Early childhood mental health consultation: Results of a statewide random-controlled evaluation.
Gilliam, W., Maupin, A., & Reyes, C. (2016). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(9), 754–761.
-
examining139Students, gradePK
Quick Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2018
- Quick Review (findings for Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Expulsion Risk Measure (PERM): Classroom Disruption subscale |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.45 |
2.85 |
No |
-- | |
|
Preschool Expulsion Risk Measure (PERM): Fear of accountability subscale |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.01 |
2.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Preschool Expulsion Risk Measure (PERM): Hopelessness subscale |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.14 |
2.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Preschool Expulsion Risk Measure (PERM): Teacher stress subscale |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.12 |
2.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Conners' Teacher Rating Scale--Revised Long Form (CTRS): Restlessness/Impulsivity subscale |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
57.08 |
63.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Emotional Support |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.72 |
5.69 |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Classroom Organization |
Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.80 |
4.92 |
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: 26%
Male: 74% -
- 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
Connecticut
-
Race Asian 2% Black 10% Other or unknown 27% White 61% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 81%
Study Details
Setting
The study examined preschool children and teachers in early care programs throughout the state of Connecticut.
Study sample
The study classrooms were mostly in community-based childcare centers (82 percent), with the rest in Head Start centers (13 percent) or public schools (5 percent). Children’s average age was 4 years 1 month (standard deviation of 0.79 years) at pretest. In total, 57 percent of the students in the intervention group and 66 percent of the students in the comparison group were white. The student sample was predominantly male; 72 percent of the students in the intervention group and 76 percent of the students on the comparison group were male. Teachers in the sample were predominantly female; 96 percent of the intervention group teachers and 98 percent of the comparison group teachers were female. Teachers were also primarily white (77 percent of the intervention group and 86 percent of the comparison group) and experienced (approximately 6 years of experience teaching in a classroom among intervention group teachers, on average, and 7 years of classroom teaching experience among comparison group teachers, on average).
Intervention Group
The study authors examined whether providing early childhood teachers with individualized consultation on classroom management and students’ behavioral challenges improved classroom environments and student behaviors. The program, called the Early Childhood Consultation Partnership (ECCP), supports teachers at Connecticut childcare and education centers serving children from infancy through age 5. A mental health clinician provides consultation over an 8-week period, for 4–6 hours per week, with one follow-up visit in week 12. The study authors randomly assigned 176 teachers who requested consultation to receive services immediately (intervention condition) or to receive services after the study ended (comparison condition). The teacher assessments were focused on two students in each classroom, who were identified by teachers prior to random assignment as having the most problematic behavior.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. Teachers in the comparison condition were eligible to receive the ECCP services after study completion (after 3 months).
Support for implementation
The authors do not discuss details about the implementation of the ECCP program. The study received information about implementation from the developer and referred to the manual for the ECCP program. The authors note that the intervention is based on the Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation (ECMHC) approach. ECMHC is intended to be a fluid intervention that can vary depending on the needs of individual teachers and on the skills and focus of the consultants who provide support.
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).