Cited by 104Child Welfare and AdoptionEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Promoting First Relationships: Randomized Trial of a Relationship-Based Intervention for Toddlers in Child Welfare

Open access
Spieker, Susan J., Oxford, Monica L., Kelly, Jean F., Nelson, Elizabeth M., Fleming, Charles B.·2012·Child Maltreatment

Abstract

We conducted a community-based, randomized control trial with intent-to-treat analyses of Promoting First Relationships (PFR) to improve parenting and toddler outcomes for toddlers in state dependency. Toddlers (10–24 months; N = 210) with a recent placement disruption were randomized to 10-week PFR or a comparison condition. Community agency providers were trained to use PFR in the intervention for caregivers. From baseline to postintervention, observational ratings of caregiver sensitivity improved more in the PFR condition than in the comparison condition, with an effect size for the difference in adjusted means postintervention of d = .41. Caregiver understanding of toddlers’ social emotional needs and caregiver reports of child competence also differed by intervention condition postintervention ( d = .36 and d = .42) with caregivers in the PFR condition reporting more understanding of toddlers and child competence. Models of PFR effects on within-individual change were significant for caregiver sensitivity and understanding of toddlers. At the 6-month follow-up, only 61% of original sample dyads were still intact and there were no significant differences on caregiver or child outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077559512458176

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PFR did not change attachment security either immediately after intervention or at six months.

    “Although successful in improving sensitivity, postintervention and 6-month follow up revealed no changes in attachment security.”

    From Relational Interventions for Maltreated Children (2017) · cites this paper as Spieker et al., 2012

  • A randomized PFR trial found caregivers improved more than an educational comparison group in sensitivity (d=.41) and in understanding children's emotional needs (d=.36).

    “demonstrated that caregivers in the PFR condition had greater improvements in sensitivity (d = .41) and understanding of children’s emotional needs (d = .36) postintervention than did those in the educational comparison condition (Spieker et al., 2012).”

    From Relational Interventions for Maltreated Children (2017) · cites this paper as Spieker et al., 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kelly J Buehlman K Caldwell K 2000 Training and early intervention to promote quality parent-child interaction in homeless families Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 20 3 174 185 http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal201884
  2. Siegel DJ 2001 Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind: Attachment relationships, “mindsight,” and neural integration Infant Mental Health Journal 22 1–2 67 94

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spieker, S. J., Oxford, M. L., Kelly, J. F., Nelson, E. M., & Fleming, C. B.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Child Maltreatment
Published
2012-09-04
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
271-286
ISSN
  • 1077-5595 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6119
OpenAlex
W2038885525
Cited by
104
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
10.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Maltreatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH077329)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30HD02274, P30HD002274)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
parenting support, caregiver sensitivity, placement disruption, child welfare, child competence, social-emotional needs, family reunification
MeSH terms
Child Behavior, Child Health Services, Child Welfare, Child, Preschool, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Object Attachment, Parent-Child Relations, Parenting, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review