SystemsCoaching.life · Science & Methodology
The Evidence
Behind the Model
Every element of this coaching model — the session structure, the frequency, the daily text, the Tuesday consolidation session, the parent-first approach — is grounded in peer-reviewed research. This is what it looks like mapped out.
Most coaching practices are built from experience and instinct. This one is built from theory first, then practice. The model represents a genuine synthesis: five empirically validated frameworks, each contributing a distinct layer of clinical logic, assembled into a coherent architecture for family-systems intervention.
The result is a practice that can explain precisely why it works — not just what it does. For families who have been through the standard circuit of planners, apps, and weekly sessions without lasting change, that distinction is the whole point.
Section 01
Theoretical Foundation
Five frameworks.
One integrated model.
Each framework was selected because it addresses a layer of the problem the others do not. Together, they form the complete structural rationale for every element of this model.
Bronfenbrenner — Ecological Systems
A child does not develop in isolation. They develop within nested, interacting environments — family, school, community — each shaping the others. When those systems are misaligned, even a capable, motivated student can become stuck in ways that look like laziness or defiance but are actually structural. The academic friction presenting in the child is almost always a symptom of mesosystemic stress — a mismatch between the demands of the school environment and the home system's capacity to support the child through them.
The clinical implication is foundational: intervening only at the level of the child — through tutoring, behavior plans, or additional academic support — leaves the system producing the problem completely untouched. Lasting change requires addressing the environment, not just the individual within it.
Every engagement begins with a structured diagnostic that maps the full ecology — home routines, parental regulation capacity, school-home fit, caregiver alignment, environmental variables — before a single intervention is designed. Intervention without ecological mapping produces plans that make sense on paper and collapse in real life.
Vygotsky — Zone of Proximal Development
Learning happens at the edge of current ability, with scaffolded support that is systematically faded as competence grows. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development defines the space between what a learner can do independently and what they can do with guidance — and this is where development actually occurs. What begins as external support, over time and through repeated practice, becomes internal capacity. The scaffold is not a crutch. It is the mechanism.
The practical failure of most interventions is that support is delivered on a fixed weekly schedule, disconnected from the real-time moments when the ZPD is actually open. A student sits down Tuesday night, opens a blank document, and enters full executive shutdown. The weekly therapist is not there. The printed schedule is not there. The moment that needed scaffolding passes without it. The Tuesday consolidation session exists precisely to close this gap — it is Vygotskian verification that what was supported was genuinely internalized, not just performed.
Scaffolding delivered days after a moment of breakdown cannot operate in the ZPD. The frequency structure of this model exists because the ZPD is a live, time-limited space. You have to be there when it opens.
Bandura — Self-Efficacy
Behavioral change does not follow capability — it follows the belief in capability. Bandura's self-efficacy research establishes that a person's confidence in their ability to execute specific behaviors is one of the strongest predictors of whether they will attempt, persist with, and succeed at a task. For students who have accumulated a history of academic failure and avoidance, efficacy is the actual problem, not skill or intelligence. You cannot tutor someone into believing they can do something they have not yet experienced doing.
Efficacy is built through four mechanisms: direct mastery experience (the most powerful), vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological state. This is why wins review and mastery logging are clinical tools in this model, not cheerleading. The coaching language, the wins structure, and the early-win-first design of every engagement are all efficacy architecture. Meta-analysis confirms a strong bidirectional relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance — each predicts and amplifies the other (Talsma et al., 2018). Students carry the artifacts of this work long after engagement ends.
Building the belief that change is possible is as clinically important as building the skill. The model is designed to produce mastery experiences early and consistently, because that is the only source of efficacy that reliably holds under pressure.
Linehan — DBT Skills Framework
Emotional regulation, distress tolerance, and interpersonal effectiveness are not personality traits — they are teachable skills. Linehan's Dialectical Behavior Therapy framework establishes that dysregulation is a skills deficit in context, not a character flaw, and that the treatment model must include between-session coaching to support skill generalization into daily life. The original DBT model included phone coaching protocols specifically because Linehan recognized that insight gained in session evaporates under real-world emotional load unless there is a bridge between the clinical hour and the actual moment of difficulty.
For adolescents with ADHD and executive dysfunction, emotional dysregulation is not secondary to the academic problem — it is often primary. Research shows that emotion regulation deficits are among the most consistent features of ADHD presentations and are independent predictors of academic and social outcomes (Graziano & Garcia, 2016). A model that addresses planning without addressing regulation is structurally incomplete.
