Choice as an Antecedent Intervention

Study: Jolivette, Wehby, Canale, & Massey (2001)

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 three students attended the same classroom and met the following inclusion criteria: (a) a diagnosis of E/BD without other concomitant diagnoses; (b) a primary educational placement in a self-contained special education classroom classroom for students with E/BD within a public school; (c) a range in age between 6 and 10 years old; (d) a mathematical functioning 1 to 2 years below grade level; and (e) a history of inappropriate social (e.g., disruptive, aggressive, off-task) behaviors during mathematics."

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Nicky

7.10 years/1st grade

Male

Not specified

Not specified

EBD diagnosis

Not specified

N/A

Case 2: John

7.6 years old/2nd grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

 

Case 3: Bruce

7.10 years old/2nd grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

 

Training of Instructors: The Special Education teacher implemented all sessions. Prior to intervention, investigator trained the special education teacher on how to deliver the choice-making opportunities to the students. Training consisted of investigator verbally stating, modeling, and role playing the delivery of the choice-making opportunities with the special education teacher. Then the special education teacher restated, modeled, and practiced delivering the choice-making opportunities with the investigator. Finally, the special education teacher was shown how to develop or select three worksheets for each session that met the material guidelines.

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? Yes

Implemented with Fidelity: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Two independent observers assessed treatment fidelity via videotapes for 100% of the sessions. Fidelity was evaluated during both choice and no choice conditions. The observers assessed whether the teacher implemented the choice or no-choice procedures.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was 100% for each condition.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Task engagement

Inter-observer agreement assessed during 27-29% of sessions-96.61% (range, 85-100%

Highly

N/A

Off-task behavior

Inter-observer agreement-92.5% (range, 81-100%)

Highly

N/A

Disruption

Inter-observer agreement-100%

Highly

N/A

Attempted task problems

Inter-rater agreement via permanent product-100%

Highly

N/A

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Problems correct

Inter-rater reliability using permanent-100%

Highly relevant

N/A

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Partially 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:

Nicky: task engagement was highest during the Choice condition, but there was some overlap between the first Choice condition and the first no-choice condition. The final Choice condition resulted in the highest level of engagement. Disruptive behavior was low across all conditions, but absent during the last choice. Number of problems completed and number correct were highest during the Choice condition, with many overlapping data points.

John: task engagement was highest during the Choice conditions, with few overlapping datapoints. Disruptive behavior was low across all conditions, but lowest during the final Choice condition. Number of problems completed and number correct were highest during the final Choice condition, but the first choice and the first no choice conditions were undifferentiated.

Bruce: task engagement showed little differentiation across conditions. Disruptive behavior was low across all conditions, but absent during the last Choice condition. Number of problems completed and number correct were highest during the last Choice condition; however, there was an upward trend across all phases.

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