim, A. L. M. (1998). Living in different worlds: The efficacy of an intensive home visitation program on increasing social support and improving par-
enting competency of first-time mothers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dissertation Abstracts International 60(1-B), 388
(AAI9839398).
*
Kessler, S. R. (2004). The impact of fidelity on program quality in the Healthy Families America program. Unpublished manuscript.
*
Kessler, S. R., Nixon, A., & Nelson, C. (2008). Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water: A novel way of evaluating outcomes in the Healthy Families
America programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(3), 288–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214008319698
*
King, T. M., Rosenberg, L. A., Fuddy, L., McFarlene, E., Sia, C., & Duggan, A. K. (2005). Prevalence and early identification of language delays among at-risk
three year olds. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(4), 293–303.
*
Kirkland, K., & Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of home visiting services in promoting children’s adjustment in school. Rensselaer, NY:
New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Bureau of Evaluation and Research.
*
Kitzman, H., Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Tatelbaum, R., McConnochie, K. M., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., Shaver, D., Engelhardt, K., James,
D., & Barnard, K. (1997). Effect of prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses on pregnancy outcomes, childhood injuries, and repeated childbearing:
A randomized controlled child. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 644–652.
*
Kitzman, H. J., Olds, D. L., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Anson, E. A., Arcoleo, K. J., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., Henderson, C. R., Jr., & Holmberg, J. R. (2010).
Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial among children at age 12 years. Archives
of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 412–418.
*
Kothari, C. L., Zielinski, R., James, A., Charoth, R. M., & Sweezy, L. d. C. (2014). Improved birth weight for Black infants: Outcomes of a Healthy Start program.
American Journal of Public Health, 104(Suppl. 1), S96–S104. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301359
*
Krysik, J., & LeCroy, C. W. (2007). The evaluation of Healthy Families Arizona. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 34(1–2), 109–127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.06.004
*
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Zucker, T., Crawford, A. D., & Solari, E. F. (2012). The effects of a responsive parenting intervention on parent–child
interactions during shared book reading. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 969–986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026400.supp
*
Landsverk, J., Carrilio, T., Connelly, C. D., Ganger, W. C., Slymen, D. J., Newton, R. R., Leslie, L., & Jones, C. (2002). Healthy Families San Diego Clinical Trial:
Technical report. San Diego, CA: Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego Children’s Hospital and Health Center.
*
LeCroy, & Milligan Associates, I. (2002). Healthy Families Arizona evaluation report 2002. Tucson, AZ: Author.
*
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.036
*
Lee, E., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. D., Lowenfels, A. A., Greene, R., Dorabawila, V., & DuMont, K. A. (2009). Reducing low birth weight through home visitation: A
randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(2), 154–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.029
*
Love, J., Kister, E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., Boller, K., Constantine, J., Vogel, C., Fuligni, A. S., & Brady-Smith, C. (2002). Making
a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Head Start Bureau.
*
Love, J. M., Chazan-Cohen, R., Brooks-Gunn, J., Raikes, H., Vogel, C., & Kisker, E. E. (2012). Beginnings of school readiness in infant/toddler development:
Evidence from Early Head Start. In S. L. Odom, E. P. Pungello, & N. Gardner-Neblett (Eds.), Infants, toddlers, and families in poverty: Research implications
for early child care (pp. 309–332). New York: Guilford.
*
Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Constantine, J., Boller, K., Chazan-Cohen, R., Brady-Smith, C., Fuligni, A. S., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Tarullo, L. B., Schochet,
P. Z., Paulsell, D., & Vogel, C. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs.
Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 885–901.
*
Lutzker, J. R., & Rice, J. M. (1984). Project 12-ways: Measuring outcome of a large in-home service for treatment and prevention of child abuse and neglect.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 8(4), 519–524. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6542822
*
Lutzker, J. R., & Rice, J. M. (1987). Using recidivism data to evaluate Project 12-Ways: An ecobehavioral approach to the treatment and prevention of child
abuse and neglect. Journal of Family Violence, 2(4), 283–290.
 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80 79

*
Matone, M., Curtis, C., Chesnokova, A., Yun, K., Kreider, A., Curtis, M., & Rubin, D. (2013). Evaluation of maternal and child home visitation programs: Lessons
from Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: PolicyLab Center to Bridge Research, Practice and Policy, The Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Research Institute.
*
Matone, M., O’Reilly, A. L. R., Luan, X., Localio, A. R., & Rubin, D. M. (2012). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations for injuries among
infants and children following statewide implementation of a home visitation model. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(9), 1754-1761.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-011-0921-7
*
McCurdy, K. (2001). Can home visitation enhance maternal social support? American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 97–112.
