A universal prevention program designed to improve birth outcomes, reduce family aggression, enhance child mental and behavioral health, and enhance parent mental and physical health through promoting coparenting quality among couples at the transition to parenthood.
Blueprints: Model
Crime Solutions: Promising
OJJDP Model Programs: Promising
SAMHSA : 3.6-3.7
Mark E. Feinberg
Prevention Research Center
Pennsylvania State University
S-109 Henderson Building
University Park, 16802
Email: mef11@psu.edu
www.famfound.net
Mark E. Feinberg, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Family Foundations is a universal prevention program developed in collaboration with childbirth educators to enhance coparenting quality among couples who are expecting their first child. The program consists of four prenatal and four postnatal sessions, run once a week, with each two-hour session administered to groups of 6-10 couples. Sessions are led by a trained male-female team and follow the Family Foundations curriculum. Female leaders are childbirth educators and male leaders are from various backgrounds but experienced in working with families and leading groups. Ongoing observation of sessions facilitates regular supervision discussions.
This program focuses on coparenting and the coparenting relationship, rather than other romantic relationship or parenting qualities. In assisting parents to work together supportively, the program content covers emotional self-management, conflict management, problem solving, communication, and mutual support strategies. Parenting strategies include an understanding of temperament, fostering children's self-regulation, and promoting attachment security. The four prenatal classes introduce the couple to themes and skills, and the four postnatal classes revisit the themes once the couple has experienced life as parents and coparents. The delivery is psychoeducational and skills-based, with didactic presentations, couple communication exercises, written worksheets, videotaped vignettes of other families, and group discussion.
Family Foundations is a universal prevention program developed in collaboration with childbirth educators to enhance coparenting quality among couples who are expecting their first child. The program consists of four prenatal and four postnatal sessions, run once a week, with each two-hour session administered to groups of 6-10 couples. Sessions are led by a trained male-female team and follow the Family Foundations curriculum. The female leader is a childbirth educator. Ongoing observation of sessions facilitates regular supervision discussions.
This program focuses on coparenting and the coparenting relationship, rather than other romantic relationship or parenting qualities. In assisting parents to work together supportively, the program content covers emotional self-management, conflict management, problem solving, communication, and mutual support strategies. The program organizes material into three major domains: Feelings, Thoughts, and Communication. These domains help participants remember and utilize program tools. Parenting strategies include an understanding of temperament, fostering children's self-regulation, and promoting attachment security. However, as the focus is on coparenting, these topics are examined in terms of whole-family dynamics. The prenatal classes introduce the couple to themes and skills, and the postnatal classes revisit the themes once the couple has experienced life as parents and coparents. The delivery is psychoeducational and skills-based, with didactic presentations, couple communication exercises, written worksheets, videotaped vignettes of other families, and group discussion. Skilled facilitators are able to maintain fidelity to the content while engaging parents in an interactive, supportive group learning context.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
At wave 2 (posttest, when children were about six months), the study (Feinberg & Kan, 2008) reported a significant intervention effect for:
At wave 3 (six-month follow-up, when children were about one year old), intervention participants showed improved (Feinberg et al., 2009):
At wave 4 (2.5-year follow-up, when children were three years old), intervention participants showed program effects for (Feinberg et al., 2010):
At wave 5 (six-year follow-up, when children were 6-7.5 years old), intervention participants showed improvements in the following child outcomes (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014 and additional analyses submitted to Blueprints):
Pregnancy-related outcomes from mid-program showed a significant intervention effect (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014):
Study 2
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016), Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016), Jones et al. (2018), Feinberg and Jones (2018), and Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) found that the intervention group (compared to the control group) showed significantly:
Of the two studies Blueprints has reviewed, both studies (Studies 1 and 2) meet Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). Study 1 and Study 2 were done by the developer.
Study 1
Feinberg and Kan (2008), Feinberg, Jones et al. (2014) and several related studies utilized a randomized controlled design in which heterosexual couples expecting their first child were randomly assigned to an intervention (n=89) or to a no-treatment literature control condition (n=80). Measures of co-parenting, parenting and child development were collected over five waves: pretest, posttest (when the child was about 6 months old), three-month follow-up (child was one year old), two-and-a-half-year follow-up (child was three years old), and a final follow-up (child was six to seven years old).
Study 2
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016), Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016), Jones et al. (2018), Feinberg and Jones (2018), and Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) conducted a randomized controlled trial with a sample of 399 cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child. The intervention couples (n =221) and control couples (n = 178) were followed from the prenatal period to 10 months, two years and seven years after birth of the child. Child measures of soothability, nighttime waking, internalizing and externalizing came from parent reports. When the child was age 7, additional measures of child behavior were collected from direct observations and teacher reports.
Study 1
Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Roettger, M., Solmeyer, A., & Hostetler, M. L. (2014). Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial of Family Foundations: Effects on children's emotional, behavioral, and school adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 821-831.
Study 2
Feinberg, M., & Gedaly, L. (2021). Family Foundations child outcomes at age 7: Teacher ratings and observational outcomes [Unpublished manuscript]. The Pennsylvania State University.
Family: Family conflict/violence, Parent aggravation*, Parent stress*, Poor family management, Psychological aggression/discipline, Violent discipline
Individual: Skills for social interaction*
Family: Attachment to parents, Nonviolent Discipline*
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Family Foundations Logic Model (PDF)
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific racial, ethnic, or gender group:
In Study 1, some child outcomes showed an intervention effect only for boys. These included internalizing and attention/hyperactivity collected at wave 4 (Feinberg et al., 2010) and attention problems, aggressive behavior, and externalizing at wave 5 (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014). Supplemental analysis, gathered during the Blueprints review, also showed that anxious/depressed and internalizing was only significant for the boys at wave 5. Some child outcomes showed intervention effects across gender, but stronger effects for boys. These included total behavior problems, externalizing, and aggression from wave 4.
Study 2 tested for subgroup effects and found stronger benefits for girls than boys on a measure of child hostility toward the father (Feinberge & Gedaly, 2021) and found stronger benefits for economically disadvantaged parents reporting high economic strain than parents reporting low economic strain (Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al., 2016). More generally, Jones et al. (2018) and Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) found equal effects for girls and boys.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
The program is designed for heterosexual couples expecting their first child and begins during the prenatal period; thus, both studies report on the race/ethnicity of parents instead of the child.
Implementation training is available from Community Strategies/Family Gold trainers. This interactive training prepares trainees to deliver Family Foundations with competence and confidence. Generally, implementation training is offered on-site for agencies and communities as requested, but occasionally we will offer open-enrollment workshops for multiple organizations. The cost of an on-site workshop is $3,000, plus travel and lodging expenses for the trainer(s). Open-enrollment workshops are $375.00 per person for the full training. An on-site training is accompanied by one hour of post-training technical assistance on a complimentary basis, with additional technical assistance available.
