Family Check-Up®

Target Population

The Family Check-Up® is designed for families with children ages 2 to 17.

Dosage

The three main Family Check-Up® components are scheduled individually with families based on their availability. After completing the feedback session, families may choose to complete follow-up services. These follow-up services can vary in intensity and duration based on family interest and need.

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

The Family Check-Up® can be delivered in a variety of settings, including in the home, schools, community mental health settings, health centers, hospitals, primary care, and Native American tribal communities.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

• Home

Education, Certifications and Training

Providers must participate in a training in order to become a Qualified Family Check-Up® Provider. The training is delivered in three formats: (1) an in-person 2-day training; (2) an online training that consists of an e-learning course and two webinars; and (3) hybrid training that consists of an e-learning course, 1-day in-person training, and 1-hour consultations that occur before and after training. Providers who complete the training receive one year of access to the Family Check-Up® Resource Website that houses the manual, instructional videos, and other materials needed to implement each step of the Family Check-Up. Qualified Family Check-Up® Providers can also become a Certified Family Check-Up® Provider if they submit videotaped sessions and meet fidelity criteria.

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

Dishion, T. J., Gill, A. M., Shaw, D. S., Risso-Weaver, J., Veltman, M., Wilson, M. N., Mauricio, A. M., & Stormshak, B. (2019). Family check-up in early childhood: An intervention manual (2nd ed.) [Unpublished intervention manual]. Child and Family Center, University of Oregon.

Available languages

Materials for the Family Check Up® are available in English and Spanish.

Other supporting materials

Family Check-Up® Training

For More Information

Website: https://fcu.uoregon.edu/

Phone: 541-346-0830

Email: fcu@uoregon.edu

Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.

Results of Search and Review	Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Family Check-Up®
Identified in Search	22
Eligible for Review	5
Rated High	3
Rated Moderate	1
Rated Low	1
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm	0

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.04 1	3 (23)	1659	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 23 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities	-0.01 0	1 (4)	659	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	-0.14 -5	1 (1)	538	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.11 4	4 (24)	1955	Favorable: 4 No Effect: 20 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health	0.08 3	2 (8)	1560	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group.