*
McCurdy, K. (2005). The influence of support and stress on maternal attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29(3), 251–268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.12.007
*
McFarlane, E., Burrell, L., Crowne, S., Cluxton-Keller, F., Fuddy, L., Leaf, P. J., & Duggan, A. (2013). Maternal relationship security as a moderator of home
visiting impacts on maternal psychosocial functioning. Prevention Science, 14(1), 25–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0297-y
*
McKelvey, L. M., Burrow, N. A., Balamurugan, A., Whiteside-Mansell, L., & Plummer, P. (2012). Effects of home visiting on adolescent mothers’ parenting
attitudes. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1860–1862. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300934
*
Mejdoubi, J., van den Heijkant, S. C. C. M., van Leerdam, F. J. M., Crone, M., Crijnen, A., & HiraSing, R. A. (2014). Effects of nurse
home visitation on cigarette smoking, pregnancy outcomes and breastfeeding: a randomized controlled trial. Midwifery, 30(6), 688–695.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.006
*
Mejdoubi, J., van den Heijkant, S. C. C. M., van Leerdam, F. J. M., Heymans, M. W., Hirasing, R. A., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2013). Effect of nurse home visits
vs. usual care on reducing intimate partner violence in young high-risk pregnant women: A randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 8(10), e78185.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078185
*
Miller, T. R., Olds, D., Knudtson, M., Luckey, D., Bondy, J., & Stevenson, A. (2011). Return on investment: Nurse and paraprofessional home visitation, Denver
Unpublished report. U.S. Department of Justice.
*
Minkovitz, C., Strobino, D., Hughart, N., Scharfstein, D., Guyer, B., & Healthy Steps Evaluation Team. (2001). Early effects of the Healthy Steps for Young
Children Program. JAMA Pediatrics, 155(4), 470–479.
*
Minkovitz, C. S., Hughart, N., Strobino, D., Scharfstein, D., Grason, H., Hou, W., Miller, T., Bishai, D., Augustyn, M., McLearn, K. T., & Guyer, B. (2003). A
practice-based intervention to enhance quality of care in the first 3 years of life: The Healthy Steps for Young Children Program. The Journal of the
American Medical Association, 290(23), 3081–3091.
*
Minkovitz, C. S., Strobino, D., Mistry, K. B., Scharfstein, D. O., Grason, H., Hou, W., Ialongo, N., & Guyer, B. (2007). Healthy Steps for Young Children: Sustained
results at 5.5 years. Pediatrics, 120(3), e658–668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1205
*
Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Izzo, C., Greene, R., Lee, E., & Lowenfels, A. (2005). Evaluation of Healthy Families New York (HFNY): First year program impacts. Rensselaer,
NY: Office of Children and Family Services, Bureau of Evaluation and Research/Albany, NY: Center for Human Services Research, University at Albany.
*
Nagle, G. A. (2002). Maternal participation, depression and partner violence in a state run child abuse prevention program: Louisiana nurse home visitation,
1999–2002 (Doctoral dissertation). Tulane University. Dissertation Abstracts International 63 (10-B), 210-4590 (AAI3069249).
*
Necoechea, D. M. (2007). Children at-risk for poor school readiness: The effect of an early intervention home visiting program on children and parents (Doctoral
dissertation). University of California Riverside. Dissertation Abstracts International 68(6-A), 2311 (AAI3270449).
*
Nguyen, J. D., Carson, M. L., Parris, K. M., & Place, P. (2003). A comparison pilot study of public health field nursing home visitation program interventions
for pregnant Hispanic adolescents. Public Health Nursing, 20(5), 412–418.
*
Nievar, A. (2008). The impact of HIPPY on attachment and maternal sensitivity Unpublished paper. University of North Texas.
*
Nievar, M. A., Jacobson, A., & Dier, S. (2008). Home visiting for at-risk preschoolers: A successful model for Latino families. Little Rock, Arkansas: Paper presented
at the Annual conference of the national council on family relations.
*
O’Brien, T., Garnett, D. M., & Proctor, K. (2002). Report: Impact of the Parents as Teachers program. Cañon City, CO (Fremont County) school year 1999–2000.
Denver, CO: Center for Human Investment Policy, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver.
*
Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., Powers, J., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects
of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 280(14), 1238–1244.
*
Olds, D. L. (2012). Improving the life chances of vulnerable children and families with prenatal and infancy support of parents: The Nurse–Family
Partnership. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(2), 129–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/in2012a14
*
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation.
