Promoting Classroom Social and Academic Functioning among Children at Risk for ADHD: The MOSAIC Program
Mikami, Amori Yee; Owens, Julie Sarno; Evans, Steven W.; Hudec, Kristen L.; Kassab, Hannah; Smit, Sophie; Na, Jennifer Jiwon; Khalis, Adri (2021). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618008
-
examining558Students, gradesK-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Classroom Life Measure – Teacher Support |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
4.55 |
4.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Classroom Life Measure – Peer Support |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
3.71 |
3.61 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Classroom Life Measure – Teacher Support |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
4.47 |
4.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Classroom Life Measure – Peer Support |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
3.47 |
3.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Classroom Life Measure – Peer Support |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
3.79 |
3.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Classroom Life Measure – Teacher Support |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
4.58 |
4.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ADHD-5: Getting along with school professionals |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
0.69 |
15.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5 Impairment |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole Class;
|
0.43 |
0.56 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (Short Form) Enablers |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole Class;
|
3.95 |
3.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5:Performing academically |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
16.20 |
22.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5: Getting along with peers |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
10.30 |
13.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social preference |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole Class;
|
0.15 |
0.15 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ADHD-5: Getting along with peers |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
0.90 |
4.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5: Getting along with school professionals |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
1.80 |
7.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5: Getting along with school professionals |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
26.00 |
44.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (Short Form) Enablers |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
4.20 |
3.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5:Performing academically |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
41.10 |
57.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (Short Form) Enablers |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
3.22 |
3.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5 Impairment |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
0.20 |
0.35 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5:Performing academically |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
7.80 |
12.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5 Impairment |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
1.14 |
1.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ADHD-5: Getting along with peers |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
38.40 |
41.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social preference |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Non-target students;
|
0.23 |
0.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social preference |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Target students;
|
-0.12 |
-0.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales Enablers: Engagement subscale |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales Enablers: Interpersonal subscale |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Competence Evaluation Scales Enablers: Motivation subscale |
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Whole class;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
- 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
International
-
Race Asian 20% Black 16% Native American 1% Other or unknown 1% Two or more races 23% White 40% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 73% Other or unknown 12% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 34 general education grade K-5 classrooms in 11 schools in western Canada and Midwestern U.S.
Study sample
The sample in the fall of the study year included 40% White students, 20% Asian students, 16% Black students, 1% American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 23.3% multiracial students. In addition, 49% of students were female and 15% were Hispanic/Latino.
Intervention Group
Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) is classroom intervention designed to support children’s social and academic functioning, especially for children with ADHD or at risk of being diagnosed with ADHD. During the full 2018-19 school year, teachers implemented MOSAIC strategies to their whole class and implemented some of these strategies more frequently to children identified with ADHD and peer impairment.
Comparison Group
Students in comparison classrooms received business-as-usual instruction and did not receive MOSAIC strategies.
Support for implementation
MOSAIC teachers had a 2-hour orientation where they were given a manual, were introduced to the program, and were shown intervention strategies using pictures and video models from the pilot study. During the academic year, teachers took part in coaching sessions, and consultants observed teachers twice per month. Teachers then received performance feedback from these observations.
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).