FSN's impact was less robust when delivered by school personnel than by research staff¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the effectiveness study delivered by school staff, effect sizes were all small except a medium teacher-reported prosocial effect, whereas efficacy studies had multiple medium and large effects. → Andy J. Frey 2023

Evidence¶

Andy J. Frey 2023¶

Andy J. Frey, Jason W. Small, Hill M. Walker, Brandon Mitchell, John R. Seeley, Edward G. Feil, Jon Lee, and Steven R. Forness. (2023). First Step Next: A Best-Evidence Synthesis of Replication Randomized Controlled Trials From 2009 to 2021. Remedial and Special Education, 44(1), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211068145

q3 · i? · review · r2

Synthesis comparison of efficacy trials using research-staff coaches against the effectiveness trial using school-employed coaches. The review reports that with school staff "the ESs were all in the small range, except for the teacher-reported ES for prosocial behavior, which was medium."

"When FSN was delivered by school personnel (as in the effectiveness study) rather than by research staff (i.e., efficacy studies), its impact was less robust, as expected."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the FSN national effectiveness trial (Sumi et al., 2013), effect sizes were smaller, ranging from 0.21 to 0.67 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In the FSN elementary efficacy RCT (Walker et al., 2009), effect sizes ranged from 0.44 to 0.87 with all intervention-control differences significant — related
• FSN's impact was more robust in the school setting than in the home setting across all five RCTs — reports the opposite