Training Process: The training is held in two phases:
Videotape Review: Trainees videotape themselves practicing sessions in front of an audience (expectant parents or a mock audience), and we review, code, and offer feedback. Cost is $100/class reviewed. Certification as a Family Foundations facilitator requires adequate performance in review of two classes.
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
The cost of an on-site training workshop is $3,000, plus travel and lodging expenses for the trainer(s). Open-enrollment workshops for multiple sites are $375.00 per person for the full training. The training workshops are 2 1/2 days in length -- 1.5 days for overview and prenatal content, and one day for review and postnatal content. An on-site training is accompanied by one hour of post-training technical assistance on a complimentary basis, with additional technical assistance available.
Local supervisor(s) should also be trained, and then observe trainee facilitator sessions and provide supervision support to enhance fidelity and group-leading quality.
$325/manual.
None.
DVD/laptop and projector, if not already available.
Videotaped review of new trainee practice session, $100 (optional).
Inexpensive dinner for participants if desired; babysitting for postnatal classes if desired.
$30/couple for workbooks.
Two co-facilitators (male and female) lead the sessions. Facilitators should have experience and comfort in working with families and in leading groups/classes. The training provides the key information for them to deliver the program effectively.
No information is available
No ongoing training is required. An optional videotape review of class is $100.
The first hour of technical assistance is free with the on-site training. Thereafter, $50-$100/hour by phone as needed.
An observer at one to two classes per cohort, especially for new trainees, is optimal. Fidelity observation forms are provided for each session.
None.
No information is available
No information is available
This example assumes that a community-based organization would deliver the Family Foundations program on-site to 4 cohorts, each including 10 couples. Two co-facilitators (male and female) would be contracted to lead the sessions.
| On-site training 2 1/2 days | $3,000.00 |
| Trainer travel expense | $1,500.00 |
| Facilitator manuals: 2 x $325 | $650.00 |
| Parent workbooks: 10 couples x 4 cohorts x $30/workbook | $1,200.00 |
| Facilitator salaries: 2 facil x 2 hr x 8 sessn x 4 cohort x $25/hr | $3,200.00 |
| Total One Year Cost | $9,550.00 |
The Year One expense for delivering the program to 40 couples would be $238.75 per couple. If space on-site is unavailable, an additional cost would be incurred to rent space for the parent group sessions. Other optional costs may include an inexpensive dinner and childcare.
No information is available
Funds may be obtained from prevention, health care organizations focused on healthy marriage, fatherhood, birth outcomes, postpartum depression, women's health, and child well-being.
Formula Funds:
Entitlement Funds:
Mark E. Feinberg, Ph.D.Pennsylvania State UniversityPrevention Research CenterS-109 Henderson BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802U.S.A.mef11@psu.edu www.famfound.net
A universal prevention program designed to improve birth outcomes, reduce family aggression, enhance child mental and behavioral health, and enhance parent mental and physical health through promoting coparenting quality among couples at the transition to parenthood.
The program targets heterosexual couples expecting their first child.
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific racial, ethnic, or gender group:
In Study 1, some child outcomes showed an intervention effect only for boys. These included internalizing and attention/hyperactivity collected at wave 4 (Feinberg et al., 2010) and attention problems, aggressive behavior, and externalizing at wave 5 (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014). Supplemental analysis, gathered during the Blueprints review, also showed that anxious/depressed and internalizing was only significant for the boys at wave 5. Some child outcomes showed intervention effects across gender, but stronger effects for boys. These included total behavior problems, externalizing, and aggression from wave 4.
Study 2 tested for subgroup effects and found stronger benefits for girls than boys on a measure of child hostility toward the father (Feinberge & Gedaly, 2021) and found stronger benefits for economically disadvantaged parents reporting high economic strain than parents reporting low economic strain (Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al., 2016). More generally, Jones et al. (2018) and Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) found equal effects for girls and boys.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
The program is designed for heterosexual couples expecting their first child and begins during the prenatal period; thus, both studies report on the race/ethnicity of parents instead of the child.
Family: Successful coparenting as a protective factor. Mother's stress, parent mental health, and substance use during gestation.
Family: Family conflict/violence, Parent aggravation*, Parent stress*, Poor family management, Psychological aggression/discipline, Violent discipline
Individual: Skills for social interaction*
Family: Attachment to parents, Nonviolent Discipline*
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
Family Foundations is a universal prevention program developed in collaboration with childbirth educators to enhance coparenting quality among couples who are expecting their first child. The program consists of four prenatal and four postnatal sessions, run once a week, with each two-hour session administered to groups of 6-10 couples. Sessions are led by a trained male-female team and follow the Family Foundations curriculum. Female leaders are childbirth educators and male leaders are from various backgrounds but experienced in working with families and leading groups. Ongoing observation of sessions facilitates regular supervision discussions.
This program focuses on coparenting and the coparenting relationship, rather than other romantic relationship or parenting qualities. In assisting parents to work together supportively, the program content covers emotional self-management, conflict management, problem solving, communication, and mutual support strategies. Parenting strategies include an understanding of temperament, fostering children's self-regulation, and promoting attachment security. The four prenatal classes introduce the couple to themes and skills, and the four postnatal classes revisit the themes once the couple has experienced life as parents and coparents. The delivery is psychoeducational and skills-based, with didactic presentations, couple communication exercises, written worksheets, videotaped vignettes of other families, and group discussion.
Family Foundations is a universal prevention program developed in collaboration with childbirth educators to enhance coparenting quality among couples who are expecting their first child. The program consists of four prenatal and four postnatal sessions, run once a week, with each two-hour session administered to groups of 6-10 couples. Sessions are led by a trained male-female team and follow the Family Foundations curriculum. The female leader is a childbirth educator. Ongoing observation of sessions facilitates regular supervision discussions.
This program focuses on coparenting and the coparenting relationship, rather than other romantic relationship or parenting qualities. In assisting parents to work together supportively, the program content covers emotional self-management, conflict management, problem solving, communication, and mutual support strategies. The program organizes material into three major domains: Feelings, Thoughts, and Communication. These domains help participants remember and utilize program tools. Parenting strategies include an understanding of temperament, fostering children's self-regulation, and promoting attachment security. However, as the focus is on coparenting, these topics are examined in terms of whole-family dynamics. The prenatal classes introduce the couple to themes and skills, and the postnatal classes revisit the themes once the couple has experienced life as parents and coparents. The delivery is psychoeducational and skills-based, with didactic presentations, couple communication exercises, written worksheets, videotaped vignettes of other families, and group discussion. Skilled facilitators are able to maintain fidelity to the content while engaging parents in an interactive, supportive group learning context.
