Choice as an Antecedent Intervention

Study: Kern, Bambara, & Fogt (2002)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Choice-making opportunities implemented as an antecedent intervention. The purpose of choice-making interventions is to promote engagement by providing the opportunity for student decision-making and agency with regard to assignment choice and/or order.

Choice is intended for use in Kindergarten through middle school. The program is intended for use with students with disabilities, intellectual disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, autism, and any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

The area of focus is externalizing behavior, which includes: physical aggression, verbal threats, property destruction, noncompliance, high levels of disengagement, and disruptive behavior.

Choice as an antecedent intervention is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan.

Choice is designed for use with individual students, small groups of 6-8 students, or with a classroom of students.

Only one interventionist is needed to implement the program.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals or instructions for implementation.

The program does not require technology for implementation.

No training for the interventionist is required.

No training manuals or materials are available.

There are no minimum qualifications for the interventionist.

The program is not affiliated with a broad school or classwide management program.

There is no ongoing support available for practitioners.

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: All participants had a label of severe emotional disturbance in addition to a variety of other diagnoses.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Alex

13 years old/middle school

Male

Not reported

Not reported

SED, CD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder

Not reported

Medication: Adderral (30 mg/day)

Case 2: Barry

14 years old/middle school

Male

Not reported

Not reported

SED, LD, ODD, ADHD

Not reported

Medication: none

Case 3: Tom

14 years old/middle school

Male

Not reported

Not reported

SED, ADHD, anxiety disorder, mood disorder

Not reported

Medication: Prozac (20 mg/day), Busbar (20 mg/day)

Case 4: Daniel

14 years old/middle school

Male

Not reported

Not reported

SED

Not reported

 

Case 5: Tyler

13 years old/middle school

Male

Not reported

Not reported

SED, LD, ADHD, mood disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder

Not reported

Medication: Clonidine (0.2 mg/day), Tegritol (300 mg/day)

Case 6: Craig

14 years old/middle school

Male

Not reported

Not reported

SED, mild MR, depressive disorder

Not reported

Medication: Depikote (1000 mg/day), Risperdol (16 mg/day) Busbar (100 mg/day)

Training of Instructors: The classroom was staffed by two individuals who were enrolled in a master's degree program in special education.  One of the teachers had 1 year of prior teaching experience while the other had 2 years. 

Design: Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? Not applicable

Implemented with Fidelity: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity information was obtained daily. Teachers completed a log from each lesson to document the manner in which high-interest activities were incorporated into the lesson and the type of choices offered. When data collectors were in the classroom, they noted the type of activity and the type of choice given. These data were compared.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: The data comparison of teacher logs and data collector notes indicated 100% teacher implementation of planned activities and choices and 100% consistency with intervention protocols.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Engagement

Interobserver agreement for 29% of observations= 94% average

Highly

N/A

Destructive behavior

Interobserver agreement for 29% of observations= 81% average

Highly

N/A

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference): Visual inspection

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: During initial baseline, engagement was variable, ranging from 27% to 78% (mean = 57%) with a slight downward trend. When intervention was introduced, engagement increased, ranging from 61% to 100% (mean = 87%). Upon return to baseline, decreases in engagement were observed, with a range of 48% to 78% (mean = 63%). During the final intervention phase, engagement again increased, ranging from 85% to 95% (mean = 89%).

During initial baseline, destructive behavior was observed for an average of 8% (range, 0%-33%). For the first intervention phase, destructive behavior decreased to a mean of 1% (range 0%-3%).  After returning to baseline, destructive behavior increased to an average of 12% (range, 0%-36%). During the final intervention phase, no destructive behavior was observed.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individuals, Small groups (n=6-8), Classrooms

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: No specific qualifications or training needed

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies