Dissemination of an evidence-based prevention innovation for aggressive children living in culturally diverse, urban neighborhoods:The Early Risers effectiveness study.
August, G. J., Lee, S. S., Bloomquist, M. L., Realmuto, G. M., & Hektner, J. M. (2003). Prevention Science, 4(4), 271–286.
-
examining190Students, gradesK-1
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. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
-0.11 |
-0.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Internalizing Problems: Teacher report |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
0.25 |
0.51 |
No |
-- | |
|
Internalizing Problems: Parent report |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
0.22 |
0.37 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
School Adjustment: Teacher report |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
-0.41 |
-0.69 |
No |
-- | |
|
Externalizing Problems: Teacher report |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
0.67 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Externalizing Problems: Parent report |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
0.45 |
0.59 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Competence Scale- Teacher Version |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
-0.11 |
-0.46 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Competence Scale- Parent Version |
Early Risers vs. business as usual |
Posttest 2 |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
-0.13 |
-0.27 |
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: 42%
Male: 58% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Black 84%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two neighborhood family centers and 10 affiliated elementary schools in a large midwestern city.
Study sample
Kindergarten and first-grade students from 10 elementary schools were included in the study. Children were recruited for participation in two cohorts; parents were informed that some students would be assigned via a lottery procedure to participate in the two-year intervention and others would be involved in assessments only. Children who received parental consent were then screened on the 25-item Aggression Scale of the Child Behavior Checklist–Teacher Rating Form (Achenbach, 1991). Students who received a t-score greater than or equal to 55 were eligible for the study, unless they had a pervasive developmental disorder or serious emotional-behavioral disorder that required special education placement. A total of 327 students were eligible for the study and were randomized into three groups: full intervention (n = 107), partial intervention (n = 111), and comparison group (n = 109). The two intervention groups were collapsed by the researchers. The final sample included 190 students: Early Risers group (n = 127) and comparison group (n = 63). The Early Risers group consisted mostly of African-American (86%) and male (59%) students. The comparison group also consisted mostly of African-American (80%) and male (55%) students.
Intervention Group
Children were originally assigned to two intervention groups (full and partial strength). Both groups received Child Skills components for two years, and the full-strength group also received the Family Support component. The Child Skills component included a summer program, an after-school program, and a Monitoring and Mentoring School Consultation Program. For two consecutive summers, the summer program activities took place over a six-week period and focused on social skills, creative arts, physical fitness, and recreation. The afterschool program took place one day a week over a two-year period (from October to May) and included small-group social skills instruction, homework assistance, and recreational activities. The first year of the after-school program focused on social, emotional, and problem-solving skills, whereas the second year focused on empathy and anger management. Fifty percent of children attended at least 48% of the summer program and 43% of the after-school sessions. Formal fidelity assessment was conducted on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (most of the time); means scores for the after-school and summer program ranged from 3.5 to 4. Beginning midway through Year 1 and continuing through Year 2, students received support at their regular school through the Monitoring and Mentoring School Consultation Program; this component involved monitoring student attendance, behavior, homework completion, and academic performance through consultation with each child’s teacher. When a domain was flagged as being problematic, a school advocate would meet with the teacher to develop a plan for one-to-one mentoring at the school. The amount of mentoring time received by individual students varied across schools and classrooms. The Family Support component included home-based therapy delivered by family advocates who were required to make a minimum of three bimonthly contacts in the first year and six contacts in the second year. The program was adjusted to the needs of each family, and there was much variability in the amount of contact time families accumulated. Some families did not meet the minimum contact time requirements, whereas other families received many more contacts. The average amount of contact time per family was 9.6 hours. The Family Support program was utilized primarily by highly stressed families to help find housing, health care, employment, and child care.
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 academic achievement, externalizing problems, school adjustment, social competence, and internalizing problems. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Two employees at each neighborhood center served as family/school advocates and coordinated the summer program and after-school components. Staff received an intensive training program prior to the start of each component and received weekly structured supervision by center supervisors. Adherence to content and delivery specifications was monitored periodically via unannounced observations made by fidelity technicians who observed sessions. School advocates were available to consult with students’ classroom teachers upon request. Two of the four original family advocates left the program after Year 1. One of these positions experienced two additional personnel changes.
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., Lee, S. S., Bloomquist, M. L., Realmuto, G. M., & Hektner, J. M. (2004). Maintenance effects of an evidence-based prevention innovation for aggressive children living in culturally diverse, urban neighborhoods: The Early Risers effectiveness study. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 12(4), 194–205.
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).