Watts, Tyler W.; Gandhi, Jill; Ibrahim, Deanna A.; Masucci, Michael D.; Raver, C. Cybele (2018). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED589148
Reviewed: January 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hearts and Flowers task - Mixed Trials Accuracy |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.67 |
0.65 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Risks and Strengths Scale - Internalizing behaviors |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Emotional Go, No Go trials: Sad D-Prime subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.35 |
1.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Emotional Go, No Go trials: Angry D-Prime subscale |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.47 |
1.55 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Risks and Strengths Scale - Externalizing behaviors |
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) vs. Business as usual |
11 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.53 |
0.52 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 66% | |
| Other or unknown | 34% |
| Hispanic | 27% |
The study took place in 18 preschool Head Start centers in Chicago neighborhoods struggling with high crime and poverty.
A total of 461 preschool students were included in the study. Approximately 53% of the students were female and 57% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Sixty-six percent were Black and 34% did not specify race. Twenty-seven percent were Hispanic or Latino. The study measured outcomes for students 10 to 11 years following the end of the preschool intervention. Eighteen Head Start centers were randomly assigned, with 9 centers assigned to the intervention group and 9 centers assigned to the comparison group.
The Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) is a program that aimed to improve the classroom quality of preschool Head Start centers in Chicago through a combination of teacher training on a behavioral management program and counseling support for teachers and students. The CSRP was provided to whole classes within a Head Start center. The intervention lasted 30 weeks. Teachers received professional development sessions during the school year, each lasting about 6 hours. Sessions focused on providing teachers with strategies to reduce children's negative behavioral problems and support self-regulation skills. CSRP also provided Mental Health Consultants (MHCs), who were master's level social workers. During the first third of the intervention, MHC's provided coaching and support to teachers in implementing the behavioral management program in the classroom. During the second third of the intervention, MHC's held a stress reduction workshop for teachers and met individually with teachers to discuss job-related stressors. During the final third of the intervention, MHC's worked directly with about 3 to 4 children per class who needed additional support for behavioral and emotional problems.
Head Start centers in the comparison group continued with business-as-usual instruction but received part-time teaching aides to account for the lower student-to-teacher ratio in intervention group sites introduced by the presence of MHCs in classrooms. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their centers.
Each intervention group teacher spent an average of 18 hours in professional development training over fall and winter of the intervention year. In addition, teachers received coaching on implementing the intervention from the MHCs.
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