A Cluster Randomized Pilot Trial of the Equity-Explicit Establish-Maintain-Restore Program among High School Teachers and Students
Duong, Mylien T.; Gaias, Larissa M.; Brown, Eric; Kiche, Sharon; Nguyen, Lillian; Corbin, Catherine M.; Chandler, Cassandra J.; Buntain-Ricklefs, Joanne J.; Cook, Clayton R. (2022). School Mental Health, v14 n4 p951-966. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1356523
-
examining383Students, grade9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) - Future Aspirations and Goals |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.47 |
2.39 |
No |
-- |
|
Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)-Identified regulation scale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.48 |
5.61 |
No |
-- |
|
Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)-Intrinsic regulation |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.58 |
4.69 |
No |
-- |
|
Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)- Amotivation scale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.16 |
2.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)-External regulation scale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.35 |
5.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Psychological sense of school membership (Goodenow, 1993) |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.76 |
3.67 |
No |
-- |
|
Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) - Teacher-Student Relationships |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.09 |
2.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Total Problems |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.61 |
0.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)- Introjected regulation |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.43 |
4.69 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Conduct Problems subscale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.29 |
0.34 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Hyperactivity subscale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.91 |
0.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Emotional Problems subscale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.83 |
0.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Prosocial Behavior subscale |
Equity-Explicit Establish Maintain Restore (E-EMR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.56 |
1.60 |
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.
-
Female: 48%
Male: 49%
Other or unknown: 3% -
- 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
Washington
-
Race Asian 15% Black 6% Other or unknown 26% Two or more races 23% White 30% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 14% Not Hispanic or Latino 86% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 24% No FRPL 40% Other or unknown 36%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 6 public high schools in the Pacific Northwest. The intervention was delivered to grade 9 general education teachers.
Study sample
Schools were matched based on school size, percent of the student body who identified as belonging to a marginalized racial/ethnic group, and percent of the student body eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. One school from each pair was then assigned to either the intervention or comparison group, which led to three schools assigned to each group. There was not cluster-level attrition. The study was available to all grade 9 teachers who were general education certified and who had 50% or more of their class rosters consist of grade nine students. Five students from each teacher’s roster were randomly selected to participate in the study, which led to 215 students assigned to the intervention group and 255 assigned to the comparison group. The student analytic sample included 174 students in the intervention group and 209 in the comparison group. The sample was comprised of grade 9 students with the following characteristics: 49.2% male, 48.2% female; 29.6 % White, 14.5% Asian, 6.3% Black, 23.1% multiracial; 13.7% Hispanic; 23.9% eligible for free or reduced priced lunch; and 23.1% of students came from homes with a language other than English.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition in the study received the Equity-Explicit Establish-Maintain-Restore (E-EMR) program, which was designed to enhance student-teacher relationships (STR) with a particular focus on equity. The implementation of the intervention entailed equipping teachers with tools and ongoing support necessary to improve STRs through intentional efforts to establish, maintain, and restore positive interactions, with a strong focus on understanding and addressing equity within these relationships. Teachers then employed the strategies learned during one-to-one interactions with their 5 assigned students.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual condition. Teachers were not given any formal training, technical assistance, additional resources, training, or interventions aimed at improving student-teacher relationships or addressing equity explicitly. No other specific details were provided regarding the control condition.
Support for implementation
Teachers received support for implementation via three mechanisms: six hours of training, professional learning community protocol for monthly meetings, and weekly emails from the researchers that included reminders to use E-EMR practices and an equity tip.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).