Outcome	Effect Size and Implied Percentile Effect	N of Studies (Findings)	N of Participants	Summary of Findings	Months after treatment when outcome measured
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.04 1	3 (23)	1659	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 23 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Gardner, 2009)
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing	0.03 1	-	651	-	11
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory: Problem Scale	0.08 3	-	642	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Problems	0.04 1	-	651	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior	0.04 1	-	651	-	11
Study 11082 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. Usual Care (Hiscock, 2018)
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Primary Caregiver)	0.02 0	-	909	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Primary Caregiver)	-0.02 0	-	909	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Primary Caregiver)	-0.03 -1	-	909	-	29
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Primary Caregiver)	0.00 0	-	909	-	29
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Secondary Caregiver)	0.12 4	-	909	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Secondary Caregiver)	0.08 3	-	909	-	11
Study 11083 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. WIC Services as Usual (Shaw, 2006)
Child Behavior Checklist: Destructive Behavior	0.34 13	-	92	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Destructive Behavior	0.23 8	-	92	-	23
Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior	-0.07 -2	-	92	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Aggressive Behavior	0.20 7	-	92	-	23
Child Behavior Checklist: Physical Aggression	0.02 0	-	92	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Physical Aggression	0.41 15	-	92	-	23
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Shaw, 2009)
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing	0.02 0	-	651	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Emotionally Reactive	-0.04 -1	-	651	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Social Withdrawal	-0.02 0	-	651	-	11
Child Behavior Checklist: Anxiety and Depression	0.04 1	-	651	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Shelleby, 2018)
Child Behavior Checklist: Oppositional-Aggressive Behavior	0.08 3	-	657	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Smith, 2014)
Coder Impressions Inventory: Child Non-Compliance	0.04 1	-	634	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Smith, 2019)
Child Irritability	0.14 5	-	658	-	11
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities	-0.01 0	1 (4)	659	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 4 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Lunkenheimer, 2008)
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire: Inhibitory Control	-0.10 -3	-	645	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Shelleby, 2012)
Focus on Delay Object	0.06 2	-	659	-	11
Active Distraction (Reverse-Coded)	0.02 0	-	659	-	11
Observer Impression of Child Dysregulation	-0.02 0	-	659	-	11
Child well-being: Educational achievement and attainment	-0.14 -5	1 (1)	538	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 1 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Lunkenheimer, 2008)
Fluharty-2 Preschool Speech and Language Screening: General Language Score	-0.14 -5	-	538	-	11
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.11 4	4 (24)	1955	Favorable: 4 No Effect: 20 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11082 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. Usual Care (Hiscock, 2018)
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Harsh Discipline (Primary Caregiver)	0.05 2	-	909	-	11
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Nurturing (Primary Caregiver)	0.04 1	-	909	-	11
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Inappropriate Expectations (Primary Caregiver)	-0.05 -1	-	909	-	11
Over-Involved/Protective Parenting Scale (Primary Caregiver)	0.12 4	-	909	-	11
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Harsh Discipline (Primary Caregiver)	0.15 5	-	909	-	29
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Nurturing (Primary Caregiver)	0.04 1	-	909	-	29
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Inappropriate Expectations (Primary Caregiver)	-0.03 -1	-	909	-	29
Over-Involved/Protective Parenting Scale (Primary Caregiver)	0.13 5	-	909	-	29
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Harsh Discipline (Secondary Caregiver)	0.19 7	-	909	-	11
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Nurturing (Secondary Caregiver)	0.09 3	-	909	-	11
Over-Involved/Protective Parenting Scale (Secondary Caregiver)	0.27 * 10	-	909	-	11
Parenting Behavior Checklist: Inappropriate Expectations (Secondary Caregiver)	0.08 3	-	909	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Lunkenheimer, 2008)
Relationship Process Code: Engaged Interaction	0.10 3	-	573	-	11
Relationship Process Code: Positive Reinforcement	0.18 * 7	-	573	-	11
Coder Impressions Inventory: Proactive Parenting	0.14 5	-	570	-	11
Home Observation for Measurement of Environment: Parent Involvement	0.04 1	-	642	-	11
Study 11083 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. WIC Services as Usual (Shaw, 2006)
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment: Parental Involvement	0.28 10	-	92	-	11
Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment: Parental Involvement	0.50 * 19	-	92	-	23
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Shelleby, 2012)
Relationship Process Code: Proactive Parenting	0.26 * 10	-	659	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Smith, 2014)
Relationship Affect Coding System: Dyadic Coercive Engagement	0.12 4	-	633	-	11
Study 11093 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. School-As-Usual Comparison Group (Stormshak, 2020)
Positive Parenting	0.00 0	-	295	-	11
Parental monitoring/Family routines	0.00 0	-	295	-	11
Negative Parenting	0.02 0	-	295	-	11
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Wang, 2019)
Positive Behavior Support	0.14 5	-	643	-	11
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health	0.08 3	2 (8)	1560	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group (Gardner, 2009)
Center for Epidemiological Studies on Depression: Maternal Depression	0.15 5	-	651	-	11
Study 11082 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. Usual Care (Hiscock, 2018)
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale: Depression	0.09 3	-	909	-	11
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale: Anxiety	0.05 2	-	909	-	11
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale: Stress	0.00 0	-	909	-	11
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale: Depression	0.02 0	-	909	-	29
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale: Anxiety	-0.05 -1	-	909	-	29
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale: Stress	0.00 0	-	909	-	29
Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6)	0.09 3	-	909	-	11

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications.

Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.

Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.

The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.

The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.

