TABLE 2.
Treatment Effect on Bayley-III Composite Score and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
| Point Estimate | CI: Lower Bound | CI: Upper Bound | P (Unadjusted) | P (Adjusted) | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel 1: Bayley-III composite scores baseline to midline | ||||||
| Nutritional education | ||||||
| Cognitive | −0.144 | −0.320 | 0.033 | .082 | .359 | 1270 |
| Language | 0.037 | −0.144 | 0.217 | .613 | .956 | 1273 |
| Motor | −0.036 | −0.223 | 0.150 | .683 | .956 | 1269 |
| Group sessions and nutritional education | ||||||
| Cognitive | 0.298 | 0.104 | 0.493 | .004 | .018 | 1270 |
| Language | 0.313 | 0.115 | 0.510 | .004 | .006 | 1273 |
| Motor | 0.011 | −0.210 | 0.232 | .900 | .956 | 1269 |
| Home visiting and nutritional education | ||||||
| Cognitive | 0.313 | 0.132 | 0.494 | .002 | .006 | 1270 |
| Language | 0.156 | −0.053 | 0.365 | .090 | .359 | 1273 |
| Motor | −0.058 | −0.262 | 0.146 | .611 | .956 | 1269 |
| Panel 2: Bayley-III composite scores baseline to endline | ||||||
| Nutritional education | ||||||
| Cognitive | 0.037 | −0.145 | 0.220 | .673 | .709 | 1298 |
| Language | 0.127 | −0.038 | 0.292 | .103 | .342 | 1298 |
| Motor | 0.075 | −0.087 | 0.238 | .354 | .657 | 1298 |
| Group sessions and nutritional education | ||||||
| Cognitive | 0.281 | 0.100 | 0.463 | .002 | .007 | 1298 |
| Language | 0.302 | 0.136 | 0.468 | <.001 | .001 | 1298 |
| Motor | 0.144 | −0.036 | 0.324 | .110 | .342 | 1298 |
| Home visiting and nutritional education | ||||||
| Cognitive | 0.324 | 0.152 | 0.496 | <.001 | .001 | 1298 |
| Language | 0.239 | 0.072 | 0.407 | .001 | .009 | 1298 |
| Motor | 0.055 | −0.108 | 0.218 | .475 | .709 | 1298 |
| Panel 3: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire | ||||||
| Nutritional education | ||||||
| Externalizing | 0.010 | −0.157 | 0.177 | .900 | .991 | 1297 |
| Internalizing | −0.058 | −0.209 | 0.094 | .438 | .949 | 1297 |
| Prosocial | 0.073 | −0.082 | 0.229 | .328 | .903 | 1297 |
| Group sessions and nutritional education | ||||||
| Externalizing | −0.039 | −0.211 | 0.134 | .651 | .981 | 1297 |
| Internalizing | −0.008 | −0.151 | 0.134 | .908 | .991 | 1297 |
| Prosocial | 0.179 | 0.021 | 0.336 | .018 | .126 | 1297 |
| Home visiting and nutritional education | ||||||
| Externalizing | 0.043 | −0.117 | 0.204 | .583 | .981 | 1297 |
| Internalizing | −0.025 | −0.172 | 0.122 | .750 | .981 | 1297 |
| Prosocial | 0.215 | 0.057 | 0.373 | .008 | .054 | 1297 |
Estimated coefficients are expressed in SDs of the control group. Sample size includes all target children who completed the relevant subscales of the Bayley-III at endline and midline for panel 1, and at endline for panel 2, and all mothers who completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (at endline) in panel 3. Estimates in all panels controlled for baseline ASQ-3 problem solving, communication, fine motor, gross motor, and personal-social scales, as well as child sex, child age in days, maternal education, and parity with a dummy for first child. Estimated coefficients are expressed in SDs of the control group. The P values are two-tailed P values calculated using the T-bootstrap method (5000 replications) to account for the finite sample and for maximum comparability with the adjusted P values. Adjusted P values are two-tailed P values corrected for multiple hypotheses testing by using the Romano–Wolf stepdown procedure (5000 replications). CIs were constructed by using conventional critical values for individual hypotheses. The multiple hypotheses testing was applied within panels. All replications were done within district used in the randomization protocol and corrected for cluster effects at the village level.