Hands and Hearts Together

NCT05834907 | Recruiting

• 2 other identifiers: 1857396-181R01HD105676-01A1
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 249
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 2

Brief Summary

Growing evidence demonstrates that secure attachment in childhood predicts children's healthy social, biological, and behavioral functioning, whereas insecure attachment predicts behavior problems and physiological dysregulation; thus, efforts to foster secure attachment are crucial for promoting the healthy development of children and families. This proposal describes a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an innovative intervention program that can be widely implemented designed to foster children's secure attachment, promote healthy physiological regulation, and reduce the risk for behavior problems: The Circle of Security ® Parenting (COS-P) intervention. To this end, investigators will conduct an RCT with 249 parent-child dyads enrolled or are eligible but not yet enrolled in two diverse Early Head Start (EHS) programs.

Conditions

Parent-Child Relations; Development, Infant; Parenting; Development, Child

Keywords

Parent-Child Relations; Development, Infant; Parenting; Development, Child; Attachment; Home Visiting; Early Intervention

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (33)

• Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) #1

  Child-parent attachment for children aged 12-24 months will be assessed with Ainsworth's Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) procedure. The 20-minute procedure consists of two infant-parent separations, and two reunions. Infant behavior is used to classify infants as secure or one of three types of insecure; continuous security scores can also be derived, and will be used in addition to classifications.

  Baseline

• Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) #2

  Child-parent attachment for children aged 12-24 months will be assessed with Ainsworth's Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) procedure. The 20-minute procedure consists of two infant-parent separations, and two reunions. Infant behavior is used to classify infants as secure or one of three types of insecure; continuous security scores can also be derived, and will be used in addition to classifications.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) #3

  Child-parent attachment for children aged 12-24 months will be assessed with Ainsworth's Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) procedure. The 20-minute procedure consists of two infant-parent separations, and two reunions. Infant behavior is used to classify infants as secure or one of three types of insecure; continuous security scores can also be derived, and will be used in addition to classifications.

  6-month follow up

• Macarthur Preschool Strange Situation (PACS) #1

  Child-parent attachment for children over 24-months will be assessed with the MacArthur Preschool Strange Situation (PACS; Cassidy et al., 1992; Solomon \& George, 2016), which also classifies children as secure or one of three types of insecure; continuous security scores on a scale of 1 to 7 can also be derived, and these (standardized) scores will be used along with classifications. This procedure consists of an initial 3-minute period in which both parent and child are in the toy-filled playroom, followed by two separations (3 and 5 minute) and two 3-minute reunions.

  Baseline

• Macarthur Preschool Strange Situation (PACS) #2

  Child-parent attachment for children over 24-months will be assessed with the MacArthur Preschool Strange Situation (PACS; Cassidy et al., 1992; Solomon \& George, 2016), which also classifies children as secure or one of three types of insecure; continuous security scores on a scale of 1 to 7 can also be derived, and these (standardized) scores will be used along with classifications. This procedure consists of an initial 3-minute period in which both parent and child are in the toy-filled playroom, followed by two separations (3 and 5 minute) and two 3-minute reunions.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Macarthur Preschool Strange Situation (PACS) #3

  Child-parent attachment for children over 24-months will be assessed with the MacArthur Preschool Strange Situation (PACS; Cassidy et al., 1992; Solomon \& George, 2016), which also classifies children as secure or one of three types of insecure; continuous security scores on a scale of 1 to 7 can also be derived, and these (standardized) scores will be used along with classifications. This procedure consists of an initial 3-minute period in which both parent and child are in the toy-filled playroom, followed by two separations (3 and 5 minute) and two 3-minute reunions.

  6-month follow up

• Cortisol Stress Reactivity and Recovery #1

  Cortisol stress reactivity and recovery will be assessed (following previous studies; e.g., Luijk et al., 2010) using the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) as the stressor. Salivary samples will be collected (using a 125mm polymer swab) at baseline (pre-task), 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-minutes post peak SSP stressor (i.e., end of separation 2), then frozen in tubes. Radioimmunoassay analysis will be done in duplicate, with the mean used as the final measure (in ug/dl). Labs will begin in the afternoon (between 1-4pm) to reduce potential diurnal effects. Multiple studies (e.g., Bernard \& Dozier, 2010; Thompson et al., 2015) demonstrated a lack of diurnal influence in infant cortisol studies, thus time of day will not be controlled. Cortisol may fluctuate with sleep/wake patterns and eating (Gunnar \& Herrera, 2013), so investigators will control for time of last waking and eating.

  Baseline

• Cortisol Stress Reactivity and Recovery #2

  Cortisol stress reactivity and recovery will be assessed (following previous studies; e.g., Luijk et al., 2010) using the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) as the stressor. Salivary samples will be collected (using a 125mm polymer swab) at baseline (pre-task), 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-minutes post peak SSP stressor (i.e., end of separation 2), then frozen in tubes. Radioimmunoassay analysis will be done in duplicate, with the mean used as the final measure (in ug/dl). Labs will begin in the afternoon (between 1-4pm) to reduce potential diurnal effects. Multiple studies (e.g., Bernard \& Dozier, 2010; Thompson et al., 2015) demonstrated a lack of diurnal influence in infant cortisol studies, thus time of day will not be controlled. Cortisol may fluctuate with sleep/wake patterns and eating (Gunnar \& Herrera, 2013), so investigators will control for time of last waking and eating.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Cortisol Stress Reactivity and Recovery #3

  Cortisol stress reactivity and recovery will be assessed (following previous studies; e.g., Luijk et al., 2010) using the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) as the stressor. Salivary samples will be collected (using a 125mm polymer swab) at baseline (pre-task), 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-minutes post peak SSP stressor (i.e., end of separation 2), then frozen in tubes. Radioimmunoassay analysis will be done in duplicate, with the mean used as the final measure (in ug/dl). Labs will begin in the afternoon (between 1-4pm) to reduce potential diurnal effects. Multiple studies (e.g., Bernard \& Dozier, 2010; Thompson et al., 2015) demonstrated a lack of diurnal influence in infant cortisol studies, thus time of day will not be controlled. Cortisol may fluctuate with sleep/wake patterns and eating (Gunnar \& Herrera, 2013), so investigators will control for time of last waking and eating.

  6-month follow up

• Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) #1

  Child behavior problems will are assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist (version for 1.5- to 5-year-olds; CBCL; Achenbach \& Rescorla, 2000). Parents will complete this widely used 100-item questionnaire to report their children's internalizing (36 items, e.g., "is nervous, withdrawn") and externalizing (24 items, e.g., "is restless, disobedient") behavior problems. Responses are given on a 3-point scale: (0) not true, (1). somewhat/ sometimes true, (2) very/often true). Items are summed to create subscales for internalizing and externalizing problems.

  Baseline

• Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) #2

  Child behavior problems will are assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist (version for 1.5- to 5-year-olds; CBCL; Achenbach \& Rescorla, 2000). Parents will complete this widely used 100-item questionnaire to report their children's internalizing (36 items, e.g., "is nervous, withdrawn") and externalizing (24 items, e.g., "is restless, disobedient") behavior problems. Responses are given on a 3-point scale: (0) not true, (1). somewhat/ sometimes true, (2) very/often true). Items are summed to create subscales for internalizing and externalizing problems.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) #3

  Child behavior problems will are assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist (version for 1.5- to 5-year-olds; CBCL; Achenbach \& Rescorla, 2000). Parents will complete this widely used 100-item questionnaire to report their children's internalizing (36 items, e.g., "is nervous, withdrawn") and externalizing (24 items, e.g., "is restless, disobedient") behavior problems. Responses are given on a 3-point scale: (0) not true, (1). somewhat/ sometimes true, (2) very/often true). Items are summed to create subscales for internalizing and externalizing problems.

  6-month follow up

• Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) #1

  Child behavior problems (from parent report) will be assessed with the ITSEA (Carter \& Briggs-Gowan, 2000; Carter et al., 2003) for children below the age of 1.5 years. The ITSEA assesses internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Parents will rate items on a scale of 0 (not true) to 2 (very true).

  Baseline

• Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) #2

  Child behavior problems (from parent report) will be assessed with the ITSEA (Carter \& Briggs-Gowan, 2000; Carter et al., 2003) for children below the age of 1.5 years. The ITSEA assesses internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Parents will rate items on a scale of 0 (not true) to 2 (very true).

