A Randomized Controlled Trial of a School-Implemented School-Home Intervention for ADHD Symptoms and Impairment
Pfiffner, L. J.; Rooney, M.; Haack, L.; Villodas, M.; Delucchi, K.; McBurnett, K. (2016). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582031
-
examining134Students, grades2-5
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2019
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Collaborative Life Skills (CLS))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SSIS—Academic Competence (Teacher reported) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.30 |
88.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
SSIS—Academic Competence (at or above average, %) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.70 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Symptom Inventory 4: ADHD symptom severity (Parent reported) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.70 |
27.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Symptom Inventory 4: ADHD symptom severity (Teacher reported) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.04 |
26.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Symptom Inventory 4: ODD symptom severity (Parent reported) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.20 |
9.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Symptom Inventory 4: ODD symptom severity (Teacher reported) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.70 |
5.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Children’s Organizational Skills Scale, Materials Management - Parent Assessment (COSS, Materials Management - Parent) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
135.90 |
149.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Children’s Organizational Skills Scale, Materials Management - Teacher Assessment (COSS, Materials Management - Teacher) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.90 |
94.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Social Skills scale |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.80 |
87.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
SSIS - Social Skills scale (Teacher reported) |
Collaborative Life Skills (CLS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.60 |
84.50 |
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: 29%
Male: 71% -
Urban
-
- 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
California
-
Race Asian 21% Black 9% Other or unknown 44% White 27% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24% Not Hispanic or Latino 76%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 23 schools in one urban school district in northern California. 19 of the schools offered kindergarten through 5th grade, and the remaining four offered kindergarten through 8th grade (p. 763).
Study sample
Among the randomized sample, most students (76 percent) were non-Hispanic. Of these, 35 percent were white, 27 percent were Asian, 26 percent were multi-racial, and 12 percent were black. This study, like most, treats Hispanic as a race, so the race of these students is not observed. 71 percent of the sample were boys. Approximately 30 percent of the sample lived in single-parent homes. and 60 percent had parents who graduated from college (p. 763)
Intervention Group
Collaborative Life Skills [CLS] is a 12-week school–home intervention for students with ADHD symptoms. The program consists of school, parent, and student intervention components delivered by school-based mental health providers (SMHP). The classroom component included two group meetings between SMHP staff and classroom teachers and two to three meetings with each student and their parents and teachers. The classroom intervention included daily report cards, which assessed the student on two to three target behaviors and a points system which provided rewards for meeting targeted behaviors goals. The parent component included ten one-hour group sessions facilitated by the SMHP. The child skills component included nine 40-minute child group sessions focusing on social skills and independence and two celebratory parties with parents, teachers, and students. SMHPs covered 94% of parent session elements and 97% of child session elements. Children in the intervention condition also received medications, other educational interventions, school counseling, and/or psychotherapy in the community, as usual (pp. 762, 764-765).
Comparison Group
Comparison students received school and community services as usual. They were offered the CLS program after final assessments (which may have included assessments beyond what was explored in the study) of their teachers and parents. Students in the comparison condition also received medications and other educational interventions, including special education services and/or tutoring, as usual. The comparison students received significantly more school counseling and/or psychotherapy in the community than intervention students. (pp. 765, 767)
Support for implementation
Masters-level mental health professionals implemented the study intervention as part of their work responsibilities. They attended a one-day training that focused primarily on implementing program curriculum with fidelity, role-play interactions, and problem troubleshooting. They also received weekly supervision from a doctoral-level clinician-trainer. (pp. 764-765)
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).