Supplement to HOME for Impoverished Families (SHIF) » Tribal Early Childhood Measures

Measure Description	Source of measure	Ertem, I.O., Forsyth, B.W., Avni-Singer, A.J., Damour, L.K., & Cicchetti, D.V (1997). Development of a supplement to the HOME Scale for children living in impoverished urban environments. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 18, 322-328.
	Mode of administration	Observation and interview
	Age range for use	Families of children ages 0-15.
	Domains Assessed	Quality of the home environment of young children who are living in poor urban neighborhoods.
	Related Measures	Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME). *SHIF must be used in conjunction with HOME.
Burden	Training needed to administer	Extensive staff training, supervision, and double ratings required to properly administer this measure.
	Minutes to complete	8-10 minutes
	# of items	20
	Cost	Contact developers
Adaptation for AIAN use	Adapted	No
	Developer allows adaptation?	Unclear, contact developers
	Used with AIAN populations?	Yes
Psychometrics	Norm-referenced	No
	AIAN: Cronbach's alpha range	Mullany et al. (2012) report Cronbach's alpha = .71
	AIAN: Evidence of validity	Not yet available
	Other populations: Cronbach's alpha range	Ertem and colleagues (1997) report that the SHIF has higher inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and item-total reliability
	Other populations: Evidence of validity	Ertem and colleagues (1997) report that the SHIF has good construct validity. SHIF total scores correlate with mothers' negative feelings toward motherhood and toward the child (Bernazzani, Marks, Bifulco, Siddle, Asten, & Conroy, 2005). Lanzi, Ramey, and Bert (2012) report that mothers at risk for for nonoptimal parenting differ significantly from low-risk mothers on the HOME + SHIF.
Source	Developer	Ertem, Forsyth, Avni-Singer, Damour, & Cicchetti
Source	Link	Contact developers
Summary	Comments about sensitivity to change	N/A
Summary	General remarks	Must be used in conjunction with the HOME; should not be assessed separately. Items were more relevant for our communities than on the HOME. Difficult to train local staff to rate objectively.