Impact of a Social-Emotional and Character Development Program on School-Level Indicators of Academic Achievement, Absenteeism, and Disciplinary Outcomes: A Matched-Pair, Cluster-Randomized, Controlled Trial
Snyder, Frank; Flay, Brian; Vuchinich, Samuel; Acock, Alan; Washburn, Isaac; Beets, Michael; Li, Kin-Kit (2010). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v3 n1 p26-55 2010. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ877222
-
examining20Schools, gradesK-6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Positive Action (PA))
- The study is ineligible for review because it is not the primary source for the study
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Grant Competition (findings for Positive Action (PA))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards test (HCPS): Math (percentage reaching proficiency) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 4; 2007 outcomes;
|
41.89 |
26.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards test (HCPS): Math (percentage reaching proficiency) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 4; 2006 outcome;
|
26.56 |
17.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards test (HCPS): Reading (percentage reaching proficiency) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 4; 2006 outcomes;
|
44.33 |
37.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards test (HCPS): Reading (percentage reaching proficiency) |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 4; 2007 outcomes;
|
56.89 |
47.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition (SAT-9), Reading Subtest |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; 2006 outcomes;
|
78.12 |
71.89 |
No |
-- | |
|
TerraNova 2nd Edition, Math |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; 2007 outcomes;
|
75.52 |
69.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
TerraNova 2nd Edition, Reading |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; 2007 outcomes;
|
74.33 |
68.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT 9) - Math |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; 2006 outcome;
|
82.53 |
78.77 |
No |
-- | |
|
Absenteeism |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2006 outcomes;
|
10.01 |
11.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Absenteeism |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2007 outcomes;
|
10.17 |
11.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Grade retention |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2006 outcomes;
|
0.40 |
1.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Grade retention |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2007 outcomes;
|
0.30 |
1.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Suspensions |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2006 outcomes;
|
0.67 |
1.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Suspensions |
Positive Action (PA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2007 outcomes;
|
0.84 |
2.53 |
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.
-
14% English language learners -
- 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
Hawaii
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 20 public elementary (K-5 or K-6) schools (10 matched-pairs) on three Hawai‘ian islands. The schools were located the islands of O‘ahu, Maui, or Moloka‘i. The schools all had low annual mobility, were in the lower 3 quartiles of the state's standardized test scores, and an annual mobility rate less than 20%. The majority of the students were Asian or Pacific Islanders. Schools that were academy, charter or special education schools were excluded from the pool.
Study sample
The majority of the students in the schools were Asian or Pacific Islanders. Across the 5 study years, between 50 and 60 percent of the students in the schools received free or reduced-price lunch, 11 to 16 percent of the students had limited English proficiency, and 9 to 11 percent of students received special education services.
Intervention Group
The Positive Action (PA) program is a school wide social-emotional and character development (SACD) program designed to improve academic achievement and student behaviors. The PA program includes classroom curricula, a school wide climate development component, teacher/staff training, a manual for the principal, a school counselor’s program, a coordinator/committee guide, and family- and community-involvement programs. The curriculum contains 140 lessons per grade, per academic year, which teachers use in 15 to 20 minute lessons. The total time of exposure for students was approximately 35 hours over 35 weeks. The major units are self-concept, physical and intellectual actions, physical activity, social/emotional actions for managing oneself responsibly, being honest with yourself and others, and continuous self-improvement. The study schools reported their level of implementation of PA as between 3.0 and 3.2 on average (depending on the year) on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). The authors considered the implementation adequate for each indicator. Teachers reported spending 55.1 min/week on PA with additional time spent on other SACD programs for a total of 143 minutes per week on SACD-related activities. The intervention schools reported implementing an average of 4.2 SACD programs besides PA.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Teachers in comparison schools reported spending an average of 108 minutes per week on activities related to the SACD. Comparison schools reported implementing an average of 10.2 SACD programs. Beginning in 2007, the follow-up year for the study, 3 comparison schools began implementing PA.
Support for implementation
Prior to the start of each school year, administrators, teachers, support staff attended training sessions (3-4 hours in year 1 and 1-2 hours in subsequent years) conducted by the developer. All teachers were trained. The Hawaiian project coordinator also provided annual booster sessions lasting about 30 to 50 minutes and mini-conferences with leaders and staff.
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).