7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      What Doesn’t Work for Whom? Exploring Heterogeneity in Responsiveness to the Family Check-Up in Early Childhood Using a Mixture Model Approach

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study applied latent class analysis to a family-centered prevention trial in early childhood to identify subgroups of families with differential responsiveness to the Family Check-Up (FCU) intervention. The sample included 731 families with 2-year-olds randomized to the FCU or control condition and followed through age 5 with yearly follow-up assessments. A two-step mixture model was used to examine whether specific constellations of family characteristics at age 2 (baseline) were related to intervention response across ages 3, 4, and 5. The first step empirically identified latent classes of families based on several family risk and adjustment variables selected on the basis of previous research. The second step modeled the effect of the FCU on longitudinal change in children’s problem behavior in each of the empirically derived latent classes. Results suggested a five-class solution, where a significant intervention effect of moderate-to-large size was observed in one of the five classes—the class characterized by child neglect, legal problems, and parental mental health issues. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the intervention effect was significantly greater in this class of families than in two other classes that were generally less at risk for the development of child disruptive behavior problems, albeit still low-income. Thus findings suggest (a) the FCU is most successful in reducing child problem behavior in more highly distressed, low-income families, and (b) the FCU may have little impact for relatively low-risk, low-income families. Future directions include the development of brief screening process that can triage low-income families into groups that should be targeted for intervention, redirected to other services, monitored prospectively, or left alone.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          Journal
          100894724
          22453
          Prev Sci
          Prev Sci
          Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research
          1389-4986
          1573-6695
          1 June 2017
          November 2017
          01 November 2018
          : 18
          : 8
          : 911-922
          Affiliations
          Department of Psychology, REACH Institute, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Rd., Tempe, Arizona, 85287-1104, wpelham@ 123456asu.edu
          Department of Psychology, REACH Institute, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Rd., Tempe, Arizona, 85287-1104
          Oregon Research Institute, 1776 Millrace Dr., Eugene, OR 97303
          Department of Psychology, REACH Institute, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Rd., Tempe, Arizona, 85287-1104
          Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 210 S. Bouquet Street, 4101 Sennott Square, Pittsburgh, PA 15260-0001
          Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Gilmer Hall 306, Charlottesville, VA 22908
          Article
          PMC5693624 PMC5693624 5693624 nihpa880130
          10.1007/s11121-017-0805-1
          5693624
          28550456
          654d2f0e-80bb-4d04-89ca-a27eb6e8ebe7
          History
          Categories
          Article

          intervention response,moderation,latent class analysis

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_

          Similar content103

          Cited by8