Bradshaw, Catherine P.; Pas, Elise T.; Bottiani, Jessika H.; Debnam, Katrina J.; Reinke, Wendy M.; Herman, Keith C.; Rosenberg, Michael S. (2018). School Psychology Review, v47 n2 p118-134. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181996
Reviewed: May 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ASSIST tallies of student noncooperation |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Student Cooperation |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Student Social Disruptions |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
ASSIST tallies of student disruption |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Office Disciplinary Referrals |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Office Disciplinary Referrals |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Office Disciplinary Referrals |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Teacher Proactive Behavior Management |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Teacher Responsiveness |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Teacher Direction & Influence |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Culturally Responsive Practices |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST Global Rating: Meaningful Participation |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST tallies of opportunities to respond |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST tallies of proactive behavioral management |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST tallies of approval |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
ASSIST tallies of disapproval |
Teacher coaching vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 13% | |
| White | 75% |
The study was conducted in 12 schools (6 elementary, 6 middle) located in one school district in Maryland.
The majority of teachers were middle school teachers. They were mostly female (85%) and white (75%), with 12% reporting their race as black.
The Double Check intervention includes three core components: (a) School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports; (b) professional development trainings addressing culturally responsive practices; and (c) individual classroom coaching using an adapted version of the Classroom Check-Up (CCU), which utilized structured problem-solving to facilitate changes in teacher practices. All 12 schools in the study received the first two components of the Double Check intervention. Only intervention teachers received the third component, coaching. The coach and teacher go through five steps, with a focus on culturally responsive practices. The steps include: (a) rapport building; (b) data collection to assess teachers’ perceptions and classroom observations of their use of targeted classroom management and culturally responsive strategies; (c) feedback to the teacher regarding strength and weakness; (d) collaborative goal setting of the adoption or increased use of a specific strategy; and (e) implementation with progress monitoring and follow-up feedback from the coach. Coaching was provided by four trained coaches, who averaged 9 hours over 10 separate contacts spent with the teachers who were coached.
All 12 participating schools received the first two Double Check intervention components: (a) School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports and (b) professional development trainings addressing culturally responsive practices. Teachers in this condition did not receive the coaching component.
Training for teachers and other school staff was provided for the school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports and professional development addressing culturally responsive practices.
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