This program is based on a theoretical model of coparenting as a key influence on parent adjustment, parenting quality, and child adjustment. Coparenting is defined as the way in which parents (or others in a caregiving role) coordinate and support each other in their roles as parents. Research indicates that the coparenting relationship is more strongly related to parenting and child outcomes than the general couple or marital relationship. As the coparenting construct includes couple conflict about issues related to the child, which is a strong risk factor for child externalizing and internalizing problems, the program directly addresses a central risk factor for child adjustment. Difficulties in coparenting have been found to be linked to a range of child outcomes in addition to internalizing and externalizing problems, including effortful control, peer relations, school adjustment, and substance use.
Coparenting is distinguished from other aspects of the couple's relationship such as romantic, friendship, legal, and financial domains (except as they impact coparenting per se). In this way, the program targets a circumscribed aspect of the couple relationship - which may be more malleable than the overall couple relationship. Moreover, coparenting is viewed as a protective factor (i.e., moderator) of other influences on parents and children. For example, supportive coparenting may reduce the detrimental effects of parent depression on parent-child relationship quality. Evidence from the research on Family Foundations supports this view, as the program buffered families from the negative effect of prenatal couple violence on harsh parenting toward the child.
Because coparenting represents the overlap between the parent-child and parent-parent relationship spheres, coparenting is a key target with regard to a range of important outcomes. For example, as maternal stress and anxiety during pregnancy has been related to poor fetal development and outcomes, reducing maternal stress/anxiety during pregnancy through enhanced couple support may reduce adverse birth outcomes. As father involvement among both residential and non-residential fathers is linked to coparenting quality, a focus on coparenting may enhance responsible fathering. And as partner support is the strongest influence on maternal postpartum depression (after prior history of depression is controlled), enhanced coparenting may reduce levels of this problem with benefits for mothers and babies. Indeed, program evaluation data suggests that families enrolled in the program have demonstrated better birth outcomes (for mothers at risk due to levels of a stress hormone, cortisol), better father-infant relations, and decreased postpartum depression.
Of the two studies Blueprints has reviewed, both studies (Studies 1 and 2) meet Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). Study 1 and Study 2 were done by the developer.
Study 1
Feinberg and Kan (2008), Feinberg, Jones et al. (2014) and several related studies utilized a randomized controlled design in which heterosexual couples expecting their first child were randomly assigned to an intervention (n=89) or to a no-treatment literature control condition (n=80). Measures of co-parenting, parenting and child development were collected over five waves: pretest, posttest (when the child was about 6 months old), three-month follow-up (child was one year old), two-and-a-half-year follow-up (child was three years old), and a final follow-up (child was six to seven years old).
Study 2
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016), Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016), Jones et al. (2018), Feinberg and Jones (2018), and Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) conducted a randomized controlled trial with a sample of 399 cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child. The intervention couples (n =221) and control couples (n = 178) were followed from the prenatal period to 10 months, two years and seven years after birth of the child. Child measures of soothability, nighttime waking, internalizing and externalizing came from parent reports. When the child was age 7, additional measures of child behavior were collected from direct observations and teacher reports.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Across posttest and follow-up analyses, 9 of 22 child outcomes and 24 of 40 parent outcomes showed significant program effects. One of seven pregnancy-related outcomes assessed at mid-program showed improvement.
At Wave 2 (posttest, when children were six months old), two of four child outcomes and 6 of 12 parent outcomes showed significant improvement. Mothers' and fathers' coparental support, fathers' parent-child dysfunctional interaction and parenting-based closeness, mothers' depressive symptoms and anxiety, father-reported infant soothability, and child duration of orienting all showed significant differences. Mothers' and fathers' coparental undermining, mothers' parent-child dysfunctional interaction and parenting-based closeness, fathers' depressive symptoms and anxiety, mother-reported infant soothability, and child sleep habits did not show a significant program effect.
Of the 18 parenting, couple, and coparenting variables tested at wave 3 (six-month follow-up, when children were one year old), 12 showed significant improvements for the intervention participants. The study reported a program effect for one of two child outcomes. Mothers and fathers in the treatment group showed reduced competition and triangulation in coparenting, increased warmth to partner, and increased parenting positivity. Mothers, but not fathers, improved on coparenting inclusion and negative communication to partner, while fathers significantly increased coparenting warmth and reduced parenting negativity. Neither maternal nor paternal active coparenting cooperation showed a significant effect. For child outcomes, self-soothing improved significantly, but sustained attention did not.
Wave 4 (2.5-year follow-up, when children were about three years old) analyses indicated a significant program effect on six of ten parent, interparental relationship, and parenting outcomes and on four of seven child outcomes. Intervention participants improved parental stress, parental efficacy, coparenting quality, parenting overreactivity, parenting laxness, physical punishment, total behavior problems, child externalizing problems, child aggression, and child social competence. No significant effect emerged for parental depression, relationship satisfaction, child internalizing problems, child attention/hyperactivity, or child emotional competence (Feinberg et al., 2010), or for partner psychological aggression or parent-child physical aggression (Kan & Feinberg, 2013b). Additional analyses showed that among boys, the program had an effect for male children on internalizing, attention/hyperactivity, and relationship satisfaction and showed a stronger effect on total behavior problems, externalizing, and aggression for boys.
Main effects analyses indicated that, of the two parent-reported and nine teacher-reported child academic and behavioral outcomes measured at wave 5 (six-year follow-up, when children were 6-7.5), one showed significant improvements for the intervention group: teacher-reported internalizing problems (Feinberg et al., 2014). In looking at program effects by child gender, boys only showed significant improvement for anxious/depressed, attention problems, aggressive behavior, internalizing, and externalizing (additional analyses submitted to Blueprints). Parent- and teacher-reported conduct problems and emotional problems and teacher-reported classroom participation and academic participation showed no direct or gender moderated program effects.
Pregnancy-related outcomes assessed mid-program (four of eight classes) indicated one main effect of the intervention (fewer Caesarian births). Birth weight, number of weeks born premature, premature status, the number of days the child was in the hospital, pregnancy complications, and the number of days the mother was in the hospital showed no program effects for the full sample.
Moderation analyses indicated the greater effectiveness of the program for high-risk couples. Significant moderators included low parental education, high maternal and paternal attachment insecurity, unmarried mothers, high baseline negative communication levels, high baseline cortisol levels, baseline psychological partner aggression, baseline physical partner aggression, and baseline intimate partner violence, all of which strengthened the relationships between intervention status and different outcomes.
