DiPerna, James Clyde; Lei, Puiwa; Bellinger, Jillian; Cheng, Weiyi (2015). School Psychology Quarterly, v30 n1 p123-141. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1056685
Reviewed: February 2018
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Reading Test |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
269.85 |
276.59 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Math scale scores |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
472.63 |
475.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Problem behavior (composite) |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.39 |
0.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Hyperactive-inattentive |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.59 |
0.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Interference |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
random subsample - observation measure;
|
0.27 |
0.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Internalizing |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.34 |
0.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Externalizing |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.39 |
0.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Bullying |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.21 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Motivation |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.74 |
3.39 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Academic Engagement |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.98 |
3.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Active Engaged Time |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
random subsample - observation measure;
|
2.20 |
2.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Passive Engaged Time |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
random subsample - observation measure;
|
2.17 |
2.16 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills (composite) |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.33 |
2.14 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Self-control |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.25 |
2.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Positive social |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
random subsample - observation measure;
|
0.28 |
0.25 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Empathy |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.37 |
2.16 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Communication |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.44 |
2.26 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Engagement |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.37 |
2.17 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Responsibility |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.38 |
2.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Cooperation |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.21 |
2.02 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Assertion |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.19 |
2.04 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 18% | |
| Other or unknown | 2% | |
| White | 73% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
The study takes place in 39 second-grade classrooms across two mid-Atlantic school districts. One district was a small urban district, and the other district was a small rural district. The classroom sample represented 95% of all second grade classrooms across the participating schools.
Of the 432 students in the DiPerna et al. (2015) analytic sample, 1.9% where Asian, 18.1% Black, and 72.7% White. Five percent were Hispanic. Forty-five percent of the students were male. A measure of free/reduced price lunch or financial position was not provided. Around 6% of students were listed as "special education consideration." Among students in the intervention group 11.4% were described as special education, compared to 6.37% in the comparison group (DiPerna et al [2015]). The above statistics were aggregated based on group-specific data presented in Table 1, p. 125. Sample characteristics were similar for the slightly smaller subsample of 402 students in the DiPerna et al. (2016) analytic sample.
The SSIS-CIP is a curriculum designed to improve children’s social skills and to minimize problem behavior. Teachers are expected to teach one unit composed of three lessons per week. There are 10 units in total. All teachers were able to complete the 30 lessons within the 12-week study period. Each unit focuses on a key classroom social behavior and includes three scripted lessons. The lessons rely on six instructional strategies in addition to short video vignettes. Each lesson takes 20 to 25 minutes to complete. The intervention and study sample were not limited to children with social skills issues.
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction.
Teachers in the intervention group were formally trained in a 1-day workshop (1 workshop in each district). Each workshop followed a structured protocol. The first half of the training included a detailed overview of materials, lesson plans, and video vignettes. During the second half, teachers practiced teaching the first lesson in small groups. During the intervention, researchers monitored fidelity and checked in with all teachers to see if they had any questions.
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.
DiPerna, J. C., Lei, P., Bellinger, J., & Cheng, W. (2016). Effects of a universal positive classroom behavior program on student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 189-203.
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