Between-session skill activation — reaching a coach at the moment of dysregulation rather than waiting for the next appointment — is the mechanism that allows skill transfer from the coaching context into real life. This is not convenience. It is the intervention.
Gottman — Emotion Coaching
Parents who can recognize, name, and validate their child's emotional experience before moving to problem-solving — what Gottman calls emotion coaching — raise children with measurably stronger self-regulation, social competence, and academic resilience, across all populations studied. This is not intuitive parenting advice. It is a specific skill sequence that most parents under stress instinctively reverse: problem-solving first, emotional acknowledgment last, if at all.
In families navigating school resistance and executive dysfunction, this dynamic is pervasive. The parent is exhausted and anxious. The student is shut down or defensive. The parent moves in the direction of problem-solving — deadlines, consequences, plans — at the exact moment the student most needs co-regulation. The result is the opposite of what either person wants. Gottman's research is the rationale for why parent coaching in this model prioritizes the emotion-first, problem-second sequence before anything else is taught.
The session architecture is organized around emotional acknowledgment before action planning — not as a soft opener, but as the validated mechanism through which a regulated nervous system becomes available for problem-solving and skill-building.
Section 02
Daily Text Coaching Evidence
Daily text coaching isn't a workaround.
It's the delivery method with the strongest outcomes.
The assumption that in-person, weekly sessions are the clinical gold standard is not supported by the evidence. A growing body of mHealth research consistently finds that text-based coaching meets or exceeds traditional delivery outcomes, with meaningful advantages in timing and the ability to intervene at the actual moment of difficulty rather than days later in a scheduled appointment.
A 2023 feasibility study of live text-based coaching for adult anxiety found that 86% of participants achieved clinical improvement, with each coaching session predicting lower anxiety not only immediately but the following week as well — suggesting genuine skill transfer rather than temporary relief (Owusu et al., 2023). A large-scale study of asynchronous between-session messaging across nearly 1,500 adults found an 89% rate of reliable improvement or recovery, comparable to intensive face-to-face models (Wu et al., 2021). The Text4Hope program, which delivered daily supportive texts to over 50,000 subscribers, demonstrated statistically significant reductions in anxiety, depression, and stress across three months (Agyapong et al., 2021).
Critically, the research identifies personalization as the active ingredient that separates effective mHealth coaching from noise. A 2024 meta-analysis of 35 randomized controlled trials found that individualized messaging produced significant improvements independent of dosage and frequency (Militello et al., 2024). It is not the volume of contact that drives outcomes. It is the quality of fit between the message and the person receiving it. This is the rationale for the diagnostic-first entry model: a generic daily text is information delivery. A personalized daily text, sent to someone whose specific system has been mapped, is scaffolding.
Section 03
Session Architecture
Every element of a session
is evidence-grounded.
The session structure — wins review, obstacle exploration, collaborative planning, ecological intake — is not a format preference. Each component maps directly to a validated clinical mechanism.
Rapport Opening & Wins Review
Sessions open with wins review before anything else is addressed. Bordin's working alliance research identifies the therapeutic relationship as the single strongest predictor of coaching and therapy outcomes across all modalities and theoretical orientations — stronger than technique, frequency, or duration (Bordin, 1979). Gable's capitalization research adds a second mechanism: sharing positive events with a responsive, enthusiastic listener amplifies the emotional benefit of those events beyond the experience itself, producing measurable gains in wellbeing and self-efficacy that would not occur from the event alone (Gable et al., 2004). The opening is not a warm-up. It is the intervention.
Hiccups Exploration
Obstacle exploration uses Motivational Interviewing — specifically the techniques of evoking change talk and developing discrepancy — the validated approach for working with ambivalence and authentic motivation in ADHD and adolescent populations. For students caught between wanting to succeed and fearing failure, direct problem-solving before ambivalence is resolved reliably produces resistance, not engagement. The closest named peer-reviewed protocol is Sibley's STAND model, which combines behavioral parent training with adolescent MI and produced significantly stronger outcomes than behavioral intervention alone (Sibley et al., 2016).
Collaborative Action Planning
Action planning uses WOOP — Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan — which has substantially stronger evidence than traditional SMART goal-setting for neurodivergent clients. Unlike SMART goals, which focus on outcome specification, WOOP builds in mental contrasting (explicit visualization of the obstacle) and implementation intentions (the specific if-then plan for navigating it). Research by Gawrilow and Gollwitzer found that implementation intentions normalized response inhibition in children with ADHD to neurotypical levels — a finding with direct implications for students whose primary difficulty is initiation, not knowledge (Gawrilow & Gollwitzer, 2008). Goal Attainment Scaling provides the seven-day evaluation criterion, allowing each plan to be assessed against a pre-set, individualized standard of success.
