Sutherland, Kevin S.; Conroy, Maureen A.; Algina, James; Ladwig, Crystal; Jesse, Gabriel; Gyure, Maria (2018). Early Childhood Research Quarterly v42 p31-43. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581411
Reviewed: January 2022
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TCIDOS Disruptive Behavior |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.02 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
TCIDOS Engagement |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.97 |
0.93 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement Scale (SSiS): Problem Behavior |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
111.07 |
117.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Caregiver teacher report form |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
56.21 |
59.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
CTRF Externalizing |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample, subtest;
|
57.99 |
61.81 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Caregiver-teacher report form (CTRF), Internalizing scale |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.38 |
54.91 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
inCLASS Conflict |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.70 |
1.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
TCIDOS Positive Interaction |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.97 |
0.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
TCIDOS Negative Interaction |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.03 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Social Skills Improvement Scale (SSiS): Social Skills |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.30 |
83.87 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Student teacher relationship scale, Conflict scale |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.36 |
2.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Student teacher relationship scale, Closeness scale |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.32 |
4.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
InCLASS: Teacher Interaction |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.03 |
2.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
InCLASS: Task orientation |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.16 |
3.97 |
No |
-- | |
|
InCLASS: Peer Interaction |
BEST in CLASS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.44 |
2.32 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 0% | |
| Black | 66% | |
| Native American | 0% | |
| Other or unknown | 16% | |
| White | 17% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
The study took place in early childhood programs in two southeastern states. Most of the early childhood programs that participated were federally- or state-funded programs (pp. 33-34)
Across the 78 study schools and centers, 4.5% of children were Hispanic, 66% were Black, and 17% were White. Males made up about 65% of the overall sample. The average age of children was 4.32 years at entry into the study. Among participating teachers, about 3% of were Hispanic, 48% were Black, and 46% were White. Female teachers made up about 98% of the overall sample. The average teaching experience of participating teachers was 12 years. Teachers varied in their level of education: 30% had an Associates degree, 39% had a Bachelors degree, and 26% had a Masters degree. (pp. 34-35)
BEST in CLASS is a supplemental intervention in which teachers systematically identify children in the classroom with chronic behavior problems and use targeted instructional practices with those children. These targeted instructional practices, which are implemented over the course of the school year, aim to promote positive teacher-child interactions and child engagement while also decreasing problem behaviors. Teachers received BEST in CLASS teacher training, which included a teacher manual, a workshop, and 14 weeks of one-on-one practice-based coaching with performance feedback. Targeted instructional practice modules included guidance on: how to manage children identified as having chronic behavioral problems; preventive methods to set expectations before problem behaviors occur; strategies for giving students opportunities to engage in instructional activities; how to provide behavior-specific praise, providing instructional feedback; and how best to combine instructional practices in a sequential way (pp. 33, 36-37)
Comparison teachers implemented the business-as-usual curriculum using a range of federally- or state-funded programs. The most commonly used programs included Teaching Strategies Gold (Heroman et al., 2010), the Creative Curriculum (Heroman et al., 2010) and High Scope (High Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2014). (p. 37)
Teachers received BEST in CLASS teacher training, which included a teacher manual, a workshop, and 14 weeks of one-on-one practice-based coaching with performance feedback. (pp. 36-37)
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