CSRP's Impact on Low-Income Preschoolers' Preacademic Skills: Self-Regulation as a Mediating Mechanism
Raver, C. Cybele; Jones, Stephanie M.; Li-Grining, Christine; Zhai, Fuhua; Bub, Kristen; Pressler, Emily (2011). Child Development, v82 n1 p362-378 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ927866
-
examining467Students, gradesPK-PS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment- Executive Functioning |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.08 |
-0.01 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Hearts and Flowers task - Mixed Trials Accuracy |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.67 |
0.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Early Math Skills |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample.;
|
10.06 |
9.98 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavior Problems Index (BPI): Internalizing behavior subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.98 |
1.18 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Emotional Go No Go (EGNG)- Angry D-Prime |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.47 |
1.55 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Emotional Go No Go (EGNG)- Sad D-Prime |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.35 |
1.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Health Risk Behavior Scale- Adapted Risks & Strengths Scale- Internalizing Behavior Subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter Naming Task |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.50 |
0.42 |
Yes |
|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.81 |
13.27 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Behavior Problems Index (BPI): Externalizing behavior subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.09 |
3.26 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment- Attention/impulsivity |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample.;
|
2.29 |
2.29 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment- Effortful Control |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full Sample;
|
0.00 |
0.05 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Children’s Health Risk Behavior Scale- Adapted Risks & Strengths Scale- Externalizing Behavior Subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.53 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain: Positive climate subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.24 |
4.60 |
Yes |
|
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain: Negative climate subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.11 |
2.76 |
Yes |
|
|
CLASS - Classroom Organization domain: Behavior management subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.83 |
4.36 |
No |
-- |
|
CLASS - Emotional Support domain: Teacher sensitivity subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.95 |
4.49 |
Yes |
|
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
Urban
-
- 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
Illinois
-
Race Black 66% Other or unknown 34% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 54% Other or unknown 46%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 35 classrooms in 18 Head-Start centers serving pre-school students in Chicago's high-poverty neighborhoods.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 18 Head Start centers, allocating nine centers to the intervention group and nine to the comparison group. Two classrooms from each center were additionally randomly selected to participate in the study. These classrooms included 654 students, 602 of whom were enrolled in the study. The analytic sample sizes in the study ranged from 313 to 467 students, depending on the outcome measure and follow-up period, with students nested within 35 classrooms taught by 87 teachers. Approximately 52% of the students were female and 54% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Sixty-six percent were Black and 34% did not specify race. Twenty-six percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
The Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) is a program that aimed to improve the classroom quality of preschool Head Start centers in Chicago, support low-income children's self-regulation skills, and improve children's school readiness. The intervention delivered a combination of teacher training on a behavioral management program and counseling support for teachers and students. The intervention targeted entire classes within Head Start centers and lasted for 30 weeks. Teachers participated in professional development sessions during the school year, each approximately six hours long. These sessions focused on equipping teachers with strategies to address children’s behavioral challenges and support self-regulation skills. The CSRP also provided Mental Health Consultants (MHCs), who were master’s-level social workers. During the first third of the intervention, MHCs coached and supported teachers in implementing the behavioral management program in their classrooms. In the second phase, MHCs facilitated stress reduction workshops for teachers and held individual meetings to address job-related stressors. In the final phase, MHCs held a stress reduction workshop for teachers and met individually with teachers to discuss job-related stressors. They also worked directly with approximately 3 to 4 children per class who needed additional support for behavioral and emotional problems.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group continued with business-as-usual instruction. Part-time teaching aides were assigned to comparison group sites to offset the reduced student-to-teacher ratio in intervention group classrooms caused by the presence of mental health consultants. Comparison teachers may have also participated in other routine training and professional development opportunities available at their centers.
Support for implementation
Each intervention group teacher participated in an average of 18 hours of professional development training during the fall and winter of the intervention year. Additionally, teachers received ongoing coaching from mental health consultants to support the implementation of the intervention strategies.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. P., Metzger, M., Champion, K. M., & Sardin, L. (2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 10–26.
-
Watts, Tyler; Ibrahim, Deanna; Khader, Alaa; Li, Chen; Gandhi, Jill; Raver, Cybele. (2020). Exploring the Impacts of an Early Childhood Educational Intervention on Later School Selection. Educational Researcher, v49 n9 p667-677.
-
Tyler W. Watts; Chen Li; Xinyu S. Pan; Jill Gandhi; Dana C. McCoy; C. Cybele Raver. (2023). Impacts of the Chicago School Readiness Project on Measures of Achievement, Cognitive Functioning, and Behavioral Regulation in Late Adolescence. Developmental Psychology, v59 n12 p2204-2222.
-
Raver, C. Cybele; Jones, Stephanie M.; Li-Grining, Christine; Zhai, Fuhua; Metzger, Molly W.; Solomon, Bonnie. (2009). Targeting Children's Behavior Problems in Preschool Classrooms: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v77 n2 p302-316.
-
Watts, Tyler W.; Gandhi, Jill; Ibrahim, Deanna A.; Masucci, Michael D.; Raver, C. Cybele. (2018). The Chicago School Readiness Project: Examining the Long-Term Impacts of an Early Childhood Intervention.
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).