For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings
Study Location	Study Year	Age or Grade-level	Race, Ethnicity, Nationality	Gender	Populations of Interest*	Household Socioeconomic Status
Study 11083 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. WIC Services as Usual
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Pittsburgh, PA, USA	2001	Mean age: 24 months	--	100% Male	--	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Pittsburgh, PA, USA	2001	Mean age: 27 years; Age range: 18-45 years	48% African American 40% Caucasian 12% Biracial	--	100% Mothers	$15,374 Average family income
Study 11082 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. Usual Care
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Victoria, Australia	2010	Mean age: 9 months	--	48% Female	--	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Victoria, Australia	2010	Mean age: 34 years	84% Anglo Australian	--	6% Experienced domestic violence	--
Study 11074 - Family Check-Up (FCU) vs. Services as Usual Comparison Group
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Pittsburgh, PA; Eugene, OR; Charlottesville, VA, USA	2002	Mean age: 28 months	50% European American 28% African American 13% Hispanic 13% Biracial 9% Other race	50% Female	--	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Pittsburgh, PA; Eugene, OR; Charlottesville, VA, USA	2002	--	--	--	--	66% Annual family income <$20,000
Study 11093 - Family Check-up (FCU) vs. School-As-Usual Comparison Group
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
--	--	Average age: 6 years	59% White 23% Multiple races/ethnicities 13% Hispanic/Latino 2% Unknown 2% Black/African American 2% Asian 1% Pacific Islander	54% Male 46% Female	--	--

“--” indicates information not reported in the study.

* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.

Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 11093

Stormshak, E. A., McIntyre, L. L., Garbacz, S. A., & Kosty, D. B. (2020). Family-centered prevention to enhance parenting skills during the transition to elementary school: A randomized trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(1), 122-127. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000570

Stormshak, E. A., DeGarmo, D., Garbacz, S. A., McIntyre, L. L., & Caruthers, A. (2020). Using motivational interviewing to improve parenting skills and prevent problem behavior during the transition to kindergarten. Prevention Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01102-w

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)
Study 11083

Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Supplee, L., Gardner, F., & Arnds, K. (2006). Randomized trial of a family-centered approach to the prevention of early conduct problems: 2-Year effects of the Family Check-Up in early childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.74.1.1

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)
Study 11082

Hiscock, H., Bayer, J. K., Lycett, K., Ukoumunne, O. C., Shaw, D., Gold, L., Gerner, B., Loughman, A., & Wake, M. (2012). Preventing mental health problems in children: The Families in Mind population-based cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 12, 420. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-420

Hiscock, H., Gulenc, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Gold, L., Bayer, J., Shaw, D., Le, H., & Wake, M. (2018). Preventing preschool mental health problems: Population-based cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 39(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000502

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 11074

Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson, M. (2008). The Family Check-Up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents' positive behavior support in early childhood. Child Development, 79(5), 1395-1414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.x

Connell, A., Bullock, B. M., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Wilson, M., & Gardner, F. (2008). Family intervention effects on co-occurring early childhood behavioral and emotional problems: A latent transition analysis approach. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(8), 1211-1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9244-6

Lunkenheimer, E. S., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Connell, A. M., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., & Skuban, E. M. (2008). Collateral benefits of the Family Check-Up on early childhood school readiness: Indirect effects of parents' positive behavior support. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1737-1752. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013858

Gardner, F., Connell, A., Trentacosta, C. J., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2009). Moderators of outcome in a brief family-centered intervention for preventing early problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 543-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015622

Shaw, D. S., Connell, A., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2009). Improvements in maternal depression as a mediator of intervention effects on early childhood problem behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), 417-439. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000236

Linville, D., Chronister, K., Dishion, T., Todahl, J., Miller, J., Shaw, D., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2010). A longitudinal analysis of parenting practices, couple satisfaction, and child behavior problems. Journal of marital and family therapy, 36(2), 244-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00168.x

Moilanen, K. L., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2010). Predictors of longitudinal growth in inhibitory control in early childhood. Social Development, 19(2), 326-347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00536.x

Shelleby, E. C., Shaw, D. S., Cheong, J., Chang, H., Gardner, F., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2012). Behavioral control in at-risk toddlers: The influence of the Family Check-Up. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41(3), 288-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.664814