  Immediately post-intervention

• Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) #3

  Child behavior problems (from parent report) will be assessed with the ITSEA (Carter \& Briggs-Gowan, 2000; Carter et al., 2003) for children below the age of 1.5 years. The ITSEA assesses internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Parents will rate items on a scale of 0 (not true) to 2 (very true).

  6-month follow up

• Parental Emotional Responses to Child Distress #1

  Parental emotional response to child distress will be assessed with the Crying Infant Video Task (Leerkes et al., 2004, 2011), in which parents watch four one-minute videos of (gender-neutral, racially diverse) infants in distress (i.e., crying loudly and continuously while sitting in a highchair). Following each clip, parents complete a questionnaire (4-point scale; 17 items) about their emotions while watching the clips, and elaborate about these emotions. Mean intensity scores are used to create a child-oriented empathic emotional response score (e.g., child-oriented sad, sympathy) and a parent-oriented negative emotions score (e.g., parent-oriented irritated, angry; see Leerkes, 2010).

  Baseline

• Parental Emotional Responses to Child Distress #2

  Parental emotional response to child distress will be assessed with the Crying Infant Video Task (Leerkes et al., 2004, 2011), in which parents watch four one-minute videos of (gender-neutral, racially diverse) infants in distress (i.e., crying loudly and continuously while sitting in a highchair). Following each clip, parents complete a questionnaire (4-point scale; 17 items) about their emotions while watching the clips, and elaborate about these emotions. Mean intensity scores are used to create a child-oriented empathic emotional response score (e.g., child-oriented sad, sympathy) and a parent-oriented negative emotions score (e.g., parent-oriented irritated, angry; see Leerkes, 2010).

  Immediately post-intervention

• Parental Emotional Responses to Child Distress #3

  Parental emotional response to child distress will be assessed with the Crying Infant Video Task (Leerkes et al., 2004, 2011), in which parents watch four one-minute videos of (gender-neutral, racially diverse) infants in distress (i.e., crying loudly and continuously while sitting in a highchair). Following each clip, parents complete a questionnaire (4-point scale; 17 items) about their emotions while watching the clips, and elaborate about these emotions. Mean intensity scores are used to create a child-oriented empathic emotional response score (e.g., child-oriented sad, sympathy) and a parent-oriented negative emotions score (e.g., parent-oriented irritated, angry; see Leerkes, 2010).

  6-month follow up

• Electrodermal Activity (EDA) arousal #1

  Parental EDA arousal in response to child distress will be assessed during the Crying Infant Video Task (above). Investigators will use a MindWare BioNex 8-Slot Chassis Assembly and BioLab Acquisition Software to tap parental electrodermal activity (EDA). For EDA investigators will attach two silver chloride electrodes to the palmar surface of the second phalanges of the index and middle fingers of each participant's non-dominant hand. EDA sample rate will be 1000 samples per second. Phasic skin conductance will be calculated using a smoothing filter with a window width of 0.25 seconds. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) will be calculated using a threshold of 0.05 µS. The EDA variable will be the sum the SCRs across the four videos.

  Baseline

• Electrodermal Activity (EDA) arousal #2

  Parental EDA arousal in response to child distress will be assessed during the Crying Infant Video Task (above). Investigators will use a MindWare BioNex 8-Slot Chassis Assembly and BioLab Acquisition Software to tap parental electrodermal activity (EDA). For EDA investigators will attach two silver chloride electrodes to the palmar surface of the second phalanges of the index and middle fingers of each participant's non-dominant hand. EDA sample rate will be 1000 samples per second. Phasic skin conductance will be calculated using a smoothing filter with a window width of 0.25 seconds. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) will be calculated using a threshold of 0.05 µS. The EDA variable will be the sum the SCRs across the four videos.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Electrodermal Activity (EDA) arousal #3

  Parental EDA arousal in response to child distress will be assessed during the Crying Infant Video Task (above). Investigators will use a MindWare BioNex 8-Slot Chassis Assembly and BioLab Acquisition Software to tap parental electrodermal activity (EDA). For EDA investigators will attach two silver chloride electrodes to the palmar surface of the second phalanges of the index and middle fingers of each participant's non-dominant hand. EDA sample rate will be 1000 samples per second. Phasic skin conductance will be calculated using a smoothing filter with a window width of 0.25 seconds. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) will be calculated using a threshold of 0.05 µS. The EDA variable will be the sum the SCRs across the four videos.