Study 2
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) found no program effects on birth outcomes. Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) found that intervention couples did significantly better than control couples on outcomes relating to co-parenting, family relationship, and family violence and on child outcomes relating to soothability, duration of orientation (i.e., attention span), and sleeping. Jones et al. (2018) found at the 2-year follow-up assessment that the intervention group (compared to the control group) showed significantly greater observational family interaction co-parenting, lower observational family interaction parenting negativity, fewer parent-reported child internalizing behaviors, and fewer parent-reported child nighttime wakings. Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) found at the 7-year follow-up assessment that the intervention group (compared to the control group) showed significantly better observer-rated positive affect, negative affect, physical aggression toward objects, and affection toward parents and significantly lower teacher-rated externalizing.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
At wave 2 (posttest, when children were about six months), the study (Feinberg & Kan, 2008) reported a significant intervention effect for:
At wave 3 (six-month follow-up, when children were about one year old), intervention participants showed improved (Feinberg et al., 2009):
At wave 4 (2.5-year follow-up, when children were three years old), intervention participants showed program effects for (Feinberg et al., 2010):
At wave 5 (six-year follow-up, when children were 6-7.5 years old), intervention participants showed improvements in the following child outcomes (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014 and additional analyses submitted to Blueprints):
Pregnancy-related outcomes from mid-program showed a significant intervention effect (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014):
Study 2
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016), Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016), Jones et al. (2018), Feinberg and Jones (2018), and Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) found that the intervention group (compared to the control group) showed significantly:
In Study 1 (Solmeyer et al, 2014), coparenting competition mediated the effect of the intervention on wave 4 child adjustment problems for mother-son and father-child relationships, but not mother-daughter relationships. The proportion of total effects mediated by coparenting competition was 39% for mothers and sons and 55% for fathers. Coparenting positivity did not mediate program effects for mothers or fathers.
In Study 2, Feinberg and Jones (2018) found, when examining four mediators in combination, there was a significant indirect effect on externalizing and a marginally significant indirect effect on internalizing (p = .089). The authors argued that, although the impact of a single mediator was small, the impact of multiple mediators combined revealed the ability of the program to improve child outcomes.
For Study 1, since there were many effects across different outcomes and analyses, the sizes ranged from small to large. Coparenting outcomes generally had small-medium or medium effect sizes, child behavior outcomes generally had medium to medium-large effect sizes, and the adverse birth outcome effect was small.
For Study 2, Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) reported small effect sizes on child outcomes of .20-.27, but effect sizes for parent outcomes ranged more widely from .20 to .79. Feinberg & Gedaly (2021) found effect sizes ranging widely from .36 (medium-small) to .83 (large).
Two studies meet Blueprints standards for high quality methods with strong evidence of program impact (i.e., "certified" by Blueprints): Study 1 (Feinberg & Kan, 2008 and additional articles) and Study 2 (Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al., 2016 and additional articles). The samples for both studies included a high proportion of couples who were white, married, and high socioeconomic status.
Blueprints: Model
Crime Solutions: Promising
OJJDP Model Programs: Promising
SAMHSA : 3.6-3.7
Mark E. Feinberg
Prevention Research Center
Pennsylvania State University
S-109 Henderson Building
University Park, 16802
Email: mef11@psu.edu
www.famfound.net
Feinberg, M. E., & Kan, M. L. (2008). Establishing Family Foundations: Intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2), 253-263.
Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Kan, M. L., & Goslin, M. C. (2010). Effects of Family Foundations on parents and children: 3.5 years after baseline. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(5), 532-542.
Certified Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Roettger, M., Solmeyer, A., & Hostetler, M. L. (2014). Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial of Family Foundations: Effects on children's emotional, behavioral, and school adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 821-831.
Feinberg, M. E., Kan, M. L., & Goslin, M. (2009). Enhancing coparenting, parenting and child self-regulation: Effects of Family Foundations one year after birth. Prevention Science, 10(3), 276-285.
Feinberg, M. E., Roettger, M. E., Jones, D. E., Paul, I. M., & Kan, M. L. (2014). Effects of a psychosocial couple-based prevention program on adverse birth outcomes. Maternal Child Health Journal, published online 27 June 2014.
Kan, M. L., & Feinberg, M. E. (2013a). Links between pre-birth intimate partner violence and observed parenting among first-time parents? Unpublished manuscript.
Kan, M. L., & Feinberg, M. E. (2013b). Can strong family foundations prevent parent and partner aggression among couples with young children. Unpublished manuscript.
Solmeyer, A. R., Feinberg, M. E., Coffman, D. L., & Jones, D. E. (2014). The effects of the Family Foundations prevention program on coparenting and child adjustment: A mediation analysis. Prevention Science, 15(2), 213-223.
Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Roettger, M. E., Hostetler, M. L., Sakuma, K. L., Paul, I. M., & Ehrenthal, D. B. (2016). Preventive effects on birth outcomes: Buffering impact of maternal stress, depression, and anxiety. Maternal Child Health Journal, 20, 56-65. doi:10.1007/s10995-015-1801-3
Jones, D. E., Feinberg, M. E., Hostetler, M. L., Roettger, M. E., Paul, I. M., & Ehrenthal, D. B. (2018). Family and child outcomes 2 years after a transition to parenthood intervention. Family Relations, 67(2), 270-286.
Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D. E., Hostetler, M. L., Roettger, M. E., Paul, I. M., & Ehrenthal, D. B. (2016). Couple-focused prevention at the transition to parenthood, a randomized trial: Effects on coparenting, parenting, family violence, and parent and child adjustment. Prevention Science, 17, 751-764. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0674-z
Feinberg, M. E., & Jones, D. E. (2018). Experimental support for a family systems approach to child development: Multiple mediators of intervention effects across the transition to parenthood. Couple Family Psychology, 7(2), 63-75. http://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000100
Certified
Feinberg, M., & Gedaly, L. (2021). Family Foundations child outcomes at age 7: Teacher ratings and observational outcomes [Unpublished manuscript]. The Pennsylvania State University.
Summary
Feinberg et al. (2008), Feinberg, Jones et al. (2014) and several related studies utilized a randomized controlled design in which heterosexual couples expecting their first child were randomly assigned to an intervention (n=89) or to a no-treatment literature control condition (n=80). Measures of co-parenting, parenting and child development were collected over five waves: pretest, posttest (when the child was about 6 months old), three-month follow-up (child was one year old), two-and-a-half-year follow-up (child was three years old), and a final follow-up (child was six to seven years old).