Pediatrics, 78, 65–78.
*
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., & Kitzman, H. (1994). Does prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation have enduring effects on quality of parental caregiving
and child health at 25 to 50 months of life? Pediatrics, 93, 89–98.
*
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1986). Improving the delivery of prenatal care and outcomes of pregnancy: A randomized
trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 77, 16–28.
*
Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Tatelbaum, R., & Chamberlin, R. (1988). Improving the life-course development of socially disadvantaged mothers: A
randomized trial of nurse home visitation. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1436–1445.
*
Olds, D. L., Holmberg, J. R., Donelan-McCall, N., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., & Robinson, J. (2014). Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses
on children: Follow-up of a randomized trial at ages 6 and 9 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(2), 114–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3817
*
Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Hanks, C., Bondy, J., & Holmberg, J. (2004). Effects of
nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: Age 6 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1550–1559.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0962
*
Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Holmberg, J., Tutt, R. A., Stevenson, A. J., &
Bondy, J. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2111
*
Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Knudtson, M. D., Anson, E., Smith, J. A., & Cole, R. (2014). Effect of home visiting by nurses on maternal and child mortality: Results
of a 2-decade follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(9), 800–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.472
*
Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H. J., Cole, R. E., Hanks, C. A., Arcoleo, K. J., Anson, E. A., Luckey, D. W., Knudtson, M. D., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Bondy, J., & Stevenson, A. J.
(2010). Enduring effects of prenatal and infancy home visiting by nurses on maternal life course and government spending: Follow-up of a randomized
trial among children at age 12 years. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 419–424.
*
Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., O’Brien, R., Luckey, D. W., Pettitt, L. M., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Ng, R. K., Sheff, K. L., Korfmacher, J., Hiatt, S., & Talmi, A. (2002). Home
visiting by paraprofessionals and by nurses: A randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 110(3), 486–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.3.486
*
Olds, D. L., Robinson, J., Pettitt, L., Luckey, D. W., Holmberg, J., Ng, R. K., Isacks, K., Sheff, K., & Henderson, C. R., Jr. (2004). Effects of home visits by
paraprofessionals and by nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114(6), 1560–1568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0961
*
Owen, M. T., & Mulvihill, B. A. (1994). Benefits of a parent education and support program in the first three years. Family Relations, 43(2), 206–212.
*
Ownbey, M., Ownbey, J., & Cullen, J. (2011). The effects of a Healthy Families home visitation program on rapid and teen repeat births. Child and Adolescent
Social Work Journal, 28(6), 439–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-011-0235-z
*
Pfannenstiel, J. C., Seitz, V., & Zigler, E. (2002). Promoting school readiness: The role of the Parents as Teachers program. NHSA Dialog, 6(1), 71–86.
*
Raikes, H., Green, B. L., Atwater, J., Kisker, E., Constantine, J., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2006). Involvement in Early Head Start home visiting services: Demographic
predictors and relations to child and parent outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 2–24.
*
Raikes, H. H., Roggman, L. A., Peterson, C. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., Chazan-Cohen, R., Zhang, X., & Schiffman, R. F. (2014). Theories of change and outcomes in
home-based Early Head Start programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 574–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.003
80 K.L. Casillas et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 53 (2016) 64–80

*
Rodriguez, M. L., Dumont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. D., Walden, N. J., & Greene, R. (2010). Effects of Healthy Families New York on the promotion of maternal
parenting competencies and the prevention of harsh parenting. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(10), 711–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.004
*
Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., & Cook, G. A. (2009). Keeping kids on track: Impacts of a parenting-focused Early Head Start program on attachment security
and cognitive development. Early Education & Development, 20(6), 920–941. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280903118416
*
Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., Christiansen, K., & Jones, D. (2004). Playing with Daddy: Social toy play, Early Head Start, and developmental
outcomes. Fathering, 2(1), 83–108.
*
Roggman, L. A., & Cook, G. A. (2010). Attachment, aggression, and family risk in a low-income sample. Family Science, 1(3–4), 191–204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2010.567829
*
Rubin, D. M., O’Reilly, A. L., Luan, X., Dai, D., Localio, A. R., & Christian, C. W. (2011). Variation in pregnancy outcomes following statewide implementation of
a prenatal home visitation program. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 165(3), 198–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.221
*
Salihu, H. M., Mbah, A. K., Jeffers, D., Alio, A. P., & Berry, L. (2009). Healthy Start program and feto-infant morbidity outcomes: Evaluation of program
effectiveness. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13(1), 56–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-008-0400-y
*
Samples, F. H. (1995). The impact of a comprehensive early intervention program on social support among Black and White adolescent mothers (Doctoral
dissertation). Cornell University., issertation Abstracts International 56 (07A), 144-2887 (AAI9538807).
