Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Evaluating the Implementation of the "Pyramid Model for Promoting Social-Emotional Competence" in Early Childhood Classrooms
Hemmeter, Mary Louise; Snyder, Patricia A.; Fox, Lise; Algina, James (2016). Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, v36 n3 p133-146. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1117049
-
examining437Students, gradePK
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Improvement System: Social Skills |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
99.30 |
92.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement Index: Problem Behavior (reverse coded) |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
-99.20 |
-103.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Focal Child Observation System: Social Interactions |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Clinical/borderline symptoms subsample;
|
19.90 |
15.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Focal Child Observation System: Problem Behaviors (reverse coded) |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Clinical/borderline symptoms subsample;
|
-7.10 |
-8.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Classroom Organization |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
5.07 |
4.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Instructional Support composite |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
5.49 |
5.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Emotional Support |
Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children's Social-Emotional Competence (Pyramid Model) vs. Business as usual |
8 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.06 |
2.11 |
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.
-
- 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
Florida, Tennessee
-
Race Black 37% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 18%
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in preschool classrooms in schools in Tennessee and Florida. Only one teacher per school was used in the study.
Study sample
Demographic information for the full sample was reported. Table 3 provides demographic data for the focal students (students in each classroom identified as exhibiting either clinical or borderline scores on any of several subscales on the C-TRF) only.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received professional development focused on the Pyramid Model and how to implement it in the classroom. Each teacher attended a 3-day (19.5 hours) workshop in the fall. In the workshop introduced the Pyramid Model and practices through lecture, video examples, case studies, and handouts. Opportunities were available for discussion about how to implement the Pyramid Model in their classrooms. Teachers also received a set of implementation guides with accompanying CDs. During the schoolyear, teachers received weekly individualized coaching. Coaching involved observation in the classroom, debriefing with time for reflection and feedback, and a follow up email. There were an average of 13.4 coaching sessions per teacher (range – 7-17). The variance in the number of coaching sessions was due to logistical issues related to scheduling coaching sessions. The Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) was administered at each wave of data collection to inform an action plan for the teacher during coaching and to measure fidelity of implementation of practices related to the Pyramid model
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. 55% reported they had received some form of professional development related to social-emotional development and 80% reported receiving some support for individual children with challenging behavior. The Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) was administered at each wave of data collection, as with the intervention group, but it does not appear that the comparison group teachers were provided feedback on their results during the study period. Teachers in the comparison group were offered the intervention professional development after data collection had ended.
Support for implementation
A 3 day workshop was conducted the beginning of the year, followed by individual weekly coaching sessions. Checks for fidelity of implementation were performed at 4 points in the school year.
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).