Brennan, L. M., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of school-age academic achievement: Unique contributions of toddler-age aggression, oppositionality, inattention, and hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(8), 1289-1300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9639-2

Brennan, L. M., Shelleby, E. C., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. (2013). Indirect effects of the Family Check-Up on school-age academic achievement through improvements in parenting in early childhood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 762-773. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0032096

Hyde, L. W., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Cheong, J., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. (2013). Dimensions of callousness in early childhood: links to problem behavior and family intervention effectiveness. Development and Psychopathology, 25(2), 347-363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412001101

McEachern, A. D., Fosco, G. M., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2013). Collateral benefits of the Family Check-Up in early childhood: Primary caregivers' social support and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(2), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031485

Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Moore, K. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2013). Effects of video feedback on early coercive parent-child interactions: The intervening role of caregivers' relational schemas. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42(3), 405-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.777917

Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2013). Indirect effects of fidelity to the Family Check-Up on changes in parenting and early childhood problem behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(6), 962-974. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033950

Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. N. (2014). Direct and indirect effects of the Family Check-Up on self-regulation from toddlerhood to early school-age. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(7), 1117-1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9859-8

Dishion, T. J., Brennan, L. M., McEachern, A., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., & Weaver, C. M. (2014). Prevention of problem behavior through annual Family Check-Ups in early childhood: Intervention effects from the home to the beginning of elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(3), 343-354. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9768-2

Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., Winter, C. C., & Patterson, G. R. (2014). Coercive family process and early-onset conduct problems from age 2 to school entry. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4 Pt 1), 917-932. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000169

Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Proactive parenting and children's effortful control: Mediating role of language and indirect intervention effects. Social Development, 24(1), 206-223. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12069

Dishion, T. J., Mun, C. J., Drake, E. C., Tein, J.-Y., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. (2015). A transactional approach to preventing early childhood neglect: The Family Check-Up as a public health strategy. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4 Pt 2), 1647-1660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579415001005

Leijten, P., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., Matthys, W., & Dishion, T. J. (2015). The family check-up and service use in high-risk families of young children: A prevention strategy with a bridge to community-based treatment. Prevention Science, 16(3), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0479-x

Montano, Z., Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Longitudinal relations between observed parenting behaviors and dietary quality of meals from ages 2 to 5. Appetite, 87, 324-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.219

Reuben, J. D., Shaw, D. S., Brennan, L. M., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). A family-based intervention for improving children's emotional problems through effects on maternal depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(6), 1142-1148. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000049

Sitnick, S. L., Shaw, D. S., Gill, A., Dishion, T., Winter, C., Waller, R., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2015). Parenting and the Family Check-Up: Changes in observed parent-child interaction following early childhood intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 970-984. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.940623

Smith, J. D., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Negative relational schemas predict the trajectory of coercive dynamics during early childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(4), 693-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9936-z

Smith, J. D., Montano, Z., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Preventing weight gain and obesity: Indirect effects of the Family Check-Up in early childhood. Prevention Science, 16(3), 408-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0505-z

Shaw, D. S., Sitnick, S. L., Brennan, L. M., Choe, D. E., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2016). The long-term effectiveness of the Family Check-Up on school-age conduct problems: Moderation by neighborhood deprivation. Development and Psychopathology, 28(4pt2), 1471-1486.

Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Shelleby, E. C., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2017). The long-term effectiveness of the Family Check-Up on peer preference: Parent-child interaction and child effortful control as sequential mediators. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(4), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0198-9

Dishion, T. J., Mun, C. J., Tein, J.-Y., Kim, H., Shaw, D. S., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., & Peterson, J. (2017). The validation of macro and micro observations of parent-child dynamics using the Relationship Affect Coding System in early childhood. Prevention Science, 18(3), 268-280. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0697-5

Pelham, W. E., III, Dishion, T. J., Tein, J.-Y., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2017). What doesn't work for whom? Exploring heterogeneity in responsiveness to the Family Check-Up in early childhood using a mixture model approach. Prevention Science, 18(8), 911-922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0805-1