*
Sandy, J. M., Anisfeld, E., & Ramirez, E. (2009). Effects of a prenatal intervention on breastfeeding initiation rates in a Latina immigrant sample. Journal of
Human Lactation, 25(4), 404–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0890334409337308
*
Sawyer, M. (2011). Evaluating family home-visiting in South Australia. Adelaide, Australia: Paper presented at the Healthy Development Adelaide Forum on
Family Home-Visiting and Children’s Centres.
*
Sawyer, M. G., Frost, L., Bowering, K., & Lynch, J. (2013). Effectiveness of nurse home-visiting for disadvantaged families: Results of a natural experiment.
BMJ Open, 3, e002720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002720
*
Sawyer, M. G., Pfeiffer, S., Sawyer, A., Bowering, K., Jeffs, D., & Lynch, J. (2014). Effectiveness of nurse home visiting for families in rural South Australia.
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 50(12), 1013–1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpc.12679
*
Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Anson, E., Lorber, M., Cole, R., Olds, D., & Kitzman, H. (2010). Differential effects of a nurse home-visiting intervention on physically
aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 25(1), 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2008.07.011
*
Silovsky, J. F., Bard, D., Chaffin, M., Hecht, D., Burris, L., Owora, A., Beasleya, L., Doughtyb, D., & Lutzker, J. (2011). Prevention of child maltreat-
ment in high-risk rural families: A randomized clinical trial with child welfare outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1435–1444.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.023
*
Stabile, I., & Graham, M. (2000). Florida Panhandle Healthy Start: A randomized trial of prenatal home visitation. Washington, DC: Paper presented at the
Head Start national research conference.
*
Sternberg, A. W. (2001). The impact of the Hampton Healthy Start program on maternal life course development (Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Consortium
for Professional Psychology [Old Dominion University]. Dissertation Abstracts International 62 (03B), 133-1600 (AAI3008217).
*
Taban, N., & Lutzker, J. R. (2001). Consumer evaluation of an ecobehavioral program for prevention and intervention of child maltreatment. Journal of
Family Violence, 16(3), 323–330.
*
Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research. (2015). The Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation-2 (MHFE-2): A randomized controlled trial of a statewide
home visiting program for young parents. Final report to the Children’s Trust of Massachusetts. Medford, MA: Tufts University.
*
Wagner, M., & Spiker, D. (2001). Experiences and outcomes for children and families: Multisite Parents as Teachers evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
http://www.sri.com/policy/cehs/publications/humanpub/patfinal.pdf
*
Wagner, M., Spiker, D., & Linn, M. I. (2002). The effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers program with low-income parents and children. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 22(2), 67–81.
*
Wagner, M. M., & Clayton, S. L. (1999). The Parents as Teachers program: Results from two demonstrations. The Future of Children, 9(1), 91–115.
*
Walkup, J. T., Barlow, A., Mullany, B. C., Pan, W., Goklish, N., Hasting, R., Cowboy, B., Fields, P., Baker, E. V., Speakman, K., Ginsburg, G., & Reid, R. (2009).
Randomized controlled trial of a paraprofessional-delivered in-home intervention for young reservation-based American Indian mothers. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(6), 591–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181a0ab86
*
Wesch, D., & Lutzker, J. R. (1991). A comprehensive 5-year evaluation of Project 12-Ways: An ecobehavioral program for treating and preventing child
abuse and neglect. Journal of Family Violence, 6(1), 17–35.
*
Wheeler, W. H. (1994). A study of the Missouri Parents as Teachers program and its effect on the readiness skills of children entering kindergarten in southwest
Missouri public schools. The University of Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International A55 (11), 3380 (AAI9509536).
*
Williams, S. A. (2005). Healthy Families Florida evaluation report: January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. Miami, FL: Author.
*
Yun, K., Chesnokova, A., Matone, M., Luan, X., Localio, A. R., & Rubin, D. M. (2014). Effect of maternal-child home visitation on pregnancy spacing for
first-time Latina mothers. American Journal of Public Health, 104(Suppl. 1), S152–S158. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301505
*
Zielinski, D. S., Eckenrode, J., & Olds, D. L. (2009). Nurse home visitation and the prevention of child maltreatment: Impact on the timing of official reports.
Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 441–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000248
*
Zigler, E., Pfannenstiel, J. C., & Seitz, V. (2008). The Parents as Teachers program and school success: A replication and extension. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 29(2), 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10935-008-0132-1