CSC coaching produced no statistically significant improvement in standardized instructional strategy counts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Standardized IS Counts change scores were not statistically different from zero after coaching. → Dudek et al. 2019

Evidence¶

Dudek et al. 2019¶

Christopher M. Dudek, MEd, Linda A. Reddy, PhD, Adam Lekwa, PhD, Anh N. Hua, PhD, and Gregory A. Fabiano, PhD. (2019). Improving Universal Classroom Practices Through Teacher Formative Assessment and Coaching. Assessment for Effective Intervention. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418772919

q2 · i? · causal · r1

One-sample t test on standardized IS Counts change scores in the same 32-teacher waitlist sample. The article reports "t (29) = 1.42, p = .167, d = .26" and no significant change; equivalence was not tested.

"For IS Counts, results from one-sample t tests revealed that the standardized change scores between baseline assessment and postintervention assessment (M = .28, SD = 1.08) were not statistically different from zero, t (29) = 1.42, p = .167, d = .26, suggesting no changes in teachers' usage of the IS counts at postintervention."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delayed CSC coaching significantly improved waitlist control teachers' standardized behavior management strategy counts (d = .42) — related
• CSC coaching significantly reduced teachers' need for change in instructional practices (IS discrepancy scores, d = .88) — related
• CSC coaching significantly reduced teachers' need for change in behavior management practices (BMS discrepancy scores, d = .68) — related
• Teachers rated the CSC coaching as highly satisfactory (TCES total M = 89.92) — related