Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
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 or Red Light, Purple Light Circle Time Games plus math and literacy components vs. business as usual (Creative Curriculum)]
McClelland, Megan M.; Tominey, Shauna L.; Schmitt, Sara A.; Hatfield, Bridget; Purpura, David; Gonzales, Christopher; Tracy, Alexis (2019). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED599347
-
examining157Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2022
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Early Numeracy Skills Screener—Brief Version (PENS-B) |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated Sample;
|
8.72 |
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 |
Aggregated Sample;
|
328.08 |
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 |
Aggregated Sample;
|
37.43 |
41.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Day-Night Stroop task |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated Sample;
|
22.75 |
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
- 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 Black 6% Other or unknown 61% Pacific Islander 7% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 58% Not Hispanic or Latino 42% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 13 Head Start classrooms across 7 sites in the Pacific Northwest.
Study sample
All participating children were between the ages of three and five, and all families were low-income. More than half, 58%, of the analytic sample identified as Latino, 26% identified as White, 7% Pacific Islander, 6% African American, and 2% reported other for ethnicity. Using the child’s home language information from the consent form, the authors identified 62 children (33%) as English language learners (ELLs).
Intervention Group
Two versions of the intervention were assessed and have been combined for this review, the Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) program and the revised Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL+) program. The Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) program is 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 revised version of Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL+) includes the same self-regulation activities as the basic version, but teachers also embed literacy- and math-related content into game play. Both versions of the RLPL intervention are implemented during 16 sessions, which occur twice a week over an 8-week period. Each session is conducted in a large group setting and lasts between 15 and 20 minutes.
Comparison Group
The comparison group engaged in their business-as-usual daily routines and curricula activities. The authors’ review of classroom materials and observation of instruction revealed that no self-regulation games were played in the comparison classrooms.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers attended a half-day training led by two master trainers. During these sessions, teachers learned about the importance of self-regulation and the core elements of the intervention. Teachers in the RLPL+ group also received information on how to embed literacy- and math-related content into the games. Teachers implementing the two versions of RLPL were provided with training manuals containing intervention materials and detailed session plans. The researchers also asked teachers in the two RLPL groups to complete fidelity of implementation surveys and daily logs following each session. Teachers worked with coaches six times throughout the intervention, during which coaches could provide feedback to teachers based on recordings of the teachers’ implementation during the prior week.
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) Intervention Report - Preparing Young Children for School
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2022
- 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Early Numeracy Skills Screener—Brief Version (PENS-B) |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated Sample;
|
8.72 |
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 |
Aggregated Sample;
|
328.08 |
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 |
Aggregated Sample;
|
37.43 |
41.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Day-Night Stroop task |
Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated Sample;
|
22.75 |
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
- 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 Black 6% Other or unknown 61% Pacific Islander 7% White 26% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 58% Not Hispanic or Latino 42% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 13 Head Start classrooms across 7 sites in the Pacific Northwest.
Study sample
All participating children were between the ages of three and five, and all families were low-income. More than half, 58%, of the analytic sample identified as Latino, 26% identified as White, 7% Pacific Islander, 6% African American, and 2% reported other for ethnicity. Using the child’s home language information from the consent form, the authors identified 62 children (33%) as English language learners (ELLs).
Intervention Group
Two versions of the intervention were assessed and have been combined for this review, the Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) program and the revised Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL+) program. The Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL) program is 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 revised version of Red Light, Purple Light (RLPL+) includes the same self-regulation activities as the basic version, but teachers also embed literacy- and math-related content into game play. Both versions of the RLPL intervention are implemented during 16 sessions, which occur twice a week over an 8-week period. Each session is conducted in a large group setting and lasts between 15 and 20 minutes.
Comparison Group
The comparison group engaged in their business-as-usual daily routines and curricula activities. The authors’ review of classroom materials and observation of instruction revealed that no self-regulation games were played in the comparison classrooms.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers attended a half-day training led by two master trainers. During these sessions, teachers learned about the importance of self-regulation and the core elements of the intervention. Teachers in the RLPL+ group also received information on how to embed literacy- and math-related content into the games. Teachers implementing the two versions of RLPL were provided with training manuals containing intervention materials and detailed session plans. The researchers also asked teachers in the two RLPL groups to complete fidelity of implementation surveys and daily logs following each session. Teachers worked with coaches six times throughout the intervention, during which coaches could provide feedback to teachers based on recordings of the teachers’ implementation during the prior week.
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).