Table 1. Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned Authors/Date Que 1 Que 2 Que 3 Que 4 Que 5 Que 6 Quality score total/6 Grant (1992) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Carlson (1995) 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Curnow & MacDonald (1995) 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Alexander et al. (1996) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlson & Hastie (1997) 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Hastie (1998a) 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Hastie (1998b) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Alexander & Luckman (2001) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hastie & Trost (2002) 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Clarke & Quill (2003) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Browne et al. (2004) 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 Hastie & Curtner-Smith (2006) 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Hastie & Sinelnikov (2006) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Cruz (2008) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pritchard et al. (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Brock et al. (2009) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Li & Cruz (2009) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hastie, Sinelnikov & Guarino (2009) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Calderón, Hastie & Martinez (2010) 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 Mesquita, Farias & Hastie (2012) 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Cho et al. (2012) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Gutiérrez et al. (2013) 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 Hastie et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Question (Que). Que 1: Did the article provide a detailed description of the program context: teacher expertise and students previous experience? Que 2: Did the study report the sources and details of outcome assessment? Que 3: Did outcome assessment instruments have acceptable reliability for the specific age group? Que 4: Did the study report the precise details of the interventions intended for each group and how and when they were actually administered? Que 5: Did the study report the precise fidelity of the intervention that was delivered to participants and was the delivered content in the true nature of the intended intervention? Que 6: Did the study report the effect size of primary and secondary outcome investigation?