The Effect of the Primary Project Program on School Attendance in Early Childhood
Bohdan S. Lotyczewski; Renae A. Whittington; Lynn Smith; Shelley Sanyshyn; Erinn B. Duprey; Marjorie Allan; Joseph P. McFall; Ann Marie White (2024). Journal of Applied School Psychology, v40 n1 p25-37. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1406793
-
examining249Students, gradesK-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Primary Project)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Primary Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.00 |
84.00 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Chronically absent |
Primary Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.00 |
45.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Unexcused absence rate |
Primary Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.60 |
13.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Excused absence rate |
Primary Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.43 |
2.54 |
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: 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
Northeast
-
Race Black 46% Other or unknown 46% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 54% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 96% No FRPL 4%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven public schools within one urban school district in a medium-sized northeastern U.S. city.
Study sample
Students in grades K–2 were eligible for the study if (1) their attendance rate in the prior year or semester was less than 90 percent and (2) a social-emotional screening based on the Teacher-Child Rating Scale indicated moderate, but not severe, behavioral problems. Based on these criteria, the study included 249 students, with 27% in kindergarten, 37% in first grade, and 36% in second grade. The researchers randomly assigned 91 students to the Primary Project program and 158 students to the comparison group. Students in kindergarten participated in the study during the spring semester (with eligibility based on fall attendance), and students in grades 1 and 2 participated for a full school year (with eligibility based on prior-year attendance).
Intervention Group
Primary Project is a program meant to improve school engagement among students with academic or social-emotional difficulties. The program involves one-on-one meetings, lasting 30 to 40 minutes each, between eligible students and a child associate trained in therapeutic techniques. Meetings occur in a designated playroom space within the school and focus on allowing children to express themselves by playing with particular toys. Implementation data from the study, available for 71 of the 91 students in the intervention group, showed that students participated in an average of 13 weekly sessions, with a range of 7 to 17 sessions.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition experienced business-as-usual academic and behavioral supports.
Support for implementation
The design of Primary Project specifies that child associates receive training on therapeutic play skills, such as active listening, expressing empathy, and setting limits. The study did not provide information on actual training and support for child associates in the participating schools.
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).