Skillstreaming

Study: Ciechalski & Schmidt (1995)

Study Type: Group-Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Sample size: 49 students (25 program, 24 control)

Risk Status: The sample was intentionally heterogeneous and students that were included had the designation of being enrolled in special education, general education, and gifted programs.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

       

  Grade 1

       

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

25

100%

24

100%

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

Mean Age

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

10

40%

8

33%

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

 

 

 

 

  White

15

60%

16

67%

  Other

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

       

  Learning disabilities

4

16%

3

12.5%

 Emotional disturbance

       

 Intellectual disability

3

12%

   

  Other

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

18

72%

21

87.5%

ELL status

  English language learner

 

 

 

 

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

Gender

  Female

 

 

 

 

  Male

 

 

 

 

Training of Instructors: The article specifies that the intervention was delivered by a school counselor. No other relevant information is provided.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes? No

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? Not applicable

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable?: Yes

Was there differential attrition for the program and the control groups?: No

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: No

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: The article makes no reference to treatment fidelity.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Not applicable

Measures Targeted: Partially Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI)

Reliability coefficient of 0.92

The authors do not provide a rationale, but improved social skills may result in improved self-reported self-esteem across a variety of contexts.

No known exposure.

Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Rating Scale (BASE)

External consistency of 0.61 using a mean z transformation of the correlation coefficient

The authors do not describe the relevance, but improved social skills may result in the appearance of greater academic self-esteem based on behavioral observation in the classroom.

No known exposure.

Social Attraction Factor Score of the Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Rating Scale (BASE)

Subscale of BASE, subscale specific psychometrics not provided

Measures attractiveness of student to peers while working or playing together.

No known exposure.

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: Data Unavailable

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Measure

Effect Size

None

 

 

Broader Measures

Measure

Effect Size

Social Attraction Factor Score of the Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Rating Scale (BASE): Gifted Students

3.37*** u

Social Attraction Factor Score of the Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Rating Scale (BASE): Regular Education Students

0.26 u

Social Attraction Factor Score of the Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Rating Scale (BASE) Special Education Students

Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI) (total score and subscale scores not provided)

Academic Self-Esteem Rating Scale (BASE) (total score and other subscale scores not provided)

 

Key

*        p ≤ .05

**      p ≤ .01

***    p ≤ .001

–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes

u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means

†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): N/A

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individual, Small Group, Whole Class

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Training not required

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies