Red Light, Purple Light! Results of an Intervention to Promote School Readiness for Children from Low-Income Backgrounds [Red Light, Purple Light Circle Time Games only vs. business as usual (Creative Curriculum)]
McClelland, Megan M.; Tominey, Shauna L.; Schmitt, Sara A.; Hatfield, Bridget; Purpura, David; Gonzales, Christopher; Tracy, Alexis (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599347
-
examining90Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition that provides evidence of effects on clusters by demonstrating that the analytic sample of individuals is representative of the clusters.
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 Early Numeracy Skills Screener - Brief Version (PENS-B) |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.75 |
8.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
333.29 |
331.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders-Revised (HTKS-R) |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
36.74 |
41.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Day-Night Stroop task |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.86 |
21.60 |
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
West
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in thirteen Head Start classrooms across nine sites in the Pacific Northwest.
Study sample
There were three conditions in the study: Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL), Red Light, Purple Light-Revised, and business as usual comparison. All participating children were between the ages of three and five, and all families were low-income. The authors provided race and ethnicity information for the full analytic sample, which includes the Red Light, Purple Light-Revised group, but not for the Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) and comparison groups only.
Intervention Group
The intervention implemented in the study is the Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) program, a teacher-implemented classroom-based program involving activities aimed to increase school readiness and self-regulation by improving working memory, attentional or cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control. The program is implemented over sixteen sessions, twice a week for eight weeks. Each session is conducted in a large group setting and lasts between fifteen and twenty minutes. During each session, children play one of five designated games, each of which is repeated multiple times over the course of the intervention increasing in complexity. One game the researchers describe is Red Light, Green Light, and is played as follows: children perform different actions when the teacher holds up a green paper circle and stop when the teacher holds up red. Over time, the teacher adds different colors to represent stop and go and children are asked to respond to opposite cues. Children are also given the opportunity to choose the colors and actions.
Comparison Group
The comparison group engaged in their business-as-usual daily routines and curricula activities. Based on a review of classroom materials and observations of the comparison classrooms, the authors found no self-regulation games being played.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers attended a half-day training led by two master trainers, learning about the importance of self-regulation and the core elements of the intervention. They were provided with training manuals and materials including detailed session plans. Teachers were asked to complete fidelity of implementation surveys and daily logs following each session. Teachers worked with coaches six times throughout the intervention, during which they reviewed recordings of them implementing the intervention the week prior. Videos were collected from all classrooms, including comparison classrooms, and coded for fidelity by a trained coding team. The videos indicated intervention teachers implemented the intervention accurately and effectively and that comparison teachers did not play self-regulation games as part of their typical classroom routine.
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).