Pears, Katherine C.; Kim, Hyoun K.,; Fisher, Philip A.,; Yoerger, Karen (2016). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED584349
Reviewed: June 2019
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Kids in Transition to School vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
5.61 |
5.63 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pre-Literacy Rating Scale (PLRS): Emergent Reading Skills Subscale |
Kids in Transition to School vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.10 |
2.96 |
No |
-- | |
|
Pre-Literacy Rating Scale (PLRS): Emergent Writing Skills Subscale |
Kids in Transition to School vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.60 |
2.51 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Kids in Transition to School vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
9.89 |
8.15 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Native American | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 26% | |
| White | 69% |
| Hispanic | 14% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 86% |
The study occurred in one county, but other details about the location of the study are not provided. Over the course of the study period, children participated in regular summer activities and kindergarten. Children in the intervention group participated in Kids in Transition to School program activities delivered in center- or school-based classrooms to groups of 12-15 children with approximately 1 teacher for every 4 students. Parents of children in the intervention group attended meetings in these same locations, at home, or by phone.
Participating children were 5 years and 3 months old on average at the start of the study, which began in the summer before participants were to enter kindergarten. The children were receiving services from the county's Early Education and Early Childhood Special Education agency, and had been rated by the agency as having a behavioral difficulty. They were identified as being at risk for behavioral problems based on the Early Screening Project scales on Critical Events, Aggressive Behavior, and Maladaptive Behavior. The children all spoke English. None of the children had severe auditory or visual impairment, had an IQ below 70, were in foster care, or were receiving full-time summer services from the county agency. About three-quarters of the children were boys, and about 70 percent were white and 14 percent were Latino. About 60 percent had a development delay, about 30 percent had a communication delay, and 10 percent had Autism. The families' median annual household income was between $25,000 and $40,000.
The Kids in Transition to School program was delivered during the 2 months prior to kindergarten entry and in the 2 months following the start of kindergarten. The curriculum aimed to improve school readiness, and especially early literacy skills, among children receiving early childhood special education services for developmental disabilities or delays. The curriculum was delivered in a separate classroom environment (either in school or at a center) from where the children may have attended pre-kindergarten or kindergarten, and focused on early literacy skills, prosocial skills, and self-regulatory skills. Skills were introduced at circle time sessions and daily activities were designed to reinforce the skills taught. The program was delivered by a lead teacher and two assistant teachers in groups of 12-15 children, with a teacher-student ratio of approximately 4:1. In the eight weeks prior to the start of the school year (the school readiness phase), children received 2 hour sessions twice per week. After the start of kindergarten (the transition/maintenance phase), children received one two-hour session per week. Children also received weekly homework assignments. Kids in Transition to School also included an 8-session parent group (2 hours every 2 weeks for the duration of both phases) that focused on promoting parent involvement in early literacy and school. Parent group meetings were held at the same time as school readiness groups, or at home or by phone when a parent could not attend. The program included role-plays and opportunities to practice. Parents also received home practice activities.
Children in the business-as-usual comparison condition received services typically offered to children with developmental disabilities in the county. No attempt was made by the researchers to influence the amount of services provided to this group. Over the summer, children in the comparison group received the same amount of non-study related services as those in the intervention group.
The teachers and parent facilitators for the Kids in Transition to School program completed a 40-hour standardized training program. Each student group consisted of 12-15 students and was led by one teacher and two assistants. Each parent group was led by one facilitator and one assistant.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube