First Step Next and homeBase: A Comparative Efficacy Study of Children with Disruptive Behavior [First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business-as-usual]
Frey, Andy J.; Small, Jason W.; Seeley, John R.; Walker, Hill M.; Feil, Edward G.; Lee, Jon; Lissman, Dana Cohen; Crosby, Shantel; Forness, Steven R. (2022). Exceptional Children, v88 n2 p205-222 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1323804
-
examining171Students, gradesK-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for First Step Next and homeBase)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Improvement System - Teacher Form - Academic Competency |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.25 |
88.35 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders: Academic Engaged Time |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
71.71 |
60.46 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems Scale: Teacher Report |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
66.90 |
73.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales Social Skills: teacher-reported |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
83.26 |
76.13 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales Problem Behavior: teacher-reported |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
124.98 |
132.88 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Behavior Checklist: Conduct Problems Scale: Teacher Report |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
67.13 |
71.99 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders: Maladaptive Behavior Index |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
32.57 |
35.95 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Behavior Checklist: Oppositional Defiant Problems Scale: Teacher Report |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
65.48 |
68.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders: Adaptive Behavior Index |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.29 |
30.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS): Child-Teacher Conflict |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.02 |
36.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales Social Skills: parent-reported |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.09 |
83.71 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Behavior Checklist: Oppositional Defiant Problems Scale: Parent Report |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
64.53 |
64.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Behavior Checklist: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems Scale: Parent Report |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
65.43 |
64.73 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales Problem Behavior: parent-reported |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
127.94 |
126.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Behavior Checklist: Conduct Problems Scale: Parent Report |
First Step Next and homeBase vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
65.57 |
64.46 |
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: 26%
Male: 74% -
- 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
Indiana, Kentucky
-
Race Black 53% Other or unknown 10% White 37% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 72% No FRPL 28%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 100 elementary schools in five school districts in Kentucky and Indiana. The First Step Next (FSN) intervention was administered in traditional classroom settings. The homeBase (HB) intervention was administered in the homes of students over several months. No elements of the HB intervention took place in the child’s school.
Study sample
Across five school years, the researchers randomly assigned 94 students to the FSN only condition, 96 students to the HB only condition, 94 students to the FSN and HB combined condition, and 95 students to the business-as-usual condition. Students were taught by 379 teachers in 100 schools. Students who were identified as having behavioral challenges were recruited to participate in the study. This review assesses the contrast between students in the FSN and HB combined condition and the business-as-usual condition. A total of 171 students from kindergarten to grade 3 were included in this analysis. Among students in the analytic sample, approximately 26% of the students were female, 72% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 24% had an Individualized Education Plan. Fifty-three percent were African American, 37% were White, and the rest had unknown race. The study did not report student ethnicities.
Intervention Group
First Step Next (FSN) draws upon support for multiple stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, and peers. The intervention includes in-school activities as well as home-school communication strategies to engage parents. The primary components of the intervention are direct social skills instruction, the green card game, and home-school connections. The intervention was administered individually to students in whole class settings. A group of 29 trained FSN coaches were tasked with implementing the intervention activities with participating teachers and students. The intervention, which took place over 30 days, also included facilitation with parents. The homeBase (HB) is a home-visiting intervention that seeks to improve the outcomes of young children by providing home-based support to their caregivers. The intervention consists of three to six 60-minute home visits over several months. During sessions, parents or caregivers are encouraged to align their parenting practices consistent with one or more of the five universal principles of behavioral support: establishing clear expectations, directly teaching expectations, reinforcing the display of expectations, minimizing attention for minor inappropriate behavior, and establishing clear consequences for unacceptable behavior. HB sessions are delivered within a multi-step process for increasing intrinsic motivation to adopt and implement an evidence-based practice with integrity. The four steps are: (1) engage in values discovery (2) assess current practices (3) share performance feedback (4) offer extended consultation, education, and support. During each step, HB coaches use motivational interviewing to guide and strengthen the parent/caregiver’s engagement with and commitment to behavioral change.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction. These students did not have contact with the trained FSN coaches and did not receive caregiver support in their homes.
Support for implementation
There were 29 coaches affiliated with the University of Louisville who served as FSN coaches and assisted in implementing interventions. Project research staff trained all coaches using role playing activities where they practiced implementing FSN to all students and teachers. FSN behavioral coaches were trained via a 2-day workshop where they were introduced to the intervention material, reflected on videos of the intervention being implemented correctly, and role-played several of the procedures. These coaches then practiced implementing the intervention with at least one child who was not enrolled in the study under the supervision of an experienced implementer. Coaches also participated in weekly supervision meetings led by an experienced implementer with other coaches to troubleshoot during the study. The HB coaches who participated in this study were also university employees. In total, 25 coaches participated in HB implementation. Research staff from the Motivational Interviewing Training and Assessment System provided training to all participating HB coaches. This training involved 12 hours of didactic workshops and simulated practice sessions with an experienced implementer. Coaches also participated in weekly supervision meetings led by an experienced implementer with other coaches to troubleshoot any problems during the study.
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).