Self Management

Study: Barry & Messer (2003)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were identified by independent physicians as having ADHD. Diagnoses were based on information from and in consultation with the student’s families and school personnel. In addition, the students were currently taking medication for ADHD.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Student 1

12 years old/6th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

ADHD

None

The student was described as having outbursts throughout the school day (Barry & Messer, 2003).

Case 2: Student 2

12 years old/6th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive and loud behaviors (Barry & Messer, 2003).

Case 3: Student 3

12 years old/6th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive and loud behaviors (Barry & Messer, 2003).

Case 4: Student 4

12 years old/6th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive and loud behaviors (Barry & Messer, 2003).

Case 5: Student 5

12 years old/6th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive and loud behaviors (Barry & Messer, 2003).

Training of Instructors: The teacher implemented the intervention and provided training to students. The teacher provided instruction, modeling, and feedback to students. Information regarding the extent of support provided to the teacher was lacking.

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: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity was evaluated using permanent product data recording sheets to assess student adherence. Specific fidelity data such as the percentage of steps implemented was not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Inconclusive.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with on-task behaviors

Interobserver agreement (93% - 98% agreement)

The purpose of the intervention was to increase on-task behaviors as indicated through teacher report. These behaviors included paying attention and being seated.

N/A

Percentage of intervals with disruptive behaviors

Interobserver agreement (93% - 98% agreement)

The purpose of the intervention was to reduce disruptive behaviors as indicated through teacher report. These behaviors included making loud noises and exhibiting physical 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 and disruptive behaviors.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns:

On-task: The on-task behaviors were grouped into attention and being seated. With regards to the attention variable, there does appear to be a consistent level and trend change both within and across all five students. These results are also observed for seated behavior.

Disruptive: The disruptive behaviors were grouped into loud noises and physical behaviors. It appears that four out of the five students did have data patterns that would suggest an intervention effect for making loud noises. Specifically, there are a number of level and trend changes across phases to support this claim. The data for Student #5 does not support this as there were no loud noises recorded in baseline suggesting that this was not an issue for this student . In terms of physical aggression, the data does not support an intervention effect across students because there were very few instances across students in baseline. The exception might be Student #2 and Student #4 whose data does seem to indicate that physical aggression was reduced. However, taken across the entire design, it appears that physical aggression was not positively influenced by the intervention.

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: 1 study

Vance, M. J., Gresham, F. M., & Dart, E. H. (2012). Relative Effectiveness of DRO and Self-Monitoring in a General Education Classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 89-109.