Enhancing the Academic Development of Shy Children: A Test of the Efficacy of INSIGHTS
O'Connor, Erin E.; Cappella, Elise; McCormick, Meghan P.; McClowry, Sandee G. (2014). School Psychology Review, v43 n3 p239-259. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142185
-
examining329Students, gradesK-1
Enhancing the Academic Development of Shy Children: A Test of the Efficacy of INSIGHTS
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2018
- Single Study Review (699 KB) (findings for INSIGHTS)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Critical Thinking subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample (3 months);
|
2.82 |
2.95 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Critical Thinking subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
“Shy” subsample (8 months);
|
2.48 |
2.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Critical Thinking subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
“Shy” subsample (3 months);
|
2.38 |
2.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Critical Thinking subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample (8 months);
|
2.56 |
2.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS) |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample (3 months);
|
0.69 |
0.66 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS) |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample (8 months);
|
0.69 |
0.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Mathematics subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample (3 months);
|
2.79 |
2.91 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Mathematics subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
“Shy” subsample (8 months);
|
2.67 |
2.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Mathematics subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
"Shy" subsample (3 months);
|
2.66 |
2.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Mathematics subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample (8 months);
|
2.52 |
2.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Language Arts subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample (3 months);
|
2.80 |
2.89 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Language Arts subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample (8 months);
|
2.49 |
2.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Language Arts subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
“Shy” subsample (8 months);
|
2.49 |
2.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES) Language Arts subscale |
INSIGHTS vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
“Shy” subsample (3 months);
|
2.50 |
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.
-
Urban
-
Race Other or unknown 91% White 9%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in kindergarten classrooms in 22 elementary schools in three low-income, urban school districts.
Study sample
Of the 345 students in the analytic sample with valid data on at least one follow-up assessment (spring of kindergarten or fall of first grade), 91% were Black or Hispanic, and 87% qualified for free or reduced-price lunch programs.
Intervention Group
INSIGHTS is a temperament-based program to support the development of low-income students at risk for academic and behavioral difficulties in elementary school. The program aims to improve the fit between the classroom environment and students’ individual temperaments (as measured by the School-Aged Temperament Inventory) to enhance their behavioral engagement and ultimately their academic outcomes. Parents and teachers are trained to match a student’s temperament to one of four typologies, which can guide the choice of strategies for learning and self-regulation, and to use a “scaffold-and-stretch approach” when students encounter challenges. During weekly meetings over a 10-week period, teachers, parents, and students are taught to recognize four temperament types, the strengths and weaknesses of each, and how to select strategies to match temperaments. Student sessions were 45 minutes long, were conducted in the classroom, and focused on empathy and self-regulation using puppets, workbooks, flash cards, and videos. Teachers and parents attended 2-hour meetings focused on increasing responsiveness to various temperaments using a structured curriculum. One meeting was jointly held with parents and teachers, and the others were separate teacher sessions focused on classroom management and parent sessions focused on parenting skills. Both teachers and parents received incentives for attending.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison schools participated in a 10-week afterschool reading program, and their teachers attended two early literacy workshops, which were also presented to parents. As with the intervention group, both teachers and parents received incentives for attending.
Support for implementation
The eight INSIGHTS facilitators attended a semester-long graduate course before conducting the intervention. Each school was assigned one facilitator who worked with the teachers, parents, and students at that school. Facilitators followed scripts, used checklists, and documented sessions to maintain fidelity to the program model. Facilitators participated in weekly supervision sessions with the program developer, in which they discussed challenges, implementation logistics, participant concerns, and deviations from the program model.
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).