Breaks Are Better

Study: Boyd & Anderson (2013)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were referred to Tier II/III team by teacher or had received 2-3 ODRs.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Alex

3rd grade

Male

White

Not reported

Not disabled

Not reported

 

Case 2: Diego

5th grade

Male

Hispanic

Not reported

Not disabled

Not reported

Diego received 30 minutes of supplemental math instruction once per week (Boyd & Anderson, 2013).

Case 3: Greg

5th grade

Male

White

Not reported

Not disabled

Not reported

 

Training of Instructors: Training in BrB was conducted by the school counselor and observed by the researcher to ensure all components were implemented. Training was provided to the facilitator, parents, teachers, and participants. The facilitator also met teachers 1-2 days within the participant beginning BrB, where the facilitator reviewed key components of the intervention. 

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 was monitored using checklists to assess presence or absence of core components during check-in and out and during class time.  Fidelity checks occurred once within 3 days of intervention and at least once per week thereafter.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was low at first for teachers on providing feedback to students, but facilitators met with teachers to provide coaching to increase this component. All other components were 80% or higher fidelity to intervention.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

FBA

Contingency space analysis

The function of student behavior needed to be escape to be included in study

N/A

Direct Observation

Inter-rater reliability

Problem behavior, help requests were primary outcomes

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 and review of mean differences.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: All three participants noted an immediate drop in problem behavior and minor increase following reversal.  Help requests increased with implementation of intervention for 2 out of 3 participants. The third subject had a delayed increase in help requests.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individual

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, No training required

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