Strengthening school readiness for Head Start children: Evaluation of a self-regulation intervention [Self-regulation intervention vs. business as usual]
Schmitt, S. A., McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., & Acock, A. C. (2015). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 20–31.
-
examining276Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Picture Vocabulary subtest |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
458.68 |
458.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Applied Problems Subtest |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
397.45 |
395.46 |
No |
-- |
|
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;
|
325.51 |
322.99 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.53 |
8.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dimensional change card sort task |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.97 |
10.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Behavior Rating Scale |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
35.75 |
34.14 |
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
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
West
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Head Start classrooms across 9 sites in a Pacific Northwest city.
Study sample
The study included 276 students with a sample that was 49% boys and 51% girls. The students in the sample ranged in age from 38 to 66 months, and 33% were English language learners (ELLs). The families of all children had income levels below 100 percent of the poverty threshold.
Intervention Group
The seven intervention classrooms participated in a game-based self-regulation intervention that consisted of classroom-based movement and music games to help children practice integrating working memory, attentional flexibility, and inhibitory control. Children participated in two 20-30 minute playgroups per week for 8 weeks.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Children in comparison classrooms participated in the same daily activities, routines, and curricula that preceded study participation.
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation, group leaders (individuals who led the intervention activities) attended a training workshop led by the intervention developer. To assess fidelity of implementation of the intervention, the group leaders were asked whether or not they completed the session and what activities were completed. The group leaders also met before delivering the weekly sessions to discuss implementation and watch training videos. Detailed lesson plans were also created for the group leaders.
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) Intervention Report - Preparing Young Children for School
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2022
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high individual-level non-response, but provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Picture Vocabulary subtest |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
458.68 |
458.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Applied Problems Subtest |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
397.45 |
395.46 |
No |
-- |
|
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;
|
325.51 |
322.99 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.53 |
8.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dimensional change card sort task |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.97 |
10.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Behavior Rating Scale |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
35.75 |
34.14 |
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Head Start classrooms across 9 sites in a Pacific Northwest city.
Study sample
The study included 276 students with a sample that was 49% boys and 51% girls. The students in the sample ranged in age from 38 to 66 months, and 33% were English language learners (ELLs). The families of all children had income levels below 100 percent of the poverty threshold.
Intervention Group
The seven intervention classrooms participated in a game-based self-regulation intervention that consisted of classroom-based movement and music games to help children practice integrating working memory, attentional flexibility, and inhibitory control. Children participated in two 20-30 minute playgroups per week for 8 weeks.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Children in comparison classrooms participated in the same daily activities, routines, and curricula that preceded study participation.
Support for implementation
Prior to implementation, group leaders (individuals who led the intervention activities) attended a training workshop led by the intervention developer. To assess fidelity of implementation of the intervention, the group leaders were asked whether or not they completed the session and what activities were completed. The group leaders also met before delivering the weekly sessions to discuss implementation and watch training videos. Detailed lesson plans were also created for the group leaders.
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).