At wave 2 (posttest, when children were about six months), the study (Feinberg & Kan, 2008) reported a significant intervention effect for:
At wave 3 (six-month follow-up, when children were about one year old), intervention participants showed improved (Feinberg et al., 2009):
At wave 4 (2.5-year follow-up, when children were three years old), intervention participants showed program effects for (Feinberg et al., 2010):
At wave 5 (six-year follow-up, when children were 6-7.5 years old), intervention participants showed improvements in the following child outcomes (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014 and additional analyses submitted to Blueprints):
Pregnancy-related outcomes from mid-program showed a significant intervention effect (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014):
Evaluation Methodology
Design: A randomized controlled design was used to evaluate Family Foundations. Couples were randomly assigned to intervention (n=89) or to no-treatment control conditions (n=80), with the control condition consisting of receiving mailed literature on selecting quality childcare and developmental stages. Data from 4-5 couples were not utilized in analyses because of developmental difficulties, death of one of the parents, or congenital medical problems for the baby, resulting in a sample size of 164-165. Participants were primarily (81%) recruited from childbirth education programs at two hospitals located in small cities. All other couples were recruited from doctors' offices or health centers (8%), by newspaper ads or flyers (7%), by word of mouth (3%), or by unknown means (including radio advertisement, 1%). Presumably, all couples responding to recruitment were enrolled, though no further details on recruitment procedures were provided.
Data were collected on participants five times. The study gathered pretest data (Wave 1) on all 164-165 couples when mothers were pregnant. Posttest data collection (Wave 2) occurred after the intervention couples had completed the postnatal classes, when babies were about 6 months old. Of the eligible enrolled couples, 92% of mothers and 90% of fathers completed wave 2. The study administered a six-month follow-up (Wave 3), when babies were about one year old. For this wave, 93% of mothers and 88% of fathers participated. A two-and-a-half-year follow-up (Wave 4) was conducted when children were about three years old and included 137 families. Wave 5 took place when children were ages 6 to 7.5, or six to seven years after program conclusion. Ninety-eight families provided parent and/or teacher data on child development.
Additional analysis was conducted on a subsample (N=123) of mothers consenting to baseline cortisol measurement and completing posttest data collection (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014).
The investigators provided Blueprints with exact numbers of valid data for each outcome by each wave. Overall, they report sample sizes of 123 at the birth outcome assessment, 152 at wave 2, 156 at wave 3, 142 at wave 4, and 98 at wave 5. Among these samples of completers, the measures generally had little missing data. In a few instances, however, missing data among completers reached higher levels: 9.2% (138/152) in wave 2 for father's Infant Behavior Questionnaire Duration of Orienting, 22.4% (121/156) in wave 3 for mother and father's Dyadic Couple Communication, 24.6% (107/142) in wave 4 for Child Social Competence, and 27.6% (71/98) in wave 5 for teacher reports of Child Emotional Problems. The analytical sample for adverse birth outcomes (Feinberg et al., 2014) was 147.
Sample: Participants were 169 heterosexual couples who, at the time of recruitment, were expecting their first child and were living together. All participants were at least 18 years of age. The couples resided in rural areas, towns, and small cities. The majority of couples were married (82%) and the sample consisted mostly of non-Hispanic whites (90-91%), with the remaining participants of African American, Asian, Hispanic, or other ethnic descent. For the most part, participants were well-educated and middle class. The median annual family income was $65,000 and mothers attained an average of 15.06 years of education and fathers attained an average of 14.51 years. Mothers averaged 28 years old, and fathers averaged 30 years.
The subsample used to examine program effects on pregnancy-related outcomes was demographically similar to the overall sample. The subsample was 92.7% white and 85% married, and had a mean educational level of 15.1 years.
Measures: The study used the following mother, father, and relationship outcomes:
The study used the following parenting and coparenting indicators as outcomes:
The following child behavioral and academic outcomes were used:
The study used the pregnancy-related outcomes listed below. The data were collected at wave 2 but reflect mid-program assessments when four of the eight classes had been offered. Few details were provided on these outcomes.
The study used the following measures as moderators:
The study used the following mediating measure:
Analysis: Multilevel, general linear model, ordinary least squares, logistic, and negative binomial regression models analyzed program effects. For outcomes available separately for mothers and fathers, multilevel models controlled for within-family dependency. For analyses looking at multiple waves of data, multilevel models nested waves of data within family, aggregated at the parent level (Feinberg et al., 2010). Some analyses used full-information maximum-likelihood techniques to accommodate missing data and allow for inclusion of the full eligible sample (Solmeyer et al., 2013; Kan and Feinberg, 2013a; Kan and Feinberg, 2013b). Condition status was assigned at the couple level. Analyses looking at maternal or paternal outcomes appropriately adjusted for clustering within couples, while other analyses were appropriately conducted at the couple level.
Additional analyses explored moderating effects with interaction terms for intervention by parent education and attachment insecurity (Feinberg and Kan, 2008), child gender (Feinberg et al., 2010; Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014), parent gender and marital status (Feinberg et al., 2010), baseline negative communication levels (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014), and baseline cortisol level (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014). Mediation analyses used path analysis, a bias-corrected bootstrap test and the proportion-mediated measure to determine size and significance of mediators (Solmeyer et al., 2013).
The study used different covariates in analyses including parent age, education, and social desirability (Feinberg and Kan, 2008; Feinberg et al., 2009), respondent age, marital status, family income, respondent educational level, social desirability score, financial strain score, and maternal relationship attachment insecurity (Feinberg et al., 2010), child gender, child age, marital status, and baseline characteristics of parental education, family income, and negative communication (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014), child gender, baseline maternal education, and marital status (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014), wave 1 maternal education and parent reports of social desirability (Solmeyer et al., 2013), mother's education (Kan and Feinberg, 2013a), and parent mean education (Kan and Feinberg, 2013b).
Baseline controls were not collected for coparenting, parenting, or child outcomes, as they would not have been appropriate before birth. Thus, most analyses did not control for baseline outcome levels. Analyses for parental depression and anxiety (wave 2) and couple behaviors (wave 3) controlled for baseline levels through the use of group-by-time interactions (Feinberg and Kan, 2008; Feinberg et al., 2009)
Analyses were run as intent-to-treat and included all parents completing data collection, regardless of level of program participation.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity: Though couples did not appear to participate fully in the program, the study showed high fidelity to program content. An observer from the project team attended and rated over 90% of intervention sessions for implementation fidelity, finding that an average of 95% of the curriculum content was delivered. Average attendance was 5.50 classes for mothers and 5.38 classes for fathers, with only 3% of mothers and 5% of fathers attending no sessions. Most couples (66% of mothers and 63% of fathers) attended five or more sessions.
Baseline Equivalence: As child outcomes could not have been collected at pre-birth baseline assessment, equivalence could not be tested for all measures. However, the study reported that "analyses indicated no significant differences between intervention couples and control group couples on a wide range of pretest variables, including age, income, education, marital status, weeks of gestation, mental health, and relationship quality" (Feinberg and Kan, 2008). In addition, the investigators provided Blueprints with comparisons of the intervention and control group on 35 parent variables at the time of birth and at waves 2-5. The results demonstrate group equivalence. Only 4 of 175 comparisons (5 times 35) showed a significance difference, and only one variable - father's insecure attachment - showed consistent significant differences across waves.
