Evidence Based Programs in Schools
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to learn more about teachers' sustainment of use of core components of BEST in CLASS in a follow-up study.
Detailed description
The goal of this study is to help understand how to successfully implement and sustain evidence based programs (EBP) in the education sector. The study will look at how questions such as what teacher, program, and school characteristics impact sustainment of the EBP BEST in CLASS, what modifications to BEST in CLASS represent a sustained program, and how do teacher, program, and school characteristics influence sustainment of BEST in CLASS.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALBEST in CLASS
BEST in CLASS is a Tier-2 evidence based program (EBP) that has demonstrated effectiveness at reducing children's Disruptive Behavior Problems (DBPs) and risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBDs).
Sponsors
Virginia Commonwealth University
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
This study enrolled two arms, Teacher Implementation (52 enrolled) and Focal Student (78 enrolled) The study enrolled 130 total
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Teacher participants * teach in general education Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade * consent to participate * proficient in English * participated as a BEST in CLASS teacher who received coaching in the prior year Children participants * enrolled in a general Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd or 3rd grade classroom * proficient in English * at elevated risk for EBD * demonstration of externalizing behaviors that interfere with participation in the classroom (e.g., disruption, aggression) as indicated by teacher rating * parental/guardian consent to participate * Assent to participate if the child is 7 years or older
Exclusion criteria
Teacher participants * do not teach in general education Kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grades * were not part of the BEST in CLASS Elementary intervention condition * do not consent to participate * do not speak fluent English * do not have at least one student that meets the inclusion criteria Children participants * caregivers do not provide permission for participation * caregiver(s) do not speak proficient English or Spanish (caregiver consent provided in both languages) * are not proficient in English * do not screen in as demonstrating risk for EBD * participated as a focal child in the classroom of a participating treatment teacher in the previous efficacy trial
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Best in Class (BiC) Adherence: Sustainment Average (SU1-SU4) vs. Implementation Post-Baseline Average (IM2-IM4) (Teacher Level Sample) | 3 implementation post baseline timepoints: 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks AND 4 sustainment timepoints: sustainment baseline, 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks | The difference in the degree to which the 52 teacher sample adheres to the BiC treatment during the post-baseline implementation phase from the prior efficacy trial, in comparison to the same sample's adherence during the present sustainment trial. Adherence is measured during observations as measure by independent observers on the TREATMENT INTEGRITY INSTRUMENT FOR ELEMENTARY SETTINGS (TIES) Adherence scale. TIES-A is a scale of BEST in CLASS practices. Teachers are rated on the presence (use) of each practice on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extensively). Higher scores are associated with greater adherence. |
| Best in Class (BiC) Competence: Sustainment Average (SU1-SU4) vs. Implementation Post-Baseline Average (IM2-IM4) (Teacher Level Sample) | 3 implementation post baseline timepoints : 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks AND 4 sustainment timepoints: baseline, 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 14 weeks | The difference in the competence with which the teacher sample delivers the BiC treatment during the post-baseline implementation phase from the prior efficacy trial, in comparison to the same sample's competence during the present sustainment trial. Competence is measured during observations as measure by independent observers on the TREATMENT INTEGRITY INSTRUMENT FOR ELEMENTARY SETTINGS (TIES) Competence scale. TIES-C is a scale of BEST in CLASS practices. Teachers are rated on the competence (quality) of each practice on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extensively). Higher scores are associated with greater competence. |
| Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) to Measure Change in Student Disruptive Behavior Problems (Student Level Sample) | Baseline of sustainment intervention baseline and week 14 of sustainment intervention | Problem Behaviors (Standard Score) The mean difference between the teacher-reported problem behavior standard score exhibited by the focal student sample (78 enrolled, 72 completed) from Fall (SU1) to Spring (SU4) of the sustainment year. Student (72 sample size) problem behaviors will be measured by the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) problem behavior scale. Higher scores represent more problem behaviors. SU1 v. SU4 (sustainment baseline v. sustainment 14 weeks). The core composite scores for Social Skills and Problem Behaviors have a mean of 100. Frequency Ratings: Items are rated on a 4-point scale: 0 = Never, 1 = Seldom, 2 = Often, 3 = Almost Always, 4=Always. |
| Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Social Skills Scale to Measure Change in Student Prosocial Behavior (Student Level Sample) | Baseline of sustainment intervention and week 14 week of sustainment intervention | The mean difference in teacher-reported social skills exhibited by the focal student sample (78 enrolled, 72 completed) from Fall (SU1) to Spring (SU4) of the sustainment year. Student (72 sample size) prosocial behaviors will be measured by the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) social skills scale. Social Skills (Standard Score). Higher scores represent higher level of social skills. SU1 v. SU4 (sustainment baseline v. sustainment 14 weeks). The core composite scores for Social Skills and Problem Behaviors have a mean of 100. Frequency Ratings: Items are rated on a 4-point scale: 0 = Never, 1 = Seldom, 2 = Often, 3 = Almost Always, 4=Always |
Countries
United States
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORBryce D McLeod, PhD
Virginia Commonwealth University
Participant flow
Recruitment details
There are 52 subjects in the teacher sample and 78 subjects in the student sample. Only 50 teachers and 72 students completed the study interventions.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 78 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 52 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 6 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 49 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 4 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 36 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 8 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 62 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 130 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 76 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 2 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 52 | 0 / 78 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 52 | 0 / 78 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 52 | 0 / 78 |
Outcome results
None listed