Promoting Academic and Social-Emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI Program [Head Start Research-Based, Developmentally Informed program vs. business as usual (Creative Curriculum or HighScope)]
Bierman, Karen L.; Domitrovich, Celene E.; Nix, Robert L.; Gest, Scott D.; Welsh, Janet A.; Greenberg, Mark T.; Blair, Clancy; Nelson, Keith E.; Gill, Sukhdeep (2008). Child Development, v79 n6 p1802-1817. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ818718
-
examining356Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for The Head Start REDI Program)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (3rd edition) |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
42.46 |
41.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development: Sentence Imitation Subtest |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.49 |
1.56 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development: Grammatical Understanding Subtest |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.86 |
11.72 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) Blending subtest |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.65 |
13.04 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) Elision subtest |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.68 |
9.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) Print Knowledge subtest |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.94 |
16.49 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Adapted Leiter – R Assessor Report |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.53 |
3.38 |
No |
-- | |
|
Learning engagement: teacher (Bierman et al. 2008) |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.08 |
4.97 |
No |
-- | |
|
ADHD Rating Scale: Teacher |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.66 |
0.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Challenging Situations Task: Competent |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.01 |
2.29 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Challenging Situations Task: Inept |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.17 |
2.56 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Competence Scale: Observer |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.36 |
2.21 |
No |
-- | |
|
Assessment of Children’s Emotion Skills |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.74 |
7.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Revised/Social Behavior Scale Teacher Form (Bierman et al., 2008) |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.69 |
4.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Emotion Recognition Questionnaire |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.58 |
1.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Challenging Situations Task: Aggressive |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.54 |
2.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Competence Scale: Teacher |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.15 |
3.98 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation –Revised: Observer |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.37 |
No |
-- |
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.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 93%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was administered in 44 classrooms across 25 Head Start centers in three counties in the state of Pennsylvania. One county was located in the southeastern part of the state and included an urban area surrounded by smaller communities. The other two counties were from the central part of the state, and included small towns and rural areas.
Study sample
A total of 17% of the sample students identified as Hispanic and 25% of the sample identified as African American. Approximately 54% of the sample were female. The authors explained that across the intervention and comparison groups student ethnicity was relatively similar, with 39% of students in the intervention group and 45% in the comparison condition being from a minority group. No other sample characteristics were reported.
Intervention Group
The intervention was the Head Start REDI program, which is designed as a supplement to existing Head Start programs using the High/Scope or Creative Curriculum. The intervention is intended to promote teachers’ use of evidence-based practices to support child development of social-emotional skills as well as language abilities. The program was integrated into regular classroom practices ranging from the regular classroom curriculum, circle time, and other classroom activities. The REDI program is focused on four domains that consist of (a) prosocial friendship skills, (b) emotional understanding and emotional expression skills, (c) self-control (e.g., the capacity to inhibit impulsive behavior and organize goal-directed activity), and (d) problem-solving skills, including interpersonal negotiation and conflict resolution skills. The REDI intervention consists of four main components. One component involves social-emotional skill enrichment, and these skills are conveyed to children through the 33 lessons of the PATHS curriculum delivered during class circle time. A second component involves language/emergency literacy skill enrichment which targets children’s vocabulary, syntax, phonological awareness, and print awareness. This component is conveyed through a shared reading program based on that developed by Wasik and Bond (2001) that involves presenting two books per week, with each book containing targeted vocabulary words. Phonological awareness and print knowledge are covered using Sound Games. The third component is training and professional development of teachers (see the ‘Support for Implementation’ section below). The fourth component involves take-home packets provided to parents. These packets include parenting tips and learning activities that parents can provide at home.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison classrooms used business-as-usual practices. All comparison classrooms also were located in Head Start centers, but teachers of those classrooms only used the High/Scope or Creative Curriculum, without supplementing that curriculum using REDI materials.
Support for implementation
Teachers received kits with REDI program materials and manuals to support implementation. Intervention teachers also received a 3-day professional development session conducted before the beginning of the intervention. Teachers also received weekly coaching support from REDI trainers, who supported program implementation. The authors explained that coaches spent approximately 3 hours in each classroom per week providing support. Intervention teachers were also given a 1-day booster session in January.
Promoting Academic and Social-Emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI Program
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2009
- Quick Review (82 KB) (findings for The Head Start REDI Program)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Blending subtest of the TOPEL |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
14.71 |
13.04 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Elison subtest of TOPEL |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
11.19 |
9.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
42.79 |
41.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Print awareness subtest of TOPEL |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
18.84 |
16.49 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Sentence Imitation subtest of the TOLD |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
1.57 |
1.56 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gramatical Understanding subtest of the TOLD |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
11.95 |
11.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Challenging Situations Task-competent responses |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
3.16 |
2.29 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Adapted Leiter-R Assessor (task orientation observer) |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
3.49 |
3.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Competence Scale: Observer |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
2.36 |
2.21 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Emotion Recognition Questionnaire |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
1.61 |
1.52 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Competence Scale- Teacher Version |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
4.15 |
3.98 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Assessment of Children's Emotion Skills |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
7.45 |
7.12 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Engagement Inventory-teacher |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
5.08 |
4.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Reading Engagement- Parent |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.05 |
-0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Competence Scale- Parent Version |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
3.73 |
3.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
ADHD Rating Scale: Parent |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
1.48 |
1.64 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation (TOCA): Parent |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
2.71 |
2.86 |
Yes |
|
|
|
ADHD Rating Scale: Teacher |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.66 |
0.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Challenging Situations Task-aggressive responses |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
1.53 |
2.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation (TOCA): Observer |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
0.30 |
0.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Challenging Situations Task-inept responses |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
1.94 |
2.56 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation (TOCA): Teacher |
The Head Start REDI Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Overall;
|
3.69 |
4.12 |
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.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Rural, Urban
-
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 83%
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).