  6-month follow up

• Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia (RSA) #1

  Parental RSA change in response to child distress will be assessed during the Crying Infant Video Task (above). Investigators will use a MindWare BioNex 8-Slot Chassis Assembly and BioLab Acquisition Software to tap parental electrodermal activity (EDA) and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). For RSA, investigators will attach three electrodes in a modified Lead II placement on the distal end of the right clavicle, lower left rib cage chest, and right rib cage of each parent's chest. The ECG signal will be sampled continuously with low-pass filtering at 1000 Hertz and passed through an Analog-to-Digital converter. RSA values will be derived from the interbeat interval series and resampled at 25 msec to create a stationary wave form. The integral of the power in the RSA band (0.12 to 0.40 for parents) will be extracted to obtain the RSA statistics in 30-second epochs, and will be used to calculate RSA change in response to infant distress.

  Baseline

• Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia (RSA) #2

  Parental RSA change in response to child distress will be assessed during the Crying Infant Video Task (above). Investigators will use a MindWare BioNex 8-Slot Chassis Assembly and BioLab Acquisition Software to tap parental electrodermal activity (EDA) and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). For RSA, investigators will attach three electrodes in a modified Lead II placement on the distal end of the right clavicle, lower left rib cage chest, and right rib cage of each parent's chest. The ECG signal will be sampled continuously with low-pass filtering at 1000 Hertz and passed through an Analog-to-Digital converter. RSA values will be derived from the interbeat interval series and resampled at 25 msec to create a stationary wave form. The integral of the power in the RSA band (0.12 to 0.40 for parents) will be extracted to obtain the RSA statistics in 30-second epochs, and will be used to calculate RSA change in response to infant distress.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia (RSA) #3

  Parental RSA change in response to child distress will be assessed during the Crying Infant Video Task (above). Investigators will use a MindWare BioNex 8-Slot Chassis Assembly and BioLab Acquisition Software to tap parental electrodermal activity (EDA) and respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). For RSA, investigators will attach three electrodes in a modified Lead II placement on the distal end of the right clavicle, lower left rib cage chest, and right rib cage of each parent's chest. The ECG signal will be sampled continuously with low-pass filtering at 1000 Hertz and passed through an Analog-to-Digital converter. RSA values will be derived from the interbeat interval series and resampled at 25 msec to create a stationary wave form. The integral of the power in the RSA band (0.12 to 0.40 for parents) will be extracted to obtain the RSA statistics in 30-second epochs, and will be used to calculate RSA change in response to infant distress.

  6-month follow up

• Coping with Toddlers' Negative Emotions Scale (CTNES) #1

  Parental behavioral sensitivity in response to child distress will be assessed using the Coping With Toddlers' Negative Emotions Scale (CTNES; Spinrad et al., 2007), parents will report their likely behavior on a scale of 1 (very likely) to 7 (very unlikely) in response to 12 hypothetical situations with their distressed child (e.g., "If my child becomes upset and cries because he is left alone…, I would:"). For each item, parents report their likelihood of responding in six different ways, for instance punitive responses (i.e., punishing the child); minimizing responses (i.e., telling child to stop overreacting); emotion-focused reactions (i.e., comforting); and problem-focused reactions (i.e., helping child come up with solution). Following Gudmundson and Leerkes (2012), investigators will form supportive and unsupportive parental response composites.

  Baseline

• Coping with Toddlers' Negative Emotions Scale (CTNES) #2

  Parental behavioral sensitivity in response to child distress will be assessed using the Coping With Toddlers' Negative Emotions Scale (CTNES; Spinrad et al., 2007), parents will report their likely behavior on a scale of 1 (very likely) to 7 (very unlikely) in response to 12 hypothetical situations with their distressed child (e.g., "If my child becomes upset and cries because he is left alone…, I would:"). For each item, parents report their likelihood of responding in six different ways, for instance punitive responses (i.e., punishing the child); minimizing responses (i.e., telling child to stop overreacting); emotion-focused reactions (i.e., comforting); and problem-focused reactions (i.e., helping child come up with solution). Following Gudmundson and Leerkes (2012), investigators will form supportive and unsupportive parental response composites.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Coping with Toddlers' Negative Emotions Scale (CTNES) #3

