Supporting Preschool Children with Developmental Concerns: Effects of the Getting Ready Intervention on School-Based Social Competencies and Relationships
Sheridan, Susan M.; Knoche, Lisa L.; Boise, Courtney E.; Moen, Amanda L.; Lester, Houston; Pope Edwards, Carolyn; Schumacher, Rachel; Cheng, Katherine (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611793
-
examining136Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for Getting Ready)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Parent-Teacher Relationship Scale (PTRS) |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spring Year 2;
|
4.54 |
4.34 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Parent-Teacher Relationship Scale (PTRS) |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
Interim Outcome: Fall Year 2;
|
4.43 |
4.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Parent-Teacher Relationship Scale (PTRS) |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Interim Outcome: Spring Year 1;
|
4.25 |
4.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spring Year 2;
|
125.99 |
120.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Social Skills Scale |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spring Year 2;
|
105.51 |
100.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Problem Behaviors |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Spring Year 2;
|
96.81 |
100.41 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Problem Behaviors |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Interim Outcome: Spring Year 1;
|
103.57 |
106.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Social Skills Scale |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
Interim Outcome - Fall Year 2;
|
98.65 |
96.95 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Social Skills Scale |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Interim Outcome: Spring Year 1;
|
92.57 |
91.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Interim Outcome: Spring Year 1;
|
115.94 |
115.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Problem Behaviors |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
Interim Outcome - Fall Year 2;
|
121.74 |
119.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) |
Getting Ready vs. Business as usual |
-6 Months |
Interim Outcome - Fall Year 2;
|
99.54 |
102.98 |
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: 44%
Male: 56% -
Rural
-
Race Black 4% Native American 2% Other or unknown 11% Two or more races 12% White 71% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted with students, educators, and parents across 94 publicly funded preschool classrooms in school systems or Head Start agencies in a Midwestern state.
Study sample
A total of 136 pre-school children were included in the study. The 136 children were taught by 97 teachers. To be eligible for the study, children had to be eligible for two years of early childhood education (ECE) at the time they entered the clusters to enable them to participate in the full two years of the intervention, meet criteria related to family income, special education status, and family receipt of public assistance, complete the DIAL-4 screening, and score 90 or below in the cognition, language, and/or social skills portions of the screening measure. Fifty-six percent of children were male and one-third of students had an individualized education program, which indicates that they have a disability. Seventy-one percent of children were White, 4% were Black, 2% were Native American, less than 1% were Asian, and 23% were two or more races or did not report race. Thirty percent of the children identified as Latino or Hispanic. The majority of parents (78%) received public assistance over the last 12 months. The researchers randomly assigned 48 teachers to the intervention group and 49 teachers to the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Getting Ready is a parent engagement intervention that aims to promote school readiness for children from birth to age 5. The intervention focuses on strengthening relationships between homes and schools by utilizing a set of strategies educators can use to support parent’s participation in their child’s early learning. The strategies can be used in unstructured interactions, such as child drop-off or pick-up, or notes sent home, and during structured interactions such as home visits or parent-teach conferences. For this study, there were 6 structured interactions per school year (12 total across the 2-year study) with at least one parent, the ECE, and the child. On average, families participated in 13 structured contacts with educators during the 2-year study.
Comparison Group
Parents and children in the comparison condition received business-as-usual preschool services, which involves four parent–ECE contacts per school year (two 60-min home visits and two parent–ECE conferences). In addition, to help provide equivalent time that ECEs spent with parents, two additional structured contacts were offered to each parent annually, for a total of 12 structured contacts over the 2-year study. On average across the 2-year study, educators and parents in the comparison group participated in 11 structured contacts.
Support for implementation
Educators in the intervention condition received a 1-day training at the beginning of their participation in the study. Additionally, twice a month for 2 years they received ongoing professional development through 90-minute individualized and group coaching.
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).