Group Contingency

Study: Wright & McCurdy (2011)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: There was no indication that the students in these classrooms had emotional or behavioral difficulties aside from the high rates of disruptive behavior and low rates of on-task behavior.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Classroom #1

Kindergarten

53% Male

Not reported

36% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Wright & McCurdy, 2011).

Case 2: Classroom #2

4th grade

50% Male

Not reported

36% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Wright & McCurdy, 2011).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the teachers though no additional information on their experience or training is provided.

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 data was reported and consisted of a checklist indicating the proportion of steps implemented.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was reported to not drop below 85% across all intervention sessions and interventionists.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with disruptive behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 98% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of disruptive behavior.

N/A

Percentage of intervals with on-task behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 98% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase on-task behavior.

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 baseline data for both classrooms supported the notion that there were moderate rates of on-task behavior and elevated rates of disruptive behavior. These data were more variable with a generally lower level for Classroom #1 and more stable with a higher level for Classroom #2. Following the implementation of the intervention, both the disruptive and on-task rates moved in a therapeutic direction and stabilized. The second phase contrast pair provided additional support for the effects of the intervention.

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