(2008). National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502153
Reviewed: January 2009
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Curiosity Corner.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Shape Composition |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A) Composite |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development - Primary III (TOLD-PIII): Grammatic Understanding subtest |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Reading Ability III (TERA-III) |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Curiosity Corner vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 50% |
The study was conducted in 18 schools (31 classrooms) in Florida, Kansas, and New Jersey.
In this study, 18 preschools were randomly assigned to intervention (10 schools) or comparison (8 schools) conditions. Prior to random assignment, schools were sorted into blocks on a number of conditions, including teacher experience, school location, and state report card score. Random assignment occurred within each block. From the schools, 31 preschool classrooms participated in the study (14 intervention classrooms and 17 control classrooms). Participants included 215 preschool-age children whose parents consented to their participation in the study. At baseline, children were an average 4.7 years old, half were male, half were African-American, and 14% were reported as having a disability. Although the intervention and comparison groups were similar in race and disability status, the treatment group had more boys (61%) than the comparison group (38%), a difference that was statistically significant. Attrition from the analysis sample (children with parent consent) was low: 2% at baseline, 5% at endof- preschool posttest, and 10% at end-of-kindergarten follow-up. Response rates varied by measure but were comparable across treatment and control groups.
Intervention group children participated in Curiosity Corner. A Success For All (SFA) implementation measure was used by SFA trainers, who visited each classroom at least three times during the year and rated the implementation of each classroom. Fidelity of the classrooms was rated on a four point scale, ranging from “Not at all” (0) to “High” (3). The average fidelity score of the intervention classrooms was 2.0.
The comparison condition varied across schools. Comparison schools in Florida primarily used the Creative Curriculum. The Kansas comparison schools participated in a blend of the Preschool and Language Stimulation curriculum and the Animated Literacy curriculum. Comparison schools in New Jersey used a teacher-developed curriculum. Comparison classrooms were visited twice a year by the trainers and rated using the same implementation measure as was used for the intervention classrooms. The average fidelity score of the comparison classrooms was 1.9.
The primary outcome domains assessed were the children’s oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math. Oral language was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III) and the Test of Language Development-Primary III (TOLD-P:3) Grammatic Understanding subtest. Print knowledge was assessed with the Test of Early Reading Ability-III (TERA-3), Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) Letter-Word Identification subtest, and the WJ III Spelling subtest. Phonological processing was assessed with the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP) Elision subtest. Math was assessed with the WJ III Applied Problems subtest, the Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A), and the Building Blocks, Shape Composition task. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–2.5.
Success for All staff provided an initial training session for the intervention teachers and ongoing implementation support, including three visits a year to conduct observations and provide feedback.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube