A Cluster Randomized Trial of the Social Skills Improvement System-Classwide Intervention Program (SSIS-CIP) in First Grade
DiPerna, James Clyde; Lei, Puiwa; Cheng, Weiyi; Hart, Susan Crandall; Bellinger, Jillian (2018). Journal of Educational Psychology, v110 n1 p1-16. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1166162
-
examining696Students, grade1
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2018
- IES Performance Measure (findings for IES Funded Studies (NCER))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Reading Test |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
145.97 |
140.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math Assessment |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
356.93 |
351.32 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bullying |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.27 |
0.24 |
No |
-- | |
|
Hyperactive-inattentive |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.66 |
0.69 |
No |
-- | |
|
Internalizing |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.42 |
0.46 |
No |
-- | |
|
Externalizing |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.42 |
0.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Interference |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.15 |
0.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Engagement |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.08 |
3.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Academic Motivation |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.80 |
3.62 |
No |
-- | |
|
Engaged time |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
79.63 |
79.61 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Empathy |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.56 |
2.38 |
No |
-- | |
|
Positive social |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.41 |
0.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Engagement |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.53 |
2.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills (composite) |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.40 |
2.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Communication |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.55 |
2.46 |
No |
-- | |
|
Self-control |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.30 |
2.21 |
No |
-- | |
|
Cooperation |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.31 |
2.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Assertion |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.22 |
2.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Responsibility |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.41 |
2.33 |
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: 47%
Male: 53% -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Asian 5% Black 24% Pacific Islander 0% White 70% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Not Hispanic or Latino 91%
Study Details
Setting
The study setting is six elementary schools in two school districts with 61 grade 1 classrooms in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Four of the elementary schools are located in an urban school district and two elementary schools are in a rural school district.
Study sample
Students in the analytic sample were, on average, 6.29 years old and in first grade. Male students comprised 53.3% of the sample, and 94.1% of students spoke English as a first language. Roughly three-fourths of students in the analytic sample were White (70.1%). African-American students made up approximately one-fourth of students (24%), and roughly 10% of the students were Hispanic (9.4%). Students receiving supplemental academic support comprised 27.7% of the sample, 6.2% of students received special education services and 1.9% were repeating grade 1. Most of the teachers participating in the intervention were White, female, and had been teachers for many years (average 22 years).
Intervention Group
The Social Skills Improvement System Classwide Intervention Program (SSIS-CIP) is a program designed to improve social-emotional development, behavioral and academic performance outcomes using instructional strategies in the classroom. The SSIS-CIP condition, as implemented in the study, includes 10 units with 3 lessons per unit. Of the 10 units, 5 cover cooperation skills, 2 cover self-control skills, and the remaining units cover assertion, responsibility, and empathy. The units include scripted lesson plans, video vignettes, and practice exercise booklets. Each of the 30 lessons were taught for between 20-25 minutes over a 12-week period. The instructional strategies used in the SSIS-CIP intervention condition were “describe, model, role-play, do, practice, monitor progress, and generalize.”
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual classroom instruction, with teachers continuing their typical teaching approaches as usual. None of the classrooms assigned to the comparison condition reported following structured curricula for teaching social skills; however, roughly 85% of the teachers assigned to the comparison condition reported having plans for encouraging positive classroom behaviors, which mainly involved using behavioral reinforcements or consequences in the classroom.
Support for implementation
The participating teachers in classrooms assigned to the SSIS-CIP intervention completed a 1-day workshop training on the SSIS-CIP program. To ensure fidelity of implementation, research staff observed about 20% of each teacher's lessons and rated them on their adherence to the program's components. They also checked in with teachers every other week to answer any questions or issues that arose during implementation. All teachers participating in the study received additional compensation for time spent completing outcome measure assessments.
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).