Differential Attrition: Attrition differed according to the wave of data collection, with participation declining across the study period. The studies reported partial information on differential attrition for individual waves (described below). However, the investigators provided Blueprints with a more detailed analysis of differential attrition that summarizes the pattern across five waves for 39 variables. The 195 tests (5 times 39) for differences between completers and dropouts showed no significant results at the time of birth and wave 2, one significant result at wave 3, five significant results at wave 4, and two significant results at wave 5. The wave 4 pattern of higher attrition among high-risk subjects was found in additional analyses to occur primarily in the control group, which may serve to attenuate differences across conditions.
Participation in posttest data collection was high, with 92% of mothers and 90% of fathers completing wave 2. The rates of participation were similar across control (91%) and intervention (89%) couples, and the study noted that "there were no differences in the association of pretest variables with continued participation across conditions" (Feinberg and Kan, 2008).
For wave 3, 88% of mothers and 93% of fathers of the original 165 couples completed data collection. At both baseline and wave 3, married couples were more likely to have videotaped interactions (Feinberg et al., 2009).
The study reported that 84.6% (N=137) of families provided data at wave 4. Regressions testing whether study participation between intervention and control groups was associated to background characteristics indicated that attriters in the control condition had lower maternal education levels than intervention attriters, though no other significant differences emerged. The study reported that wave 4 analyses using imputation techniques to estimate missing values for attriters supported the reported results for models only including wave 4 participants (Feinberg et al., 2010).
Wave 5 showed substantial attrition, due to the long follow-up period. The study predicted participation in wave 5 using several demographic and key study variables, finding only that family income was a significant predictor (Feinberg, Jones et al., 2014).
Analyses looking at moderation of program effects on mid-program pregnancy-related outcomes by cortisol levels used a subsample of mothers who consented to have cortisol measurements at baseline and completed data at wave 2. Of the 137 mothers who provided cortisol levels, 90% (N=123) completed posttest data. No analyses comparing participation rates were provided (Feinberg, Roettger et al., 2014).
Mid-Program Assessment: Pregnancy-related outcomes assessed mid-program (4 of 8 classes) indicated 1 main effect of the intervention (reduced levels of Caesarian birth), out of 6 outcomes. Birth weight, number of weeks born premature, premature status, the number of days the child was in the hospital, pregnancy complications, and the number of days the mother was in the hospital showed no direct program effects.
Posttest: At wave 2 (posttest when children were six months old), two of four child outcomes and 6 of 12 parent outcomes showed significant improvement. Mothers and fathers' coparental support, fathers' parent-child dysfunctional interaction and parenting-based closeness, mothers' depressive symptoms and anxiety, father-reported infant soothability, and child duration of orienting all showed significant differences. Mothers' and fathers' coparental undermining, mothers' parent-child dysfunctional interaction and parenting-based closeness, fathers' depressive symptoms and anxiety, mother-reported infant soothability, and child sleep habits did not show any significant program effect.
Follow-up: Of the 20 parenting, couple, coparenting, and child outcomes tested at wave 3, 13 showed significant improvements for the intervention participants. Mothers and fathers in the treatment group showed reduced competition and triangulation in coparenting, increased warmth to partner, and increased parenting positivity. Mothers, but not fathers, improved on coparenting inclusion and negative communication to partner, while fathers significantly increased coparenting warmth and reduced parenting negativity. Neither maternal nor paternal active coparenting cooperation showed a significant difference. For child outcomes, self-soothing improved significantly, but sustained attention did not.
Wave 4 analyses indicated a significant program effect on 10 of the 17 parent, interparental relationship, parenting, and child outcomes. Intervention participants improved parental stress, parental efficacy, coparenting quality, parenting over reactivity, parenting laxness, physical punishment, total behavior problems, child externalizing problems, child aggression, and child social competence. No significant effect emerged for parental depression, relationship satisfaction, child internalizing problems, child attention/hyperactivity, or child emotional competence (Feinberg et al., 2010), or for partner psychological aggression or parent-child physical aggression (Kan and Feinberg, 2013b). Additional analyses showed that among families with boys, the program had an effect on internalizing, attention/hyperactivity, and parent relationship satisfaction, and showed a stronger effect on total behavior problems, externalizing, and aggression for boys. For models assessing outcomes available at multiple waves (parental stress, efficacy, depression, and coparenting quality), there was no evidence that intervention and control conditions differed in rates of change across postintervention assessments.
Main effects analyses indicate that of the two parent-reported and nine teacher-reported child academic and behavioral outcomes measured at wave 5, one showed significant improvements for the intervention group: teacher-reported internalizing problems (Feinberg et al., 2014). In looking at program effects by child gender, boys but not girls showed significant improvement for anxious/depressed, attention problems, aggressive behavior, internalizing, and externalizing (additional analyses submitted to Blueprints). Parent- and teacher-reported conduct problems and emotional problems and teacher-reported classroom participation and academic participation showed no direct or gender moderated program effects.
Moderation: The study reported parental education, maternal and paternal attachment insecurity, the interaction of parent gender and marital status, baseline negative communication levels, baseline cortisol levels, baseline psychological partner aggression, baseline physical partner aggression, and baseline intimate partner violence as significant moderators of relationships between intervention status and different outcomes.
Results of moderation analyses on wave 2 parental and child outcomes indicated that intervention effects were greater for those with less education or higher levels of attachment insecurity. Parental education significantly moderated the intervention effect on maternal depression, mother report of coparental support, and child sleep habits, but did not moderate the other 13 outcomes. Of 16 moderation models determining whether the effects of the intervention depended on maternal or paternal attachment insecurity, seven showed significant results, though one effect was not interpreted as it showed a direction opposite to the other six. Father's insecurity moderated the effect of the intervention on maternal depression, mother's coparental support, coparental undermining, maternal dysfunctional interaction, and paternal dysfunctional interaction. Mother's insecurity moderated maternal depression.
Wave 3 models showed moderation of the treatment by baseline intimate partner violence perpetration for 6 of 12 comparisons. For mothers and fathers, parenting positivity, negativity toward daughters, and reactivity to distress indicated stronger program effects for couples with higher baseline levels of intimate partner violence. Parenting positivity, negativity toward sons, and parenting intrusiveness showed no moderation effects for mothers or fathers.
Models also tested for moderating effects of parent gender and marital status on parent and child outcomes collected at wave 4. One significant result indicated that among nonmarried mothers, intervention participants showed lower levels of depression. No other significant moderating effects of child gender or parent gender and marital status emerged. Additional results looking at moderation effects for wave 4 outcomes showed that the intervention had stronger effects on fathers' psychological partner aggression for couples with higher baseline levels of psychological partner aggression or physical partner aggression and on mothers' aggression toward the child for couples with higher baseline levels of psychological partner aggression. Parents' baseline negative communication moderated program effects on most parent- or teacher-reported child outcomes at wave 5. Parent-reported emotional problems and teacher-reported classroom participation, academic motivation, conduct problems, emotional problems, anxious/depressed, aggressive behavior, internalizing, and externalizing all indicated that the intervention worked best for children whose parents had negative communication at baseline.