Lemery-Chalfant, K., Clifford, S., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2018). Genetic moderation of the effects of the Family Check-Up intervention on children's internalizing symptoms: A longitudinal study with a racially/ethnically diverse sample. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1729-1747. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941800127X

Shelleby, E. C., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2018). Effects of the Family Check-Up on reducing growth in conduct problems from toddlerhood through school age: An analysis of moderated mediation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(10), 856-867. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000337

Smith, J. D., Berkel, C., Hails, K. A., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., & Wilson, M. N. (2018). Predictors of participation in the Family Check-Up Program: A randomized trial of yearly services from age 2 to 10 years. Prevention Science, 19(5), 652-662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0679-7

Connell, A. M., Shaw, D., Wilson, M., Danzo, S., Weaver-Krug, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). Indirect effects of the early childhood Family Check-Up on adolescent suicide risk: The mediating role of inhibitory control. Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1901-1910. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000877

Shaw, D. S., Galan, C. A., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Dishion, T. J., Elam, K. K., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2019). Trajectories and predictors of children's early-starting conduct problems: Child, family, genetic, and intervention effects. Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1911-1921. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000828

Smith, J. D., Wakschlag, L., Krogh-Jespersen, S., Walkup, J. T., Wilson, M. N., Dishion, T. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2019). Dysregulated irritability as a window on young children's psychiatric risk: Transdiagnostic effects via the Family Check-Up. Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1887-1899. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000816

Wang, F. L., Feldman, J. S., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Wilson, M. N., & Shaw, D. S. (2019). Family-based prevention of adolescents' co-occurring internalizing/externalizing problems through early childhood parent factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(11), 1056-1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000439

Weaver Krug, C. M., Taraban, L., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2019). Romantic partner satisfaction among low-income mothers: Links to child-peer and teacher relationships via mother-child conflict. Social Development, 28(3),674-688. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12358

Feldman, J. S., Wilson, M. N., & Shaw, D. S. (2020). Relations between early childhood paternal depression and preschool- and school-age psychosocial functioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2020.1723600

Hentges, R. F., Weaver Krug, C. M., Shaw, D. S., Wilson, M. N., Dishion, T. J., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2020). The long-term indirect effect of the early Family Check-Up intervention on adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms via inhibitory control. Development and Psychopathology, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419001482

Kuklinski, M. R., Crowley, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., Pelham, W. E., & Shaw, D. S. (2020). Supporting strategic investment in social programs: A cost analysis of the Family Check-Up. Prevention Science, 21(2), 256-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01077-3

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 11085

Smith, J. D., Stormshak, E. A., & Kavanagh, K. (2015). Results of a pragmatic effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial of the Family Check-up in community mental health agencies. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(3), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0566-0

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.

Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 11071

Spirito, A., Sindelar-Manning, H., Colby, S. M., Barnett, N. P., Lewander, W., Rohsenow, D. J., & Monti, P. M. (2011). Individual and family motivational interventions for alcohol-positive adolescents treated in an emergency department: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(3), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.296

Becker, S. J., Jones, R. N., Hernandez, L., Graves, H. R., & Spirito, A. (2016). Moderators of brief motivation-enhancing treatments for alcohol-positive adolescents presenting to the emergency department. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 69, 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.06.014

Becker, S. J., Marceau, K., Helseth, S. A., Hernandez, L., & Spirito, A. (2020). Predictors and moderators of response to brief interventions among adolescents with risky alcohol and marijuana use. Substance Abuse, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2020.1742271

Becker, S. J., Marceau, K., Hernandez, L., & Spirito, A. (2019). Is it selection or socialization? Disentangling peer influences on heavy drinking and marijuana use among adolescents whose parents received brief interventions. Substance Abuse, 13, 1178221819852644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221819852644

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11073

Berkel, C., Bruening, M. M., Smith, J. D., & Millner, M. (2019). P19 An examination of the immigrant paradox and unhealthy eating behaviors. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 51, S40-S41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.05.395

