Project CRISS: Validation report for the Program Effectiveness Panel.
Horsfall, S., & Santa, C. (1994). Unpublished manuscript.
-
examining118Students, grades4-6
Project CRISS® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Project CRISS®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Free call assessment |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 4;
|
8.97 |
5.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Free call assessment |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 6;
|
12.54 |
7.93 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
Study Details
Setting
The study took place across three different settings: (1) Kalispell School District, MT, a rural district in northwestern Montana that serves primarily white students; (2) Putnam County School District, FL, a district in central Florida that serves a population composed of white (77%), black (20%), and Hispanic students; and (3) Stafford School District, VA, a district in suburban Washington, DC that serves primarily white students.
Study sample
Sixteen intact classrooms of students in grades 4, 6, 8, and 11 participated in the study during the 1991–92 school year; however, only analysis of grades 4 and 6 were included in this review.1 Teachers within each of three schools were randomly assigned either to Project CRISS® or to the control condition. Teachers assigned to the intervention received CRISS training; control group teachers did not. Within each grade level, 4 and 6, there were three classrooms assigned to Project CRISS® and three classrooms assigned to the control group. Four or five students in each class were excluded from analyses due to attrition; there was no attrition of teachers. In all, the analysis sample consisted of 120 students attending six Project CRISS® classrooms and 111 students attending six control group classrooms.
Intervention Group
Intervention group students received Project CRISS® strategies as part of their regular instruction for approximately 18 weeks during one semester
Comparison Group
Control group students received regular instruction and were not given Project CRISS® strategies.
Outcome descriptions
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the staff-developed “free recall” tests that require students to remember details from a passage read the day before. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
Support for implementation
Teachers assigned to the intervention received Project CRISS® training. Districts selected a local facilitator to coordinate the program. The facilitator organized a 12-hour training conducted over two consecutive days. During this training, trainers modeled Project CRISS® strategies, and teachers were given the opportunity to apply each of the Project CRISS® strategies to their own curriculum materials. After teachers completed the training, the facilitator worked with project staff to set up a follow-up session three to six months after the completion of the final training session. Teachers frequently met to share Project CRISS® ideas before or after school or during duty-free periods. In addition, Project CRISS® trainers provided follow-up assistance for teachers through on-site visits, demonstration lessons, newsletters, and a computer network.
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).