Four of the 6 pregnancy-related outcomes indicated moderation, showing that the intervention improved outcomes only for women with high cortisol levels. This effect was observed for birth weight, number of weeks born premature, the number of days the child was in the hospital, and the number of days the mother was in the hospital. Caesarian birth and pregnancy complications showed no moderation effects from cortisol levels.
Mediation: In Solmeyer et al. (2014), coparenting competition mediated the effect of the intervention on wave 4 child adjustment problems for mother-son and father-child relationships, but not mother-daughter relationships. The proportion of total effects mediated by coparenting competition was 39% for mothers and sons and 55% for fathers. Coparenting positivity did not mediate program effects for mothers or fathers.
Summary
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016), Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016), Jones et al. (2018), Feinberg and Jones (2018), and Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) conducted a randomized controlled trial with a sample of 399 cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child. The intervention couples (n =221) and control couples (n = 178) were followed from the prenatal period to 10 months, two years and seven years after birth of the child. Child measures of soothability, nighttime waking, internalizing and externalizing came from parent reports. When the child was age 7, additional measures of child behavior were collected from direct observations and teacher reports.
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016), Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016), Jones et al. (2018), Feinberg and Jones (2018), and Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) found that the intervention group (compared to the control group) showed significantly:
Evaluation Methodology
Design:
Recruitment: In three mid-Atlantic and one southern state, cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child were recruited primarily through hospitals, childbirth education programs and Ob/Gyn clinics, but also through media advertisements and fliers. The study reported identifying 743 eligible couples, of which 399 agreed to participate. Separate cohorts of participants were recruited in succession across study sites between the fall of 2008-2012.
Assignment: The study randomly assigned the 399 couples to the treatment or control condition in a randomized block design, based on pretest data. The intervention sample included 221 couples who received the program at five hospital sites, and the control sample included 178 couples who received only mailed materials on childcare and child development.
Assessments/Attrition: The pretest came before the birth of the child, and the posttest came 10 months after the birth of the child. Of 399 participants, 312 (78%) completed the posttest. In addition, eight couples were excluded due to multiple births, developmental disorders, or severe parent or infant medical problems, leaving 304 (76%) participants in Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016). Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) excluded 45 other couples without pretest control measures, with low session attendance, or extreme propensity score. Their posttest sample included 259 participants (65%).
The long-term follow-up came two years after the birth of the child. In Jones et al. (2018) and Feinberg & Jones (2018), 302 of 399 (76%) randomized couples were included in the analytical sample. A total of 89 families (22%) were lost to follow-up. However, only 240 provided observational data (40% attrition).
Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) assessed the children at ages 7-8 in 2017-2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic stopped data collection before completion. Of the 399 randomized families, 200 (50%) contributed data. Additionally, of the 200 participating families, 157 fathers and 166 mothers from 168 families participated in the observational task procedure with their child (84% completion relative to the 200 participants and 42% completion relative to the 399 randomization participants). Of the 200 participating families, 173 gave consent to contact the child's teacher, and 125 teachers responded (62% completion relative to the 200 participants and 31% completion relative to the 399 randomization participants).
Sample:
The authors referred to the sample as well-educated, high functioning, and low risk. The average education level in the sample was 15.7 years. About 87% of the couples were married, and 81% of the participants were non-Hispanic white. The mean age of expectant mothers was 29.1 years and fathers was 31.1 years, and all were at least age 18.
Measures:
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) examined 26 outcomes in four groups: 1) 11 measures of positive and negative family interaction, as coded from videotapes by observers who were unaware of condition, 2) six parent-reported measures of family relations and their own adjustment, 3) four parent-reported measures of family violence, and 4) five parent-reported measures of child outcomes related to soothability, duration of orientation (i.e., attention span), and sleeping. Inter-rater reliabilities for the observational measures ranged from .66 to .85. The parent-reported measures had alphas of .75 or higher. Of the four groups of outcomes, only the last related to child behavior. However, because parents helped deliver the program, their ratings of child outcomes may not be independent.
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) measured birth weight, maternal length of stay in hospital after birth (days), and newborn length of stay in hospital after birth (days) as outcome measures. These measures were obtained from parents up to 10 months after the birth of the child and depended on accurate recall.
Jones et al. (2018) and Feinberg and Jones (2018) included the following measures in their study: five observational family interaction tasks (coparenting triadic relationship quality, coparenting positivity aggregate, coparenting negativity aggregate, parenting positivity aggregate, and parenting negativity aggregate); two self-report parent measures of depressive symptoms and anxiety from the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale and the revised Penn State Worry Questionnaire; two parent-reported child measures of externalizing and internalizing scales from the Child Behavior Checklist; and two mother-reported number of night wakings and hours child sleeps during night from the Child Sleep Questionnaire. Two research assistant raters unaware of conditions coded the observational family interaction tasks. However, parents helped deliver the program and rated their children.
Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) used two types of measures. First, measures of observed child behavior came from videotapes of family interactions made during home visits. One set of codes measured general behavior: positive affect, activity, physical aggression towards objects, and negative affect (a composite of anger and sadness). Another set of codes measured behaviors towards each parent: affection, engagement, resisting control, hostility, and physical aggression. In a separate supplemental document provided to Blueprints, the authors noted that raters were unaware of condition assignment and that ICC values indicated acceptable inter-rater reliabilities. Second, two teacher-reported measures of externalizing (alpha = .79) and internalizing (alpha = .71) came from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Teachers were not informed about the intervention or randomized assignment of participants, and presumably, provided fully independent ratings.
Analysis:
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) used linear and negative binomial regression models for family-level measures and multilevel regression models with a random intercept for outcomes available separately for each parent. When possible, baseline outcomes served as one of many control variables, but pre-birth parenting and child outcomes could not be measured.
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) used separate regression models for each outcome to examine main and moderated effects of the intervention. Moderation was analyzed using two- and three-way linear and quadratic interactions.
Jones et al. (2018) used separate regression models to test the main effect of condition (intervention or control) for each outcome. For parent-specific outcomes nested within dyads, the study used multilevel regression models with a random intercept. Ordinary regression models were used for mother-reported child sleep and observed triadic relationship quality, which were outcomes available only at the family level.
Feinberg and Jones (2018) used structural equation models to test for mediation.
Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) used ordinary least squares regression with numerous covariates that had been utilized in prior studies of this program. The analysis could not use baseline child outcomes, as the baseline assessment occurred before birth of the child.
Intent-to-Treat: Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) excluded eight families (2%) with multiple births, infant developmental disorders (e.g., autism, Down syndrome), or severe parent or infant medical problems (e.g., severe congenital defect, poor maternal health). Otherwise, the study used multiple imputation for missing data. Because the CONSORT diagram in Figure 1 shows that 304 participants were analyzed, rather than the full sample of 399, it appears that the multiple imputation was applied to missing pretest data rather than missing posttest data.
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) violated the intent-to-treat criterion by excluding subjects who attended fewer than three of the five prenatal classes, which was deemed insufficient participation. However, the analysis also used propensity score weights to attempt to correct for selection bias created by dropping non-participants from the intervention group.
Jones et al. (2018) used ITT analyses and included multiple imputation procedures for missing data in the intervention and control groups. A total of 302 families had complete data available for analyses, which included 169 of 221 (76%) intervention group families and 133 of 178 (75%) control group families. Seven families from the intervention group and two families from the control group (a total of only 2%) were excluded from analyses due to multiple birth or child heath/development complications.
Feinberg and Jones (2018) used full information maximum likelihood estimation to include nearly all of the full sample. However, they excluded three families who did not attend any of the prenatal classes and eight families with multiple births, infant developmental disorders, or severe parent or infant medical problems.
Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) used all available data. The pandemic lockdown prevented complete data gathering. Although it is not certain, it appears that the stoppage did not relate to participation in the program.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity: The average attendance rate at the five prenatal classes was 87.9% among participants, with an average of 4.3 classes. The authors estimated that attending three of the five prenatal classes would represent minimally adequate dosage. Of the intervention mothers, 91.8% achieved that minimum attendance. Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) reported that, based on ratings of videotaped classes, leaders delivered an average of 90% of the content as planned.
Jones et al. (2018) reported that more than half of intervention couples attended at least eight of the nine classes and only 4% of the families attended no sessions.
Baseline Equivalence:
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) assessed group differences on over 60 measured preintervention variables. The authors stated only that they "found no patterns of statistical differences between groups from this assessment."
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) did not examine baseline equivalence in outcome measures, because the outcomes related to the subsequent birth of the child. Although the study did not provide significance tests for differences in demographic and other measures at baseline, the percentages appear similar (Table 1).
Jones et al. (2018) did not report significance tests for available baseline outcomes and sociodemographic measures. Feinberg and Jones (2018) noted that there were "no significant differences between intervention and control conditions" on 20 demographic and outcome measures listed in Table 1.
In a separate document provided to Blueprints that supplemented the Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) paper, the authors performed tests for baseline equivalence using the observational data (n = 168) and teacher data (n = 125) available at the long-term follow-up. These tests extended those for the full randomized sample by checking for distortions of equivalence due to attrition. In 16 tests for condition differences in sociodemographic and outcome variables using the observational data and in 16 tests for condition differences in sociodemographic and outcome variables using the teacher data, all were non-significant.
Differential Attrition:
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016) used logistic regressions to predict posttest participation with interaction terms between condition and specific predictors. The predictors included baseline parent and couple characteristics representing stress, mental health, and relationship qualities. The authors stated that they "found no evidence of differential attrition."
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) examined if baseline socioeconomic, mental health, and other demographic information predicted the likelihood to drop out before posttest. They reported only that there were "no significant condition differences in likelihood to drop out of the study before posttest."
Jones et al. (2018) and Feinberg and Jones (2018) tested for differential attrition as the effects of baseline measures on posttest participation and the interaction of condition and baseline measures on posttest participation. They stated that these analyses showed "no evidence of differential attrition between conditions" but provided no details.
In a separate document provided to Blueprints that supplemented the Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) paper, the authors performed additional tests for differential attrition. Logistic regression models examined the interaction effects of condition times each of 17 baseline sociodemographic and outcome variables in predicting attrition in the observational and teacher data. The interaction terms in all models were non-significant, which indicated no apparent attrition bias in the analysis samples.
Posttest:
Feinberg, Jones, Hostetler et al. (2016, Table 2) found significant and beneficial intervention effects for 12 of 21 risk and protective outcomes (effect sizes ranged from .20 to .79). One other outcome, the quality of marriage index, showed a significant iatrogenic effect. For child outcomes, the results showed significant and beneficial intervention effects for four of five parent-reported outcomes, including soothability, duration of orienting (i.e., attention span), night waking, and difficulty going back to sleep. Effect sizes ranged from .20-.27. For outcomes without a significant main effect, the authors presented some evidence of moderation that the intervention significantly benefited parents with high negative communication and high depression at baseline.
Feinberg, Jones, Roettger et al. (2016) found no main effects of the program on parent-reported birth outcomes. However, they found significant moderation effects on birth outcomes in 7 of 36 interaction terms (p < .05). The significant moderation indicated that the intervention reduced the harm of high economic strain, depression, and anxiety.
Long-Term:
Approximately two years post-intervention (when children were two years old), Jones et al. (2018) found significant positive effects for five of 11 outcomes. The intervention group, compared to the control group, showed greater co-parenting triadic relationship quality (d = .39) and lower co-parenting negativity (d = .38) and parenting negativity (d = .41) in observational family interaction tasks, and fewer parent-reported child internalizing behaviors (d = .19) and parent-reported child nighttime wakings (incidence ratio rate; IRR = .30). Moderation results found that intervention impact was moderated by pretest levels of observed couple negative communication in five of nine study outcomes (i.e., a larger overall intervention impact for higher risk families at baseline).
Feinberg and Gedaly (2021) reported results for children in second grade, nearly seven years after the program end. First, for the four observational outcome measures of general behavior, the intervention group was rated significantly better than the control group on three: positive affect (d = .53), physical aggression towards objects (d = -.36), and negative affect (d = -.52). Second, for the 10 outcome measures of behavior towards mothers and fathers, the intervention group was rated significantly higher than the control group on two: affection towards mother (d = .52) and affection towards father (d = .70). Third, for the two teacher-rated outcome measures, the intervention group was rated significantly better on one: externalizing (d = -.83). Fourth, some moderation tests suggested that the program reduced child hostility toward fathers among girls but not boys.
Mediation. Feinberg and Jones (2018) examined the indirect effects of the intervention on two outcomes - child externalizing and internalizing at age 2. The four mediators included the 10-month posttest scores on parent depression, parenting stress, parenting negativity, and co-parenting negativity. First, the authors examined each of the mediators separately. None of the indirect effects showed a significant mediated impact for either the externalizing or internalizing outcomes. Second, the authors examined mediators in combination. These results showed a significant indirect effect on externalizing and a marginally significant indirect effect on internalizing (p = .089). The authors argued that, although the impact of a single mediator was small, the impact of multiple mediators combined revealed the ability of the program to improve child outcomes.