Group Contingency

Study: Lambert, Tingstrom, Sterling, Dufrene, & Lynne (2015)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students in the classroom were not identified as having an emotional or behavioral disorder though the classrooms could be characterized as having high rates of disruptive behavior. Some of the students did have a disability.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Class A

5th grade

47% Female

79% Caucasian

Not reported

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Lambert et al., 2015).

Case 2: Class B

4th grade

42% Female

76% African American

Not reported

Two students with LD

Not reported

No other details provided (Lambert et al., 2015).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the teacher participants whose credentials ranged from a bachelor’s degree to a master’s degree and between one and nine years of teaching experience.

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: Fidelity data was reported for the teacher implementation phase only. This data reflected the percentage of intervention steps implemented.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was reported to be 100% across all intervention sessions (see p. 422 bottom).

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals in which inappropriate behavior was observed.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 93% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of inappropriate and disruptive behaviors in the classroom.

N/A

Percentage of Intervals in which appropriate behavior was observed.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 96% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase the rate of appropriate classroom behaviors.

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 was used to determine the overall effectiveness of the intervention for both on-task behaviors.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: The within baseline data were relatively stable for both outcome measures collected for both classrooms. Following implementation of the intervention, Classroom A had an increase in the trend of appropriate behaviors and a decrease in the trend of inappropriate behaviors, while Classroom B had large changes in the level of both outcomes toward the therapeutic direction. These results were supported with the implementation of the intervention following the withdrawal. That is, there were positive changes in the outcome.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individual, Small groups, Classroom

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