Cover Copy Compare
Study: Cressey & Ezbicki (2008)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were from a short-term residential treatment program for children with serious emotional and behavioral challenges.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):

Students were from a short-term residential treatment program for children with serious emotional and behavioral challenges. Close to 100% of students were eligible for special education services under the category of emotional and behavioral disability.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:

Cover Copy Compare

Specify which condition is the control condition:

No Treatment Control

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Taped Problems

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Race–Ethnicity

Socioeconomic Status

Disability Status

ELL Status

Gender

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?

Random

Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.

Fourteen classroom groups were selected for the study and assigned randomly to the three conditions of the experiment, assuring that each of the three conditions would have roughly the same number of students. The TP group included students from three different classrooms, the CCC group consisted of students from four different classrooms, and the control group consisted of students from five different classrooms.

What was the unit of assignment?

Teachers

If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?

Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?

Classroom teachers had been hired as summer teaching interns for the program. Ages ranged from 19-27 with 0-3 years of experience working with children

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.

NR

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?

N/A

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

NR

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:

Between-groups and within-subjects comparison were used to test hypotheses. Data collection occurred at pretest, after 2 weeks, and after 4 weeks (i.e., posttest). Difference scores were calculated for every individual from pretest to Week 2 and Week 2 to Week 4. Pairwise comparisons were conducted to test differences among conditions (page 10).