Despite recent research indicating that 1 of the pivotal times for identifying pathways to early conduct problems is the toddler period, few family-based preventive interventions have been specifically designed to modify child disruptive behavior during this age period. This randomized trial tested the effectiveness of the Family Check-Up in sustaining maternal involvement and preventing the exacerbation of child conduct problems among 120 at-risk toddler-age boys, half of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment condition. The intervention was associated with reductions in disruptive behavior and greater maternal involvement and was particularly effective for children at greater risk for a persistent trajectory of conduct problems. The results are discussed in relation to other preventive interventions for young children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, which provides $1.5 billion to states over 5 years for home visiting program models serving at-risk pregnant women and children from birth to age 5. The act stipulates that 75% of the funds must be used for programs with evidence of effectiveness based on rigorous evaluation research. Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness reviewed the home visiting research literature and provided an assessment of the evidence of effectiveness for program models that serve families with pregnant women and children from birth to age 5. METHODS: Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness included a systematic search and screening process, a review of the research quality, and an assessment of program effectiveness. Reviewers rated studies’ capacity to provide unbiased estimates of program impacts and determined whether a program met the Department of Health and Human Services’ criteria for an evidence-based model. RESULTS: As of July 2012, 32 models were reviewed, of which 12 met the Department of Health and Human Services criteria. Most of these models were shown to have favorable effects on child development. Other common favorable effects included health care usage and reductions in child maltreatment. Less common were favorable effects on birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Home visiting is a promising way to serve families who may be difficult to engage in supportive services. Existing rigorous research indicates that home visiting has the potential for positive results among high-risk families, particularly on health care usage and child development.

The purposes of the current study were: (1) to examine the roles of early maternal attachment relationships and teacher-child relationships during childhood for externalizing and internalizing behaviors in late childhood, and (2) to investigate teacher-child relationships, as well as externalizing and internalizing behaviors in early childhood as possible mechanisms linking early maternal attachment relationships to behavior problems in late childhood. Longitudinal data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (N = 1140 mothers and children) were used in this investigation. There were three main findings. First, insecure/other maternal attachment relationships in early childhood (i.e., 36 months) were associated with externalizing and internalizing behaviors in late childhood (Grade 5). Second, elevated levels of teacher-child conflict during childhood were associated with externalizing behaviors in late childhood whereas low levels of teacher-child closeness were associated with internalizing behaviors. Third, the effects of insecure/other attachment on externalizing and internalizing behaviors in late childhood were mediated through teacher-child relationships during childhood and early externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Implications for attachment theory are discussed.

Despite knowledge of early pathways to conduct problems, few preventive interventions are specifically designed to modify disruptive behavior in toddlerhood. One potential prevention target is proactive and positive parenting, which is associated with reduced risk of conduct problems in preschoolers. This randomized trial with 120 low-income 2-year-old boys examined whether a brief family-centered intervention that reduces disruptive behavior (D. Shaw, T. Dishion, L. Supplee, F. Gardner, & K. Arnds, 2006) also leads to increases in proactive and positive parenting. It also explored whether change in parenting predicts change in disruptive behavior. In the intervention group, proactive and positive parenting skills increased among parents of 3-year-olds. Change in proactive and positive parenting of 2- to 3-year-old toddlers correlated with change in child disruptive behavior, although the mediation effect of positive parenting was of only borderline significance. Findings suggest that even within a brief and multifaceted preventive intervention, change in proactive parenting skills contributes modestly but significantly to change in child problem behavior.

P eople have long bemoaned the silos of research and practice. Researchers express frustration that practitioners do not use or misuse research. Practitioners respond that research is not relevant to their work, or is not easily accessible or understood. Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) across the country are seeking to undo these patterns. Many partnerships involve agencies working in longterm collaboration with external researchers. Others are partnerships between research and program offi ces within government agencies. In this paper, we discuss how partnerships challenge researchers and practitioners to work together in new ways in order to improve education and human services, and ultimately to enhance child and youth outcomes.Discussion covers various types of partnerships, strategies and conditions for success, and exemplar models.Research-Practice Partnerships: Building Two-Way Streets of Engagment Over the past two decades, efforts to promote the use of research in practice have emphasized a one-way street approach: bringing research to practice (with a heavy focus on evidence-based programs). These efforts have fostered signifi cant advancements while also revealing limitations. The one-way-street approach has directed overwhelming attention to three strategies: 1) improving research rigor (i.e., by setting standards of evidence); 2) improving strategies to push out research (i.e., dissemination, scaling, communication, and marketing); and 3) increasing incentives and requirements for the adoption of evidence-based programs (Tseng, 2012). What the one-way street approach neglects is the need for practice concerns to drive research at the outset.The proliferation of research-practice partnerships (RPPs) represents a major shift in ideas about research production and use (Spencer Foundation, 2016). The focus in RPPs is on building two-way streets of engagement. It is not about bringing research to practice, but about sustaining a dynamic relationship between research and practice (Granger, Tseng, & Wilcox, 2014). Instead of focusing primarily on research-push strategies, RPPs seek to pull from practice so that key problems of practice shape research agendas. Such partnerships strive for mutual understanding and shared commitments from the outset as partners identify their joint research goals. They foster continued engagement as fi ndings emerge and are rendered into changes in programs, curriculum, or professional development. They integrate research and practice perspectives on mutually traveled two-way streets.