Claims

The after-school EF/VS intervention showed no direct intent-to-treat effect on teacher-rated classroom behavior composites, with a trend for problem behaviors

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Condition assignment did not directly affect learning-related or problem behavior composites; a non-significant trend favored the treatment group for problem behaviors (b = –.14, p = .06). → Brock et al. 2018

Evidence

Brock et al. 2018

Laura L. Brock, William M. Murrah, Elizabeth A. Cottone, Andrew J. Mashburn, and David W. Grissmer. (2018). An after-school intervention targeting executive function and visuospatial skills also improves classroom behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(5), 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417738057

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Intent-to-treat regressions (N = 87) controlling for school, age, sex, grade, and pre-test scores tested direct effects on teacher-rated composites. The article reports no support for direct effects and a trend for problem behaviors with "b ¼ –.14, p ¼ .06"; no effect size is printed.

"We do not find support for direct effects for learning-related and problem behavior composites, although a trend is noted for problem behaviors ( b ¼ –.14, p ¼ .06)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.