header

Subject

  • Behaviour interventions
  • Classroom management
  • Early childhood
  • Health and prevention
  • Home-school partnerships
  • Literacy (Reading)
  • Literacy (Writing)
  • Mathematics
  • Music
  • School reform
  • Science
  • Social and emotional learning
  • Speaking and listening
  • Teaching and learning

Key Stage

  • All
  • Foundation Stage
  • Key Stage 1
  • Key Stage 2
  • Key Stage 3
  • Key Stage 4
  • Post 16

Practice

  • Behaviour interventions
  • Collaborative learning
  • Digital technology
  • Early years interventions
  • Extended school time
  • Feedback
  • Individualised instruction
  • Mastery learning
  • Mentoring
  • Meta-cognition and self-regulation
  • One-to-one tuition
  • Oral language interventions
  • Parental involvement
  • Peer tutoring
  • Phonics
  • Reading comprehension strategies
  • Small group tuition
  • Social and emotional aspects of learning
  • Sports participation
  • Summer schools
  • Teaching assistants

Targeted Group

  • At-risk pupils
  • Behavioural difficulties
  • Boys
  • Dyslexic pupils
  • EAL pupils
  • Low-achieving pupils
  • Pupil premium children
  • SEN children
  • Speech, language and communication needs
  • Struggling readers

Keyword search

Search the database
*You have search filter(s) selected

How are E4I evidence ratings decided?

Interventions listed on the E4I website are given a rating to show how well their effectiveness is supported by high quality evaluations. Ratings range from Not Evaluated to Strong, and are based on the results of studies which meet our inclusion criteria. We use the information in the Level of evidence column for assigning an evidence rating. An explanation of how we arrived at a rating and what this means in practice is presented in the table below.


Rating
Level of evidence
What does this mean?
What should an educator do?
 3 - Strong
  Strong
At least one randomised study with a collective sample size of 500 students (analysed at the individual level) or 30 classes/schools (analysed at the class/school level), and a sample-size-weighted effect size of at least +0.20. Has been shown to work in many well-controlled studies. This intervention has a good chance of improving your pupils' outcomes if it is implemented as designed.
 2 - Moderate
  Moderate
At least one randomised or matched study with a collective sample size of 300 students (analysed at the individual level) or 20 classes/schools (analysed at the class/school level), and a sample-size-weighted effect size of at least +0.10. Moderate impact or moderate evidence supporting the intervention. If there are no interventions with strong evidence on the outcomes that you are targeting, then interventions in this category would be worth using.
 1 - Limited
  Limited
At least one randomised or matched study with a collective sample size of 150 students (analysed at the individual level) or 10 classes/schools (analysed at the class/school level), and a sample-size-weighted effect size of at least +0.05. Some indication of impact but limited evidence supporting the intervention. If there are no interventions with moderate or strong evidence on the outcomes that you are targeting, you might use an intervention in this category.
 0 - No Impact
  No Evidence
The studies meet the criteria for Limited or better but the results showed a sample-size-weighted mean effect size less than +0.05. Insufficient indication of positive effects of the intervention. Look for an alternative intervention that has evidence of effectiveness or pilot the intervention and evaluate its effectiveness.
 Not Evaluated
  No Evidence
No studies meet the criteria for inclusion so the effectiveness of the intervention cannot be determined at this time. This intervention has not been evaluated in a robust study. You should look for an intervention that has evidence of effectiveness or pilot the intervention and evaluate its effectiveness.


To be included in the E4I database, interventions must be available to be implemented in the UK.

The interventions that are included in E4I and are coded as anything other than Not Evaluated have been rigorously evaluated and the evaluations of those interventions have then been systematically reviewed. They usually appear on one of the websites listed below.

Best Evidence Encyclopaedia (BEE)

Blueprints for Violence Prevention (BP)

Campbell Collaboration

Child Trends

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre

Social Programs that Work (SPW)

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)


Inclusion criteria

To be included in one of these reviews, the studies generally need to meet a minimum level of rigour. The criteria listed below are used by most, if not all, of the systematic reviewers. The review methodologies generally:

- met sound standards of methodological quality and relevance to the issue being reviewed;

- presented quantitative summaries of the evidence on the effectiveness of programmes used with foundation stage, primary and secondary school-age pupils;

- measured literacy, mathematics or science achievement outcomes, though other outcomes may be reported;

- had at least two teachers in each treatment group;

- compared programmes to control groups, with random assignment to conditions or matching on pretests that indicate that experimental and control groups were equivalent before the treatments began;

- provided data that allowed outcomes to be summarised in terms of effect sizes (experimental control differences divided by the standard deviation);

- for maths and reading, included studies that took place over at least 12 weeks, to avoid brief, artificial laboratory studies;

- used measures that assessed the content studied by control as well as experimental students, to avoid studies that used measures biased in favour of the experimental treatment; and

- reported findings in English.