Ecological Diagnostic Intake
The intake maps grades by chapter, learning style, family expectations, cultural context, routines, sleep, nutrition, avoidance patterns, and academic self-concept — a comprehensive ecological assessment that directly operationalizes Bronfenbrenner's nested-systems model. Dawson and Guare's executive skills framework establishes that the same executive function deficit presents differently depending on environmental context (Dawson & Guare, 2018). An assessment that maps symptoms without mapping context produces an intervention that treats the wrong variable. Nothing else in the coaching market conducts this level of full-system intake before designing a plan.
Section 04
High-Frequency Coaching Evidence
4× per week, 15 minutes.
The evidence says this is the right architecture.
Frequency of contact matters more than total session hours. This is one of the most consistently replicated findings in behavioral intervention research — and one of the most consistently ignored in how services are structured.
Twice-Weekly Outperforms Once-Weekly
A four-arm randomized controlled trial of 200 adults comparing once- versus twice-weekly sessions found that doubling frequency produced significantly faster symptom response, larger improvements, and lower dropout — without increasing total contact hours. The mechanism identified was faster skills acquisition: clients reached the same clinical milestones in fewer total weeks when sessions were more frequent (Bruijniks et al., 2020).
Bruijniks, S. J. E. et al. (2020). British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(4), 222–230.
Frequency Predicts Outcome. Hours Do Not.
A meta-analysis of 70 studies examining treatment dose found that doubling session frequency produced substantial gains in outcome, while total session count and total contact hours showed no significant independent relationship to improvement (Cuijpers et al., 2013). More time in treatment does not predict better results. More frequent contact does. The session architecture of this model is built around that finding.
Cuijpers, P. et al. (2013). Journal of Affective Disorders, 149, 1–13.
Brief Sessions at High Frequency — The HOPS Precedent
The closest peer-reviewed precedent for this model's brief, frequent session architecture is the HOPS (Homework, Organization, and Planning Skills) intervention, which uses twice-weekly 20-minute sessions with middle school students with ADHD, implemented by school mental health providers. It produced some of the strongest effect sizes in the adolescent executive function literature and is among the few school-based interventions with replication evidence (Langberg et al., 2018).
Langberg, J. M. et al. (2018). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(1), 39–55.
Spacing Amplifies Learning
Distributed practice — the same content across multiple spaced encounters rather than a single extended session — is one of the most replicated findings in cognitive psychology, consistently outperforming massed practice. Four short touchpoints across a week produce deeper encoding and stronger retention than a single weekly hour, because each encounter reactivates and consolidates the learning from the previous one (Cepeda et al., 2006; Dunlosky et al., 2013).
Cepeda, N. J. et al. (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. · Dunlosky, J. et al. (2013). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
Section 05
The Tuesday Consolidation Session
The next-day session sits on the empirical optimum
of four independent evidence bases simultaneously.
The Tuesday consolidation session is not a check-in. It is the structural mechanism that converts supported performance into internalized competence — and its placement is precise, not arbitrary.
Optimal Spacing
The empirically derived optimal interval between initial learning and a second exposure — for a one-week retention horizon — is one to two days. Research on spacing effects establishes this mathematically: too soon and there is nothing to consolidate; too late and the memory trace has degraded. Tuesday is the correct retrieval window for a Monday encoding (Cepeda et al., 2008).
Cepeda, N. J. et al. (2008). Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102.
Sleep Consolidation Window
The first night of sleep following new learning produces absolute performance gains without any additional practice — sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Tuesday retrieval catches the client at peak consolidation, and the act of retrieval itself can trigger reconsolidation that updates and strengthens the memory trace further (Stickgold & Walker, 2005).
Stickgold, R., & Walker, M. P. (2005). Trends in Neurosciences, 28(8), 408–415.
Vygotskian Verification
Contingent scaffolding requires a four-step cycle: diagnose understanding, check the diagnosis, intervene, then verify learning after the intervention. The Tuesday session is step four. Without it, the scaffolding cycle is structurally incomplete — the coach has supported performance but has no mechanism to confirm whether the skill was internalized or still requires external support (Van de Pol et al., 2010).
Van de Pol, J. et al. (2010). Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
Homework Review Effect
The quality of between-session review is among the largest predictors of outcome in the behavioral intervention literature. A meta-analysis by Kazantzis et al. found that homework quality and review produced effect sizes well above the threshold for high clinical significance at follow-up — among the strongest effects identified in the CBT outcome research. The Tuesday session operationalizes this mechanism directly (Kazantzis et al., 2016).
Kazantzis, N. et al. (2016). Behavior Therapy, 47(5), 755–772.
Section 06
Parent as Primary Lever of Change
Coaching the parent produces faster,
more durable outcomes.
The assumption that effective intervention must focus on the child is not only clinically incomplete — it is contradicted by the research on which interventions actually produce lasting change.
Parent-Only Treatment is as Effective as Child Therapy
Lebowitz's SPACE trial — a landmark randomized controlled trial — found that parent-only treatment for childhood anxiety produced outcomes statistically non-inferior to gold-standard child-focused CBT. The parent, coached to change their accommodation and response patterns, produced equivalent improvements in the child without the child attending a single session. The parent holds more leverage in the system than the field has historically recognized (Lebowitz et al., 2020).
Lebowitz, E. R. et al. (2020). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(3), 362–372.
Human Coaching Touchpoints Are the Active Ingredient
Self-administered parenting tools — apps, workbooks, online programs — consistently produce weak effects when delivered without human contact. Breitenstein's research on the ezPARENT program demonstrated that brief weekly human coaching touchpoints transformed completion rates and produced sustained behavior change that self-administered delivery alone did not achieve. The mechanism is accountability and real-time troubleshooting — precisely what the daily text and session structure of this model instantiates (Breitenstein et al., 2021).
Breitenstein, S. M. et al. (2021). Journal of Pediatrics, 231, 207–214.
The Highest-Effect Components Are Parent-Facing
Dekkers et al.'s meta-regression of behavioral parent training for ADHD identified antecedent manipulation and reinforcement as the two components with the highest independent effects on child outcomes — both operationalized in the collaborative action planning and ecological intake of this model. These are not supplementary features; they are the mechanism through which the parent's changed behavior alters the conditions producing the child's behavior (Dekkers et al., 2022).
Dekkers, T. J. et al. (2022). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(9), 1137–1146.
Mesosystem Intervention Outperforms Either Setting Alone
Power et al.'s Family-School Success RCT demonstrated that simultaneous intervention at the home-school boundary — Bronfenbrenner's mesosystem — produced stronger child outcomes than intervention in either the home or school setting alone. This is the structural rationale for treating the family-school connection, not just the child, as the site of intervention (Power et al., 2012).
Power, T. J. et al. (2012). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(4), 611–623.
Section 07
The Lifespan Lens
This is not about
this semester.
The executive function architecture built during adolescence does not stay in school. The skills developed here — self-monitoring, regulation, mastery attribution, initiation protocols — are the same architecture that determines how someone functions as a professional, a partner, and an adult navigating complexity. Bandura's lifespan self-efficacy research confirms that efficacy beliefs formed through direct mastery experience in adolescence are among the most durable predictors of adult performance and persistence.
The goal of this work is not a better transcript. It is a person who understands how their brain works and has built a system to match it. That transfers.
Executive function architecture built for this brain
Study systems, initiation protocols, regulation scripts, and environmental scaffolds — built from the ground up for how this specific student thinks and learns.
Self-advocacy, self-efficacy, identity as a learner
The skills built in adolescence — self-monitoring, self-regulation, mastery experience logging — transfer directly to college, work, and adult functioning.
The same architecture, applied to adult performance
Executive function challenges do not disappear at 18. The student who learns to build a system for their brain in high school is the professional who performs at their level in their career.
References
All citations formatted in APA 7th edition, organized by section.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643–1647). Elsevier.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243
Graziano, P. A., & Garcia, A. (2016). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and children's emotion dysregulation: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 46, 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.011
Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Prior, M. R., & Kehoe, C. (2010). Tuning in to Kids: An emotion-focused parenting program — initial findings from a community trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(8), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20345
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT skills training manual (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Rathus, J. H., & Miller, A. L. (2015). DBT skills manual for adolescents. Guilford Press.
