Morgan, L., Hooker, J. L., Sparapani, N., Reinhardt, V. P., Schatschneider, C., & Wetherby, A. M. (2019). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(7), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000314.
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition: Communication subscale |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
77.32 |
73.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition: Daily Living Skills subscale |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
77.96 |
77.27 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Responsiveness Scale |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
71.02 |
66.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
researcher-developed classroom measure of active engagement: social interaction |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.65 |
6.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition: Adaptive Behavior Composite |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
75.52 |
72.63 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition: Socialization subscale |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
74.98 |
72.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition |
Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support (SCERTS) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
76.67 |
76.86 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 10% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| Two or more races | 7% | |
| White | 63% |
| Hispanic | 21% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 79% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in 70 elementary schools in 10 school districts in California, Florida, and Georgia. Students enrolled in the study participated in general and special education classrooms.
A total of 188 students in kindergarten through grade 2 were included in the study. The students were taught by 129 teachers in 60 schools. All students in the study had a diagnosis, either clinical or educational, of autistic disorder, pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified, or Asperger syndrome; and no presence of severe motor delay or impairment, dual sensory impairment, or history of traumatic brain injury. Approximately 81% of students were male and 100% had autism spectrum disorder. Sixty-three percent were White, 12% were Black, 10% were Asian, 7% were more than one race, and 8% did not report race. Twenty-one percent were Hispanic or Latino.
The Classroom Social, Communication, Emotional Regulation, and Transactional Support Intervention (CSI) is teacher-implemented and aims to address the challenges of engaging children with autism spectrum disorder in social interaction and learning activities. The CSI is based on the SCERTS model, which guides teachers to select goals and objectives for students to develop communication and emotional regulation skills. Then, teachers work with students to implement strategies to support these goals that they can use in everyday activities across all settings. Teachers implemented the CSI in students’ classrooms over one school year for an expected 25 hours per week. CSI provided teachers with training on the SCERTS model and coaching throughout the year to assist with implementation. Teachers and other members of each student’s educational support team participated in an 18-hour training at the beginning of the year. Coaching was provided between two and four times per month.
Teachers in comparison schools were offered Autism Training Modules (ATM), which are web-based training modules designed to support teachers providing usual school-based education to students with autism spectrum disorder. The modules included an overview of autism spectrum disorder, a guide to educational programming for students with ASD, and a tutorial on visual supports. No other training or coaching was provided.
Teachers and other members of each student’s educational support team participated in an 18-hour training at the beginning of the year. Coaching was provided between two and four times per month.
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