The Early Risers longitudinal prevention trial: Examination of 3-year outcomes in aggressive children with intent-to-treat and as-intended analyses.
August, G. J., Hektner, J. M., Egan, E. A., Realmuto, G. M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2002). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(4, Suppl), S27–S39.
-
examining199Students, gradesK-2
Early Risers Intervention Report - Children Identified With Or At Risk For An Emotional Disturbance
Review Details
Reviewed: June 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 Early Risers.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Achievement Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Concentration Problems Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aggression Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Impulsivity Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Hyperactivity Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Adaptability Composite |
Early Risers vs. None |
after 3 yrs of ER |
Grade 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 31%
Male: 69% -
Rural
-
- 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
Minnesota
-
Race White 89%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in two semirural sites in Minnesota, characterized by families of low and middle socioeconomic status.
Study sample
The sample consisted of students from 20 schools that were randomly assigned to either the Early Risers condition (n = 10 schools) or the comparison condition (n = 10 schools). Within these schools, 95% of kindergarten students were screened using teacher ratings of aggressive- disruptive behavior on the 25-item Aggression Scale of the Child Behavior Checklist– Teacher Rating Form (Achenbach, 1991). Children who obtained a t-score greater than 58 on the Aggression Scale (using gender-specific norms) or who were at or above the 85th percentile relative to all kindergarten students in their school without dropping below a t-score of 55 were eligible. Students were excluded from the study if their IQ was less than 80 or if they had a pervasive developmental disorder that required special education placement. Using these criteria, 341 children were screened in as potential participants; this initial sample consisted of 173 students in intervention schools and 168 students in comparison schools. During the baseline year, all students were in kindergarten. Intervention effects were measured after students in the Early Risers group had received two and three years of implementation. The analysis sample after three years of implementation included 199 students: Early Risers group (n = 100) and comparison group (n = 99). Gender information was not available for the analysis sample. Of the sample of children who received initial parental consent prior to assignment (n = 245), 69% were boys and 31% were girls. Race and ethnicity information for the study sample was not presented.
Intervention Group
The current report focuses on impacts after two (Appendix D) and three (Appendix C) years of implementation. The Child Skills component included a Monitoring and Mentoring School Consultation Program during the school year and an annual six-week, full-day summer school program. The Monitoring and Mentoring School Consultation Program consisted of teacher consultation and student mentoring. The summer school program began in the summer following kindergarten and included academic learning centers; training in social skills, art, drama, and sports; largegroup recreation; lunch; recess; and the use of peer mentors. A structured behavior modification program was implemented across all daily activities. The Family Program consisted of separate but concurrent parent and child sessions held on evenings or weekends from October through May. During the first three years, parent sessions addressed topics such as use of praise and discipline, involvement in schoolwork and learning at home, self-control and problem solving, communication skills, stress management, and social support. The child sessions focused on emotion regulation, conflict resolution, social skills, and understanding school rules. Session content was delivered using video modeling, fantasy play, and role-plays. Home visits, modeled after home-based wraparound mental health service programs, also were used to meet family goals.
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison condition did not participate in any aspect of the Early Risers program.
Outcome descriptions
This study included measures of social skills, adaptability, academic achievement, aggression, hyperactivity, and impulsivity after two and three years of implementation. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Staff members were required to participate in a formal program of education and training prior to the implementation of each intervention component. Intervention manuals were obtained from the original program developers, who also served as project consultants. Staff members, who received ongoing supervision during the implementation phase, were required to demonstrate mastery of content and delivery methods.
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.
-
August, G. J., Egan, E. A., Realmuto, G. M., Hektner, J. M., & Haaga, D. A. F. (2003). Four years of the Early Risers early-age-targeted preventive intervention: Effects on aggressive children’s peer relations. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 453–470.
-
Bernat, D. H., August, G. J., Hektner, J. M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2007). The Early Risers preventive intervention: Testing for six-year outcomes and mediational processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,35(4), 605–617.
-
Endicott, L. G. (2003). Reducing risk for antisocial behavior via protective factor development: The Early Risers prevention trial. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(04B), 89-1924.
-
August, G. J., Realmuto, G. M., Hektner, J. M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2001). An integrated components preventive intervention for aggressive elementary school children: The Early Risers program. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 614–626.
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).