  Parental behavioral sensitivity in response to child distress will be assessed using the Coping With Toddlers' Negative Emotions Scale (CTNES; Spinrad et al., 2007), parents will report their likely behavior on a scale of 1 (very likely) to 7 (very unlikely) in response to 12 hypothetical situations with their distressed child (e.g., "If my child becomes upset and cries because he is left alone…, I would:"). For each item, parents report their likelihood of responding in six different ways, for instance punitive responses (i.e., punishing the child); minimizing responses (i.e., telling child to stop overreacting); emotion-focused reactions (i.e., comforting); and problem-focused reactions (i.e., helping child come up with solution). Following Gudmundson and Leerkes (2012), investigators will form supportive and unsupportive parental response composites.

  6 month follow up

• Stranger Approach Lab-TAB Task to Assess Parental Behavioral Sensitivity #1

  Raters will observe parental behavioral sensitivity during the 'Stranger Approach' Lab-TAB task (Goldsmith \& Rothbart, 1999), a task designed to elicit fearfulness in children by having an adult stranger approach the child. This task lasts less than 2 minutes. The first 2 minutes are coded for child temperament, with 5 minutes then coded for parental sensitivity. Given the investigators' particular focus to sensitivity to distress, investigators will retain their analytic focus on sensitivity during distress, yet collection of both will allow for additional exploratory analyses in the future. Parental sensitivity (4-point scale) will be coded following the National Institute of Child Health and and Human Development (NICHD; 1999) guidelines.

  Baseline

• Jar Lab-TAB Task to Assess Parental Behavioral Sensitivity #1

  Raters will observe parental behavioral sensitivity during the 'Jar' Lab-TAB task (Goldsmith \& Rothbart, 1999), a task designed to elicit frustration and anger in children by placing an attractive snack (e.g. rainbow goldfish), in a plastic jar. This task lasts less than 2 minutes. The first 2 minutes are coded for child temperament, with 5 minutes then coded for parental sensitivity. Given the investigators' particular focus to sensitivity to distress, investigators will retain their analytic focus on sensitivity during distress, yet collection of both will allow for additional exploratory analyses in the future. Parental sensitivity (4-point scale) will be coded following the National Institute of Child Health and and Human Development (NICHD; 1999) guidelines.

  Baseline

• Stranger Approach Lab-TAB Task to Assess Parental Behavioral Sensitivity #2

  Raters will observe parental behavioral sensitivity during the 'Stranger Approach' Lab-TAB task (Goldsmith \& Rothbart, 1999), a task designed to elicit fearfulness in children by having an adult stranger approach the child. This task lasts less than 2 minutes. The first 2 minutes are coded for child temperament, with 5 minutes then coded for parental sensitivity. Given the investigators' particular focus to sensitivity to distress, investigators will retain their analytic focus on sensitivity during distress, yet collection of both will allow for additional exploratory analyses in the future. Parental sensitivity (4-point scale) will be coded following the National Institute of Child Health and and Human Development (NICHD; 1999) guidelines.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Jar Lab-TAB Task to Assess Parental Behavioral Sensitivity #2

  Raters will observe parental behavioral sensitivity during the 'Jar' Lab-TAB task (Goldsmith \& Rothbart, 1999), a task designed to elicit frustration and anger in children by placing an attractive snack (e.g. rainbow goldfish), in a plastic jar. This task lasts less than 2 minutes. The first 2 minutes are coded for child temperament, with 5 minutes then coded for parental sensitivity. Given the investigators' particular focus to sensitivity to distress, investigators will retain their analytic focus on sensitivity during distress, yet collection of both will allow for additional exploratory analyses in the future. Parental sensitivity (4-point scale) will be coded following the National Institute of Child Health and and Human Development (NICHD; 1999) guidelines.

  Immediately post-intervention

• Stranger Approach Lab-TAB Task to Assess Parental Behavioral Sensitivity #3

  Raters will observe parental behavioral sensitivity during the 'Stranger Approach' Lab-TAB task (Goldsmith \& Rothbart, 1999), a task designed to elicit fearfulness in children by having an adult stranger approach the child. This task lasts less than 2 minutes. The first 2 minutes are coded for child temperament, with 5 minutes then coded for parental sensitivity. Given the investigators' particular focus to sensitivity to distress, investigators will retain their analytic focus on sensitivity during distress, yet collection of both will allow for additional exploratory analyses in the future. Parental sensitivity (4-point scale) will be coded following the National Institute of Child Health and and Human Development (NICHD; 1999) guidelines.

  6-month follow up

• Jar Lab-TAB Task to Assess Parental Behavioral Sensitivity #3

  Raters will observe parental behavioral sensitivity during the 'Jar' Lab-TAB task (Goldsmith \& Rothbart, 1999), a task designed to elicit frustration and anger in children by placing an attractive snack (e.g. rainbow goldfish), in a plastic jar. This task lasts less than 2 minutes. The first 2 minutes are coded for child temperament, with 5 minutes then coded for parental sensitivity. Given the investigators' particular focus to sensitivity to distress, investigators will retain their analytic focus on sensitivity during distress, yet collection of both will allow for additional exploratory analyses in the future. Parental sensitivity (4-point scale) will be coded following the National Institute of Child Health and and Human Development (NICHD; 1999) guidelines.

  6-month follow up

Secondary Outcomes (26)

• Financial Stress Questionnaire #1

  Baseline

• Financial Stress Questionnaire #2

  Immediately post-intervention

• Financial Stress Questionnaire #3

  6-month follow-up

• O'Leary-Porter Overt Hostility Scale #1

  Baseline

• O'Leary-Porter Overt Hostility Scale #2

  Immediately post-intervention

Other Outcomes (9)

• Parent-Reported Demographic Variables #1

  Baseline

• Parent-Reported Demographic Variables #2

  Immediately post-intervention

• Parent-Reported Demographic Variables #3

  6-month follow-up

Study Arms (2)

Circle of Security Parenting (COS-P)

EXPERIMENTAL

These participants will receive the Circle of Security Parenting (COS-P) intervention, an attachment-based, manualized, 8-session (90 minutes/session), home visiting intervention.

Behavioral: Circle of Security Parenting

Little Talks

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

These participants will receive the Little Talks intervention, a manualized, 8-session (90 minutes/session) early literacy home visiting intervention.

Behavioral: Little Talks

Interventions

Circle of Security Parenting BEHAVIORAL

COS-P is an attachment-based, home visiting intervention intended to supporting parents in serving as "a secure base" from which their children can explore the world, and to which their children can return in times of distress (Bowlby, 1988). Such secure base parenting increases the likelihood of children's secure attachment. COS-P also targets parental responses to children's expression of their needs (e.g., crying), and is designed to help parents understand the ways in which their own (parental) dysregulated emotional, physiological, and behavioral responses to children's emotions and behaviors can limit their responsiveness to their children's attachment needs.

Circle of Security Parenting (COS-P)

Little Talks BEHAVIORAL

Little Talks is an early literacy home visiting intervention developed for low-income, racial and ethnic minority infants and toddlers, and has been tested in Early Head Start contexts (Manz et al., 2016; Manz et al. 2017). Little Talks uses book sharing to promote early literacy and has been adapted in both English and Spanish. The intervention utilizes modular treatments during home visits, teaching parents how to facilitate language interactions with their children through book sharing. Age appropriate books are given to parents to share with their children during the intervention.

Little Talks

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 8 Months+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Parents whose children (age 8 to 36 months) are enrolled or are eligible to be enrolled in Harrisburg PA and Lehigh Valley PA Early Head Start programs

You may not qualify if:

• Parents who are not sufficiently fluent in the language in which COS-P intervention will be conducted (Spanish or English)

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Maryland, College Park: lead
• Lehigh University: collaborator
• Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD): collaborator

Study Sites (2)

University of Maryland, College Park

College Park, Maryland, 20742, United States

ACTIVE NOT RECRUITING

Lehigh University

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 18015, United States

RECRUITING

Related Publications (41)

• Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.

  BACKGROUND

• Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Erlbaum.

  BACKGROUND

• Bayley, N. 1969. Bayley scales of infant development. New York: Psychological Corp.

  BACKGROUND

• Bernard K, Dozier M. Examining infants' cortisol responses to laboratory tasks among children varying in attachment disorganization: stress reactivity or return to baseline? Dev Psychol. 2010 Nov;46(6):1771-8. doi: 10.1037/a0020660.

