Kam, C-M.; Greenberg, M. T.; Kusche, C. A. (2004). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, v12 n2 p66-78. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ694140
Reviewed: March 2021
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 Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) .
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Behavior Checklist - Teacher Report Form - Externalizing |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
13 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kusche Affective Interview - Positive Feelings Words |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Checklist - Teacher Report Form - Internalizing |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
13 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Kusche Affective Interview - Negative Feelings Words |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Childhood Depression Inventory (CDI) |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Kusche Affective Interview - Negative Feelings Words |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
25 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher-Child Rating Scale: Frustration Tolerance |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
13 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Problem-Solving Interview |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Month |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher-Child Rating Scale: Assertive Social Skills |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
13 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher-Child Rating Scale: Task Orientation |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
13 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher-Child Rating Scale: Peer Sociability |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) vs. Business as usual |
13 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 14% | |
| White | 66% |
The study took place in seven elementary schools in Seattle, Highline, and Shoreline school districts in Washington. Students were primarily educated in self-contained classrooms, in which a special education teacher was responsible for the instruction of academic subjects. The classrooms were mixed-aged classrooms and served students in grades 1 to 3. All students in the study had disabilities.
The analytic sample included 51 students in the intervention group and 62 students in the comparison group for six teacher-reported outcomes. A separate analytic sample included 62 students in the intervention group and 71 in the comparison group for four student-reported outcomes. Of the students subject to random assignment, 73% were male, 66% were White, and 20% were African American. In addition, 40% of the sample had a learning disability, 17% had mild mental retardation, 23% had emotional and behavioral disorders, 16% had physical disabilities or health impairments, and 4% had multiple disabilities. The students in the study were in grades 1–3. Their average age was 8.7 years old.
The PATHS® program is a curriculum that aims to promote emotional and social competencies, and reduce aggression and behavior problems in elementary school-age children. The lessons cover five topics: self-control, emotional literacy, social competence, positive peer relations, or interpersonal problem-solving skills. The PATHS® curriculum consisted of 60 lessons delivered during one school year, beginning in early October and concluding in early April. Lessons lasted 20 to 30 minutes and were taught approximately three times per week. The curriculum used in this study was adapted for students with disabilities. The original version of the PATHS® curriculum at the time of study had units on self-control, emotions, and problem solving. The adapted version of the PATHS® program used in this study placed a stronger focus on reinforcing behavioral self-control and a lesser focus on advanced problem solving than the original curriculum.
Students in classrooms assigned to the comparison condition received "business-as-usual" instruction. The comparison group did not receive instruction focused on social and emotional competencies.
Teachers in the intervention group attended a three-day training. During the implementation of the PATHS® program, the study team provided weekly support for teachers by modeling lessons, coaching, and providing feedback to teachers.
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