Berkel, C., Mauricio, A. M., Rudo-Stern, J., Dishion, T. J., & Smith, J. D. (2020). Motivational interviewing and caregiver engagement in the Family Check-Up 4 Health. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01112-8

Smith, J. D., Berkel, C., Jordan, N., Atkins, D. C., Narayanan, S. S., Gallo, C., Grimm, K. J., Dishion, T. J., Mauricio, A. M., Rudo-Stern, J., Meachum, M. K., Winslow, E., & Bruening, M. M. (2018). An individually tailored family-centered intervention for pediatric obesity in primary care: Study protocol of a randomized type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial (Raising Healthy Children study). Implementation Science, 13(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0697-2

Berkel, C., Smith, J. D., Fu, E., Bruening, M., & Dishion, T. (2019). NP29 The Family Check-Up 4 Health: A health maintenance approach to improve nutrition and prevent early childhood obesity. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 51, S23-S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.05.353

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11075

Connell, A. M., Dishion, T. J., Yasui, M., & Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(4), 568-579.

Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A., & Dishion, T. J. (2009). An adaptive approach to family-centered intervention in schools: linking intervention engagement to academic outcomes in middle and high school. Prevention Science, 10(3), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0131-3

Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). The impact of a family-centered intervention on the ecology of adolescent antisocial behavior: modeling developmental sequelae and trajectories during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 24(3), 1139-1155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000582

Van Ryzin, M. J., & Nowicka, P. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of a family-based intervention in early adolescence on parent-youth relationship quality, late adolescent health, and early adult obesity. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(1), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031428

Caruthers, A. S., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2014). Preventing high-risk sexual behavior in early adulthood with family interventions in adolescence: outcomes and developmental processes. Prevention Science, 15 (Suppl 1), S59-S69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0383-9

Nelson, S. E., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2015). Alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use trajectories from age 12 to 24 years: Demographic correlates and young adult substance use problems. Development and Psychopathology, 27(1), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000650

Connell, A. M., McKillop, H. N., & Dishion, T. J. (2016). Long-term effects of the Family Check-Up in early adolescence on risk of suicide in early adulthood. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 46(Suppl 1), S15-S22. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12254

DeLay, D., Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M., Winter, C., & Dishion, T. J. (2016). Changing friend selection in middle school: A social network analysis of a randomized intervention study designed to prevent adolescent problem behavior. Prevention Science, 17(3), 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0605-4

Véronneau, M.-H., Dishion, T. J., Connell, A. M., & Kavanagh, K. (2016). A randomized, controlled trial of the family check-up model in public secondary schools: Examining links between parent engagement and substance use progressions from early adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(6), 526-543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040248

Connell, A. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2017). Long-term effects of the Family Check-Up in public secondary school on diagnosed major depressive disorder in adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(3), 570-581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0482-6

Kuo, S. I. C., Salvatore, J. E., Aliev, F., Ha, T., Dishion, T. J., & Dick, D. M. (2019). The Family Check-Up intervention moderates polygenic influences on long-term alcohol outcomes: Results from a randomized intervention trial. Prevention Science, 20(7), 975-985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01024-2

Connell, A. M., Dishion, T. J., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2006). Variable- and person-centered approaches to the analysis of early adolescent substance use: Linking peer, family, and intervention effects with developmental trajectories. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 421-448.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11077

Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A. M., Veronneau, M.-H., Myers, M. W., Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., & Caruthers, A. S. (2011). An ecological approach to promoting early adolescent mental health and social adaptation: Family-centered intervention in public middle schools. Child Development, 82(1), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01551.x  

Van Ryzin, M. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Engaging parents in the family check-up in middle school: longitudinal effects on family conflict and problem behavior through the high school transition. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(6), 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.10.255

Fosco, G. M., Frank, J. L., Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2013). Opening the "Black Box": family check-up intervention effects on self-regulation that prevents growth in problem behavior and substance use. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 455-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.02.001

Fosco, G. M., Van Ryzin, M. J., Connell, A. M., & Stormshak, E. A. (2016). Preventing adolescent depression with the family check-up: Examining family conflict as a mechanism of change. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000147

Connell, A. M., Stormshak, E., Dishion, T., Fosco, G., & Van Ryzin, M. (2018). The Family Check Up and adolescent depression: An examination of treatment responders and non-responders. Prevention Science, 19(Suppl 1), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0586-3

Stormshak, E., DeGarmo, D., Chronister, K., & Caruthers, A. (2018). The impact of family-centered prevention on self-regulation and subsequent long-term risk in emerging adults. Prevention Science, 19(4), 549-558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0852-7

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11078

Danaher, B. G., Seeley, J. R., Stormshak, E. A., Tyler, M. S., Caruthers, A. S., Moore, K. J., & Cardenas, L. (2018). The Family Check-Up online program for parents of middle school students: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(7), e11106. https://doi.org/10.2196/11106

Stormshak, E. A., Seeley, J. R., Caruthers, A. S., Cardenas, L., Moore, K. J., Tyler, M. S., Fleming, C. M., Gau, J., & Danaher, B. (2019). Evaluating the efficacy of the Family Check-Up Online: A school-based, eHealth model for the prevention of problem behavior during the middle school years. Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1873-1886. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000907

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11079

Garbacz, S. A., Stormshak, E. A., McIntyre, L. L., & Kosty, D. (2019). Examining family-school engagement in a randomized controlled trial of the Family Check-Up. School Psychology, 34(4), 433-443. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000284

Garbacz, S. A., McIntyre, L. L., Stormshak, E. A., & Kosty, D. B. (2020). The efficacy of the Family Check-Up on children's emotional and behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 28(2), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426618806258

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11081

Ghaderi, A., Kadesjö, C., Björnsdotter, A., & Enebrink, P. (2018). Randomized effectiveness trial of the Family Check-Up versus internet-delivered parent training (iComet) for families of children with conduct problems. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 11486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29550-z

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 11084

Smith, J. D., Knoble, N. B., Zerr, A. A., Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2014). Family check-up effects across diverse ethnic groups: Reducing early-adolescence antisocial behavior by reducing family conflict. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43(3), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.888670

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11088

Spirito, A., Hernandez, L., Cancilliere, M. K., Graves, H., & Barnett, N. (2015). Improving parenting and parent-adolescent communication to delay or prevent the onset of alcohol and drug use in young adolescents with emotional/behavioral disorders: A pilot trial. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 24(5), 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2013.829013

Spirito, A., Hernandez, L., Marceau, K., Cancilliere, M. K., Barnett, N. P., Graves, H. R., Rodriguez, A. M., & Knopik, V. S. (2017). Effects of a brief, parent-focused intervention for substance using adolescents and their sibling. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 77, 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2017.02.002

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11090

Spirito, A., Hernandez, L., Cancilliere, M. K., Graves, H. R., Rodriguez, A. M., Operario, D., Jones, R., & Barnett, N. P. (2018). Parent and adolescent motivational enhancement intervention for substance-using, truant adolescents: A pilot randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 47(Suppl 1), S467-S479. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2017.1399402

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11091

Stormshak, E. A., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Implementing interventions with families in schools to increase youth school engagement: The Family Check-Up model. School Mental Health, 2(2), 82-92.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11092

Stormshak, E., Caruthers, A., Chronister, K., DeGarmo, D., Stapleton, J., Falkenstein, C., DeVargas, E., & Nash, W. (2018). Reducing risk behavior with family-centered prevention during the young adult years. Prevention Science, 20, 321-330. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0917-2

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11094

Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851-854. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072290

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11095

Horner, R. H., & Carr, E. G. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe disabilities: Functional assessment and comprehensive intervention. The Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100108

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11096

Jo, B. (2002). Estimation of intervention effects with noncompliance: Alternative model specifications. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 385–409.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11097

Metzler, C.W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 448–79.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 11098

Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Functional-assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 253-257. 

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).