Talsma, K., Schüz, B., Schwarzer, R., & Norris, K. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Agyapong, V. I. O., Hrabok, M., Vuong, W., Shalaby, R., Noble, J. M., Gusnowski, A., Mrklas, K. J., Li, D., Urichuk, L., Snaterse, M., Surood, S., Cao, B., Li, X.-M., Greiner, R., & Greenshaw, A. J. (2021). Changes in stress, anxiety, and depression levels of subscribers to a daily supportive text message program (Text4Hope) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 15(6), 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.460
Militello, L. K., Melnyk, B. M., Hekler, E., Small, L., & Jacobson, D. (2015). Automated mobile health text messaging interventions targeting physical activity and nutrition: A narrative review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(2), e50. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3999
Mohr, D. C., Cuijpers, P., & Lehman, K. (2011). Supportive accountability: A model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1602
Nahum-Shani, I., Smith, S. N., Spring, B. J., Collins, L. M., Witkiewitz, K., Tewari, A., & Murphy, S. A. (2018). Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: Key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(6), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9830-8
Owusu, J. T., Stantchev, V., & Herriott, A. L. (2023). Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a live coaching text messaging program for adult anxiety. JMIR Formative Research, 7, e44138. https://doi.org/10.2196/44138
Wu, A., Scult, M. A., Barnes, E. D., Betancourt, J. A., Pigott, A., & Bhimani, A. (2021). Smartphone apps for depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis of techniques to increase engagement. JMIR Mental Health, 8(10), e32100. https://doi.org/10.2196/32100
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2018). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228
Gawrilow, C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Implementation intentions facilitate response inhibition in children with ADHD. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-007-9150-1
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4(6), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530764
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Oettingen, G. (2012). Future thought and behaviour change. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2011.643698
Sibley, M. H., Gnagy, E. M., Kuriyan, A. B., Coxe, S., Pelham, W. E., Jr., Altszuler, A. R., Buchman, J., & Schatz, N. K. (2016). Parent–teen behavior therapy + motivational interviewing for adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(8), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000106
Bruijniks, S. J. E., Lemmens, L. H. J. M., Hollon, S. D., Peeters, F. P. M. L., Cuijpers, P., Arntz, A., Dingemanse, P., Willems, L., van Oppen, P., Kok, G. D., Huibers, M. J. H., & Spinhoven, P. (2020). The effects of once- versus twice-weekly sessions on psychotherapy outcomes in depressed patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(4), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.265
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Cuijpers, P., Straten, A. V., Warmerdam, L., & Smits, N. (2010). Characteristics of effective psychological treatments of depression: A meta-regression analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 20(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300903170367
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Langberg, J. M., Epstein, J. N., Becker, S. P., Girio-Herrera, E., & Vaughn, A. J. (2018). Evaluation of the Homework, Organization, and Planning Skills (HOPS) intervention for middle school students with ADHD as implemented by school mental health providers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000265
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x
Kazantzis, N., Whittington, C., Zelencich, L., Kyrios, M., Norton, P. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2016). Quantity and quality of homework compliance: A meta-analysis of relations with outcome in cognitive behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 47(5), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.05.002
Stickgold, R., & Walker, M. P. (2005). Memory consolidation and reconsolidation: What is the role of sleep? Trends in Neurosciences, 28(8), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2005.06.004
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Walker, M. P., & Stickgold, R. (2004). Sleep-dependent learning and memory consolidation. Neuron, 44(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.031
Breitenstein, S. M., Schoeny, M. E., Fogg, L., Fusco, R. A., Sykorova, M., & Garvey, C. (2021). Reducing parenting risk factors: Implementation of a smartphone-based parenting program. Journal of Pediatrics, 231, 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.12.029
Dekkers, T. J., van Rentergem, J. A. A., Koole, A., van den Berg, A., Diekmann, C. M. B., Popma, A., Baeyens, D., van der Oord, S., Luman, M., & Huizenga, H. M. (2022). Which components of parent training for ADHD work? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(9), 1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.05.027
Lebowitz, E. R., Marin, C., Martino, A., Shimshoni, Y., & Silverman, W. K. (2020). Parent-based treatment as efficacious as cognitive-behavioral therapy for childhood anxiety: A randomized noninferiority study of Supportive Parenting for Anxious Childhood Emotions. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.02.014
Power, T. J., Mautone, J. A., Soffer, S. L., Clarke, A. T., Marshall, S. A., Sharman, J., Blum, N. J., Nissley-Tsiopinis, J., & Jawad, A. F. (2012). A family–school intervention for children with ADHD: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(4), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028188
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Gollwitzer, A., & Oettingen, G. (2013). From fantasy to action: Mental contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) improves academic performance in children. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613476307
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408
Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Writing about testing worries boosts exam performance in the classroom. Science, 331(6014), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199427
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., & Stershic, S. (2015). Interleaved practice improves mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 900–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000001