An Intervention for Relational and Physical Aggression in Early Childhood: A Preliminary Study [Early Childhood Friendship Project vs. business as usual]
Ostrov, Jamie M.; Massetti, Greta M.; Stauffacher, Kirstin; Godleski, Stephanie A.; Hart, Katie C.; Karch, Kathryn M.; Mullins, Adam D.; Ries, Emily E. (2009). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v24 n1 p15-28. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ830312
-
examining403Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for The Early Childhood Friendship Project)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Childhood Observation System: Relational Aggression |
The Early Childhood Friendship Project vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
7.32 |
4.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Early Childhood Observation System: Physical Victimization |
The Early Childhood Friendship Project vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
7.09 |
4.56 |
No |
-- | |
|
Early Childhood Observation System: Physical Aggression |
The Early Childhood Friendship Project vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
8.54 |
5.89 |
No |
-- | |
|
Early Childhood Observation System: Relational Victimization |
The Early Childhood Friendship Project vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.45 |
3.67 |
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.
-
Suburban, 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
Northeast
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 18 classrooms across three public schools and four community-based centers. Eleven classrooms came from universal pre-kindergarten (preK) classrooms in three urban public schools in the northeast region of the United States. The remaining classrooms were at four preK centers that served urban and suburban areas. One intervention school and two comparison schools were private institutions with religious affiliation, while one comparison school was affiliated with a local college.
Study sample
The students in the sample were between ages 3 and 5, with a mean of 50 months. The study does not provide information on the race/ethnicity or gender of the students. The three public schools in the sample served ethnically diverse, low socio-economic status students, while the four centers in the sample served ethnically and socio-economically diverse students.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received the 6-week intervention focused on reducing aggression and peer victimization and on increasing prosocial behaviors. The intervention included a manual but interventionists could adjust and tailor the intervention to fit their individual classrooms. Each classroom received four components each week: (1) one puppet show (10 minutes; typically took place in circle time at beginning of the day); (2) one participatory activity (5-10 minutes; typically 1 or 2 days after the puppet show each week); (3) one concept rehearsal activity (5-10 minutes; typically 1 or 2 days after the puppet show each week, on a separate day from the participatory activity); and (4) three separate reinforcement sessions (1 hour each; typically occurred immediately after or during the next free play session after the puppet show, along with two other days that week). In Week 1, the components focused on introducing the program, building rapport, and addressing physical aggression. Week 2 focused on social exclusion and relational aggression; Week 3 focused on relational inclusion and prosocial behavior. Week 4’s theme was threats of relational withdrawal and relational aggression. Week 5 focused on skills for forming friendships and other prosocial behaviors, and Week 6 reviewed the prior lessons and concluded with a graduation ceremony.
Comparison Group
Classrooms in the comparison group received business as usual instruction. The study authors were available to the principals or center directors and other staff to provide consultation on developmental or clinical child psychology issues.
Support for implementation
The intervention was delivered by clinicians with post-bachelor or master’s level of education. Prior to implementation, the clinicians received 10 hours of group training over 3 days. This training focused on teaching about the manual, skills in flexibly using the puppets, use of developmentally appropriate praise, and practicing role plays. Throughout implementation, the clinicians met weekly with the first or second author in small groups to discuss any issues or concerns with implementation.
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).