Social Skills Strategies: The LEARN Strategy, a Cooperative Thinking Strategy
Study: Vernon (2020)

Summary

This program is designed for teaching inclusive classes of students the LEARN Strategy and the social skills needed to learn information in small cooperative groups. Through the use of the LEARN Strategy, students learn to identify important information in textbooks, extract the key words from the identified information, develop a memory device to remember the information, study and learn the information with team members, and process how they learned together as a team. Because students work in small cooperative groups consisting of about four members, they learn how to help and support each other as they are learning together. Each small group typically includes at least one student with disabilities who has been enrolled in the class.

Target Grades:
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
  • Other: The program is intended for use with students regularly enrolled in general education classes.
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
  • Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
Where to Obtain:
Edge Enterprises, Inc.
Edge Enterprises, Inc., 708 W. 9th St., Suite 104, Lawrence, KS 66044
785-749-1473
www.edgeenterprisesinc.com
Initial Cost:
$24.00 per teacher
Replacement Cost:
$24.00 per teacher per Indefinite

This program consists of two instructor's manuals. The first manual, The SCORE Skills, focuses on five social skills students need to use while participating in cooperative groups. The second instructor's manual, The LEARN Strategy, includes an introduction and step-by-step instructions for teaching seven lessons. Each lesson focuses on one step of the LEARN Strategy. Both manuals include all the instructions and materials needed to teach the SCORE Skills and the LEARN Strategy, such as step-by-step instructions in each lesson, display materials, and practice activities. Nothing else besides these instructor's manuals is needed to implement the program. However, also available are professional development programs for learning how to teach the SCORE Skills and the LEARN Strategy. These professional development programs are each available for an additional cost of $32. A computer will be needed to view these programs.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
Training Requirements:
Training not required


During our study, we gave the teachers in the experimental group the manuals, and they implemented the instruction in their classes with high levels of fidelity. We did not train them. We gave them an opportunity to ask questions, and we answered their questions.

Access to Technical Support:
Ongoing support is provided through the International Network of Professional Developers associated with Edge Enterprises and the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These professional developers can provide support and training throughout the nation and in some other countries.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
  • BI ONLY: A classroom of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
45
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
1
Minimum Number of Weeks:
12
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

This program is designed for teaching inclusive classes of students the LEARN Strategy and the social skills needed to learn information in small cooperative groups. Through the use of the LEARN Strategy, students learn to identify important information in textbooks, extract the key words from the identified information, develop a memory device to remember the information, study and learn the information with team members, and process how they learned together as a team. Because students work in small cooperative groups consisting of about four members, they learn how to help and support each other as they are learning together. Each small group typically includes at least one student with disabilities who has been enrolled in the class.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
The program is intended for use with students regularly enrolled in general education classes.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
Edge Enterprises, Inc., 708 W. 9th St., Suite 104, Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone Number
785-749-1473
Website
www.edgeenterprisesinc.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$24.00
Unit of cost
teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$24.00
Unit of cost
teacher
Duration of license
Indefinite

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

This program consists of two instructor's manuals. The first manual, The SCORE Skills, focuses on five social skills students need to use while participating in cooperative groups. The second instructor's manual, The LEARN Strategy, includes an introduction and step-by-step instructions for teaching seven lessons. Each lesson focuses on one step of the LEARN Strategy. Both manuals include all the instructions and materials needed to teach the SCORE Skills and the LEARN Strategy, such as step-by-step instructions in each lesson, display materials, and practice activities. Nothing else besides these instructor's manuals is needed to implement the program. However, also available are professional development programs for learning how to teach the SCORE Skills and the LEARN Strategy. These professional development programs are each available for an additional cost of $32. A computer will be needed to view these programs.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   4

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
45
Minimum number of sessions per week
1
Minimum number of weeks
12
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?
No

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
No training is required.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
not selected Reading Specialist
not selected Math Specialist
not selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
not selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
During our study, we gave the teachers in the experimental group the manuals, and they implemented the instruction in their classes with high levels of fidelity. We did not train them. We gave them an opportunity to ask questions, and we answered their questions.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Ongoing support is provided through the International Network of Professional Developers associated with Edge Enterprises and the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These professional developers can provide support and training throughout the nation and in some other countries.

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

 

Vernon, D. S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2020). The social and academic effects of cooperative LEARN Strategy instruction in inclusive elementary classes. Learning Disability Quarterlyhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720944164

Study Information

Study Citations

Vernon, D. S., Schumaker, J. B. & Deshler, D. D. (2020). The Social and Academic Effects of Cooperative LEARN Strategy Instruction in Inclusive Elementary Classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, Not available yet(Not available yet) 1-14.

Participants Half Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Participants were regularly enrolled in 25 participating teachers' fourth- and fifth-grade inclusive general education classes.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Their school records were reviewed to verify their status/diagnoses.

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?
77.0%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
The submitted intervention was used by the experimental teachers in their classes. It comprised the experimental condition.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The control condition was comprised of the control teachers conducting the same number of cooperative group activities in their classrooms as the experimental teachers.

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):
NA

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

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4 48.7 % 39.4 % 0.25
Grade 5 42.6 % 49.5 % 0.15
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities 21.7 % 23.2 % 0.03
Behavior Disorders 10.4 % 11.1 % 0.06
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 47.8 % 47.5 % 0.02
Not Identified With a Disability 38.3 % 38.4 % 0.00

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner 100.0 % 100.0 % 0.00

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 42.6 % 35.4 % 0.20
Male 57.4 % 64.6 % 0.20

Mean Effect Size

0.10

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, 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 demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to assess differences between the posttest scores of the students in the experimental and control groups on use of the LEARN Strategy, study-card quality, scores on the Social Knowledge Test and the Academic Knowledge Tests, social behaviors performed during the group activities, and student sociometric ratings. In these analyses, the pretest scores served as the covariate. Prior to any analyses being performed, the posttest scores were adjusted statistically for any differences between the groups being compared (e.g., for age, test scores). Next, analyses were performed on data collected for the group scores: study-group behavior and study-card creation. For individual scores, separate analyses were then performed for all students with exceptionalities and for AA students. On the measure of social behavior during group activities, a separate analysis was conducted for the subgroup of students with LD, since these students were observed individually, and research has shown that these students tend to have social deficits (Kavale & Forness, 1996; McDaniel et al., 2019; Authors, 1992; Vaughn et al., 2004). For each of the ANCOVAs, the dependent variable was the posttest score for a given measure, and the covariate was the pretest score for that measure. Individual student scores were used in the analyses for the Social Knowledge Test, the Academic Knowledge Test, the Social Behavior (CASSI) scores, and the peer rating scores, but group scores were used in the analyses of the study-group scores and the study-card scores. Additionally, dependent-samples t-tests were conducted to evaluate differences between pretest scores and posttest scores for participants with and without exceptionalities in the experimental and control groups separately.

Design Half Bobble

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.
Twenty-five teachers participated. Their names were randomly picked out of a hat until 13 had been selected to implement the intervention (teach the LEARN Strategy). their students served as the treatment group. The remaining teachers' students served as the control group.

What was the unit of assignment?
Classes
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:
Twenty-five teachers and their classes were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. Thirteen classes served as the treatment group; twelve served as the control group. Thus, the students regularly enrolled in the classes of these teachers served as the treatment and control groups.

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:
For some of the measures, individual students' scores were analyzed because the students were either administered tests individually, or their individual social behavior was observed. Cooperative group tests were also administered; thus, some of the data were analyzed for the groups of students.

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:
Individual student tests included a test of social knowledge (40 points available) and a test of academic knowledge learned (28 points available). Observers watched the individual students as they worked in their cooperative groups. The measures collected here on individual students were the number of behaviors emitted by a given student during 15 minutes in the categories of prosocial behaviors, teamwork behaviors, and antisocial behaviors. Students were also rated by their classmates on a sociometric measure (5 points). Group measures included a study card measure (98 points available) and a study-group behavior measure (36 points available). Students were assigned to small cooperative groups containing at least one student with LD (or another exceptionality) and two or three average-achieving students. These groups were given an assignment to learn a certain amount of information. Four groups were observed within each classroom for the cooperative group measures (study group behavior and study cards).

