A Randomized Controlled Trial of the First Step to Success Early Intervention: Demonstration of Program Efficacy Outcomes in a Diverse, Urban School District
Walker, Hill M.; Seeley, John R.; Small, Jason; Severson, Herbert H.; Graham, Bethany A.; Feil, Edward G.; Serna, Loretta; Golly, Annemieke M.; Forness, Steven R. (2009). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, v17 n4 p197-212. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ863236
-
examining197Students, grades1-3
First Step to Success Intervention Report - Children Identified With Or At Risk For An Emotional Disturbance
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2012
- 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 First Step to Success.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Problem Behavior: Teacher report |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
112.60 |
119.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Problem Behavior: Parent report |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
103.50 |
110.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD): Maladaptive Behavior |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
25.70 |
30.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Academic engaged time (AET) |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
56.80 |
48.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Academic Competence |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
91.10 |
91.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
60.50 |
58.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
99.50 |
101.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Social Skills: Teacher report |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
95.00 |
85.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD): Adaptive Behavior |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
41.00 |
35.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Social Skills: Parent report |
First Step to Success vs. business as usual |
Posttest 30 days |
Grades 1 to 3;
|
97.60 |
91.80 |
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.
-
16% English language learners -
Female: 27%
Male: 73% -
- 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
New Mexico
-
Race White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 57% Not Hispanic or Latino 43%
Study Details
Setting
Teachers and students were drawn from 34 elementary schools in Albuquerque Public Schools, New Mexico.
Study sample
A sample of 260 teachers from grades 1–3 in 34 elementary schools were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control condition across two cohorts (one for the 2005–06 academic year and the other for 2006–07). Random assignment occurred at classroom level within cohorts. Prior to random assignment, the SSBD was used to identify students who were exhibiting the most severe behavioral concerns within each classroom. The student with the highest average ranking across the SSBD Stage 2 measures was targeted for inclusion in the study; these students were described as exhibiting antisocial behaviors, including victimizing others, severe tantrums, and aggression. Parental consent was obtained for students in 210 of the 260 recruited teachers/classrooms (81%). In cohort 1, parents were more likely to decline participation in the study if their child had been randomized to the comparison condition; thus, the authors randomized a larger proportion of classrooms to the comparison condition in cohort 2 to achieve a balanced design across conditions. Of the 210 consenting students across the two cohorts, approximately half were in classrooms that were randomly assigned to the experimental condition (n = 107) and half were in classrooms that were randomly assigned to the control condition (n = 103). The analysis sample consisted of 101 treatment and 97 control students, although specific sample sizes varied by outcome. Participants were predominantly Hispanic (57%) or Caucasian (24.5%), 73% were males, 70% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and roughly 16% were English language learners.
Intervention Group
Intervention students were exposed to both the CLASS and HomeBase components of the group program. The HomeBase component was started by the behavioral coach on the 10th day of the intervention and consisted of 6 one-hour home visits by the behavioral coach. The study assessed intervention fidelity, teacher-coach alliance, and student and parent program compliance. Implementation was assessed via expert raters four times, focusing on behavioral coach tasks and the beginning, middle, and end of the teacher phase using a First Step to Success checklist. Additional post-intervention fidelity scales and assessment of the alliance among teachers, coaches, and parents also were used. Student compliance was measured by the number of times students successfully completed an intervention session without having to repeat it. Authors did not report concerns pertaining to intervention fidelity.
Comparison Group
Control classrooms were described as usual care comparisons.
Outcome descriptions
The study included a measure of academic engaged time (AET), teacher and parent ratings on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Problem Behavior and Social Skills Subscales, teacher ratings on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Academic Competence Subscale, teacher ratings on the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior Indexes, the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-III DRB) Letter- Word Identification Subset and a series of oral reading fluency passages (i.e., average correct words read per minute from a set of passages). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Behavior coaches, who implemented the first five days of the classroom portion and all six home visits, attended a two-day training institute. The coaches remained in close contact with supervisory staff and were scheduled for fidelity monitoring checks regularly. The trainer held weekly videoconferences to answer questions and address problems. Parents were trained by the behavioral coaches during the home visits. Teachers were taught how to monitor child behavior, give praise, and provide feedback to parents.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Walker, H. M. (2010). Evidence-based interventions for severe behavior problems, final report (IES Special Education Annual Performance Report No. CFDA #84324P). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
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).