  PMID: 20873923 BACKGROUND

• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. Basic Books.

  BACKGROUND

• Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes, J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). Guilford.

  BACKGROUND

• Carroll KM, Nich C, Sifry RL, Nuro KF, Frankforter TL, Ball SA, Fenton L, Rounsaville BJ. A general system for evaluating therapist adherence and competence in psychotherapy research in the addictions. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000 Jan 1;57(3):225-38. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(99)00049-6.

  PMID: 10661673 BACKGROUND

• Carter, A. S., & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2000). The Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA). Unpublished Manual. University of Massachusetts Boston Department of Psychology, Boston, MA. Yale University, New Haven, CT. Available by request at alice.carter@umb.edu.

  BACKGROUND

• Carter AS, Briggs-Gowan MJ, Jones SM, Little TD. The Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA): factor structure, reliability, and validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2003 Oct;31(5):495-514. doi: 10.1023/a:1025449031360.

  PMID: 14561058 BACKGROUND

• Cassidy, J., & Marvin, R. S., with MacArthur Attachment Working Group (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Procedures and coding manual (4th ed.). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

  BACKGROUND

• Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG). (1994). Financial Stress Questionnaire. Available from the Fast Track Project Web site: http://www.fasttrackproject.org

  BACKGROUND

• Corrigan, J., & Schmidt, L. (1983). Development and validation of revisions in the Counselor Rating Form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 64-75. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.30.1.64

  BACKGROUND

• Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., & Williamson, D. F. (1998). Adverse childhood experiences and health outcomes in adults: The Ace study. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 90, 31.

  BACKGROUND

• Goldsmith, H. H., & Rothbart, M. K. (1999). The Laboratory Temperament Assessment Battery. Locomotor Version 3.1, Description of Procedures. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

  BACKGROUND

• Gudmundson JA, Leerkes EM. Links between mothers' coping styles, toddler reactivity, and sensitivity to toddler's negative emotions. Infant Behav Dev. 2012 Feb;35(1):158-66. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.07.004. Epub 2011 Sep 7.

  PMID: 21903276 BACKGROUND

• Gunnar, M. R., & Herrera, A. M. (2013). The development of stress reactivity: A neurobiological perspective. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology, Vol. 2. Self and other (pp. 45-80). Oxford University Press.

  BACKGROUND

• Johnson PL, O'Leary KD. Parental behavior patterns and conduct disorders in girls. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1987 Dec;15(4):573-81. doi: 10.1007/BF00917242.

  PMID: 3437092 BACKGROUND

• Krieger N. Racial and gender discrimination: risk factors for high blood pressure? Soc Sci Med. 1990;30(12):1273-81. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90307-e.

  PMID: 2367873 BACKGROUND

• Krieger N, Sidney S. Racial discrimination and blood pressure: the CARDIA Study of young black and white adults. Am J Public Health. 1996 Oct;86(10):1370-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.10.1370.

  PMID: 8876504 BACKGROUND

• Krieger N, Smith K, Naishadham D, Hartman C, Barbeau EM. Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(7):1576-96. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.03.006. Epub 2005 Apr 21.

  PMID: 16005789 BACKGROUND

• Leerkes EM. Predictors of Maternal Sensitivity to Infant Distress. Parent Sci Pract. 2010 Jul 1;10(3):219-239. doi: 10.1080/15295190903290840.

  PMID: 20824194 BACKGROUND

• Leerkes, E. M., Crockenberg, S. C., & Burrous, E. (2004). Identifying components of maternal sensitivity to infant distress: The role of maternal emotional competencies. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 1-23. doi:10.1207/s15327922par04011

  BACKGROUND

• Leerkes EM, Parade SH, Gudmundson JA. Mothers' emotional reactions to crying pose risk for subsequent attachment insecurity. J Fam Psychol. 2011 Oct;25(5):635-43. doi: 10.1037/a0023654.

  PMID: 21517171 BACKGROUND

• Luijk MP, Saridjan N, Tharner A, van Ijzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Jaddoe VW, Hofman A, Verhulst FC, Tiemeier H. Attachment, depression, and cortisol: Deviant patterns in insecure-resistant and disorganized infants. Dev Psychobiol. 2010 Jul;52(5):441-52. doi: 10.1002/dev.20446.

  PMID: 20583141 BACKGROUND

• Manz, P. H., Eisenberg, R., Gernhart, A., Faison, J., Laracy, S., Ridgard, T. & Pinho, T. (2016). Engaging Early Head Start parents in a collaborative inquiry: The co-construction of Little Talks, Early Child Development and Care. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016.1169177

  BACKGROUND

• Manz, P. H., Power, T. J., Roggman, L. A., Eisenberg, R. A., Gernhart, A., Faison, J., Ridgard, T., Wallace, L. E., & Whitenack, J. M. (2017). Integrating the Little Talks intervention into Early Head Start: An experimental examination of implementation supports involving fidelity monitoring and performance feedback. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 87-96. doi 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.034

  BACKGROUND

• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford.

  BACKGROUND

• Nguyen TD, Attkisson CC, Stegner BL. Assessment of patient satisfaction: development and refinement of a service evaluation questionnaire. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):299-313. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(83)90010-1.

  PMID: 10267258 BACKGROUND

• Child care and mother-child interaction in the first 3 years of life. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Dev Psychol. 1999 Nov;35(6):1399-413.

  PMID: 10563730 BACKGROUND

• Porter B, O'Leary KD. Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1980 Sep;8(3):287-95. doi: 10.1007/BF00916376.

  PMID: 7410730 BACKGROUND

• Putnam SP, Rothbart MK. Development of short and very short forms of the Children's Behavior Questionnaire. J Pers Assess. 2006 Aug;87(1):102-12. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09.

  PMID: 16856791 BACKGROUND

• Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306

  BACKGROUND

• Reilly, M. D. (1982). Working wives and convenience consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1086/208881

  BACKGROUND

• Selner-O'Hagan MB, Kindlon DJ, Buka SL, Raudenbush SW, Earls FJ. Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998 Feb;39(2):215-24.

  PMID: 9669234 BACKGROUND

• Solomon, J., & George, C. (2016). The measurement of attachment security and related constructs in infancy and early childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 366-398). Guilford.

  BACKGROUND

• Spinrad TL, Eisenberg N, Gaertner B, Popp T, Smith CL, Kupfer A, Greving K, Liew J, Hofer C. Relations of maternal socialization and toddlers' effortful control to children's adjustment and social competence. Dev Psychol. 2007 Sep;43(5):1170-86. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1170.

  PMID: 17723043 BACKGROUND

• Stifter, C. A., & Corey, J. M. (2001). Vagal regulation and observed social behavior in infancy. Social Development, 10(2), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00158

  BACKGROUND

• Stifter CA, Willoughby MT, Towe-Goodman N; The Family Life Project Key Investigators. Agree or Agree to Disagree? Assessing the Convergence between Parents and Observers on Infant Temperament. Infant Child Dev. 2008 Aug 1;17(4):407-426. doi: 10.1002/icd.584.

  PMID: 19936035 BACKGROUND

• Thiagarajan, P., Chakrabarty, S., & Taylor, R. D. (2006). A confirmatory factor analysis of Reilly's Role Overload Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 657-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282452

  BACKGROUND

• Thompson LA, Morgan G, Jurado KA, Gunnar MR. III. JUSTIFICATION FOR CORTISOL RESPONSE CATEGORIES. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2015 Dec;80(4):40-7. doi: 10.1111/mono.12210. No abstract available.

  PMID: 26496583 BACKGROUND

• Wilson, F., & Yager, G. (1990). Concurrent and construct validity of three counselor social influence instruments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, 52-66.

  BACKGROUND

Study Officials

• Jude Cassidy, Ph.D.

  University of Maryland, College Park

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Susan Woodhouse, Ph.D.

  Lehigh University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

Jude Cassidy, Ph.D.

CONTACT

301-405-4973; jcassidy@umd.edu

Susan Woodhouse, Ph.D.

CONTACT

610-758-3269; ssw212@lehigh.edu

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: March 24, 2023
• First Posted: April 28, 2023
• Study Start: March 27, 2023
• Primary Completion (Estimated): June 30, 2027
• Study Completion (Estimated): June 30, 2027
• Last Updated: July 3, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-06

Locations

US (2)