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
not selected Small Group
selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
12.00
Sessions per week
1.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
45.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
They had no experience teaching the program. They were given the instructor's manuals and asked to read the manuals and implement the instruction as specified in the manuals.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Observers watched the experimental teachers as they taught the SCORE Skills and the LEARN Strategy. They recorded the steps that each teacher implemented of the steps listed in the instructors manuals. The percentage of agreement between two independent observers on this measure was 81% on the SCORE Skills (386 agreements out of 474) and 90% (338 agreements out of 376 opportunities to agree) on the LEARN Strategy steps.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
The experimental teachers implemented a mean of 82% of the instructional steps in the SCORE Skills manual (range = 67% to 100%). They implemented a mean of 84% of the instructional steps in the LEARN Strategy manual (range = 71% to 95%).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
No

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Half Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
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.
Prior to any analyses being performed, the posttest scores were adjusted statistically for any differences between the groups being compared (e.g., for age, gender, pretest scores). The ANCOVA for the study-group behavior measure revealed a significant difference between the adjusted posttest scores of the experimental and control groups, F(1, 22) = 21.23, p < .001,  2 = .49, representing a large effect size. For the experimental groups, results indicated that the students' performance of behaviors associated with the LEARN Strategy significantly increased from the pretest mean to the posttest mean, t(13) = 8.67, p <.001, eta squared = .76, representing a large effect size. No significant difference was found for the control groups. For the study-card measure, the ANCOVA revealed that the adjusted posttest mean for the experimental cooperative groups (M = 40.97) was significantly larger than the adjusted posttest mean for the control groups (M = 17.31), and the difference was significant, F(1, 22) = 8.48, p = .008, eta squared = .28, representing a large effect size. Both experimental and control groups scored significantly higher on the posttest than the pretest. For the Academic Knowledge Test, ANCOVA revealed a significant difference between the adjusted posttest results of the experimental and control groups for all students with exceptionalities , F(1, 22) = 18.59, p < .001, eta squared = .45, and for AA students, F(1, 22) = 6.22, p = .022, eta squared = .22, representing large effect sizes. Both types of students earned significantly higher scores on the posttest than the pretest. For the Social Knowledge Test, ANCOVAs revealed significant differences between the experimental and control students’ adjusted posttest scores for students with exceptionalities, F(1, 22) = 73.10, p < .001, eta squared = .77, and for AA students, F (1, 22) = 400.29, p <.001, eta squared = .95, representing large effect sizes. For social behaviors performed in the cooperative-group activities, ANCOVAs revealed significant differences between the adjusted posttest scores of students with LD in the experimental and control classes with regard to prosocial behaviors, F(1, 32) = 8.44, p = .007, eta squared = .21, and teamwork/study behaviors, F(1, 32) = 6.56, p = .015, eta squared = .17, representing large effect sizes. No differences were found between the experimental and control groups with regard to the sociometric ratings. However, when the data for the least accepted students (rating less than 2.0) were compared across the groups, ratings were significantly higher on the posttest than on the pretest for both the experimental and control groups (for students with LD, t (21) = 3.90, p = .001, eta squared = .28, for all students with exceptionalities, t (12) = 3.91, p = .002, eta squared = .41, but not for AA students, t (12) = 0.82, p = .431, eta squared = .03). (See the article for more details on the results.)
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
NA
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Experimental teacher and student satisfaction ratings were collected using satisfaction questionnaires. These ratings were not considered to be outcome measures; they are social validity measures. They reflect the teachers' and students' opinions related to the SCORE Skills and LEARN Strategy programs. Thus, they were not reported here.
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to assess differences between the posttest scores of the students in the experimental and control groups on use of the LEARN Strategy, study-card quality, scores on the Social Knowledge Test and the Academic Knowledge Tests, social behaviors performed during the group activities, and student sociometric ratings. In these analyses, the pretest scores served as the covariate. Prior to any analyses being performed, the posttest scores were adjusted statistically for any differences between the groups being compared (e.g., for age, test scores). Next, analyses were performed on data collected for the group scores: study-group behavior and study-card creation. For individual scores, separate analyses were then performed for all students with exceptionalities and for AA students. On the measure of social behavior during group activities, a separate analysis was conducted for the subgroup of students with LD, since these students were observed individually, and research has shown that these students tend to have social deficits (Kavale & Forness, 1996; McDaniel et al., 2019; Authors, 1992; Vaughn et al., 2004). For each of the ANCOVAs, the dependent variable was the posttest score for a given measure, and the covariate was the pretest score for that measure. Individual student scores were used in the analyses for the Social Knowledge Test, the Academic Knowledge Test, the Social Behavior (CASSI) scores, and the peer rating scores, but group scores were used in the analyses of the study-group scores and the study-card scores. Additionally, dependent-samples t-tests were conducted to evaluate differences between pretest scores and posttest scores for participants with and without exceptionalities in the experimental and control groups separately.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :
What Works Clearinghouse Review
This program was not reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse.
How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Data Collection Practices

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.