Zelazo, P. D., Forston, J. L., Masten, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2018). Frontiers in Psychology, 9(208), 1–12.
Reviewed: February 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
12.63 |
13.32 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
14.99 |
15.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
20.04 |
16.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Peg Tapping |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
12.88 |
12.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota executive function scale (MEFS) |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
46.97 |
45.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Rating Scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
postintervention: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
37.24 |
36.76 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
24.17 |
19.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota executive function scale (MEFS) |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
50.94 |
46.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Very Short Form Effortful Control sub scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
5.12 |
4.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Rating Scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
38.14 |
36.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Peg Tapping |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
13.07 |
13.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Theory of mind scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
3.07 |
3.18 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Theory of mind scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
3.33 |
3.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Very Short Form Negative Affect sub scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
3.78 |
3.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Very Short Form Surgency sub scale |
Opening the World of Learning vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
follow-up: Opening the World of Learning (OWL) Literacy Training vs BAU;
|
4.34 |
4.71 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in two preschools—one each in the cities of Houston, TX and Washington, DC—over a six-week period. Intervention conditions were administered in small groups.
The 218 children who were randomly assigned ranged in age from 47-63 months with a mean age of 57 months (between the ages of 3 and 5 years old) and were 54 percent female. The authors do not provide any other demographic information for the randomized or analytic samples, but do provide the following about the two participating schools: i) Houston: served children who were primarily Hispanic White; White = 55 percent; More than one race= 32 percent; African American = 9 percent; Native American = 3 percent; Hispanic = 97.4 percent; Primary language English = 68 percent; and ii) Washington, DC: served children who were African American (100 percent). The authors do not provide the numbers of children in each school representing these percentages, and so weighted averages across the two schools cannot be calculated for the Context section of this review.
Intervention children were taught lessons from the Opening the World of Learning (OWL) curriculum in small-groups of 8-12 children. The children received instruction during 30 24-minute sessions that occurred daily for 6 weeks.
Children in the comparison condition received the usual instruction in their regular classrooms. In Houston, this involved regular classroom activities at the Houston school; in Washington, this involved the Second Step social-emotional learning intervention.
The teachers recruited to deliver the two study interventions received a full day of training at the University of Minnesota. Two teachers were trained to administer activities in the 14-lesson mindfulness curriculum and three EF-challenging games presented with reflection protocols. The other two teachers were trained to administer early literacy lessons from the Opening the World of Learning (OWL) curriculum.
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