Self Management

Study: Rock & Thread (2007)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Some of the students in this study were demonstrating behavioral problems and were not formally identified as having an emotional or behavioral disability.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Joshua

13 years old/5th grade

Male

African American

Not reported

ADHD and LD

None

Exhibited high rates of disengaged or off task behavior during independent seatwork. Classroom observations before the study indicated less than 50% engagement (Rock & Thead, 2007).

Case 2: JaShun

13 years old/5th grade

Male

African American

Not reported

ADHD and LD

None

Exhibited high rates of disengagement such as talking to peers during independent seat work. Classroom observations before the study indicated less than 50% engagement (Rock & Thead, 2007).

Case 3: Lucy

14 years old

Female

Caucasian

Not reported

Autism and intellectual disability

None

Passive disengagement and refusal to work. Classroom observations before the study indicated less than 50% engagement (Rock & Thead, 2007).

Case 4: Levi

11 years old

Male

African American

Not reported

None

None

Actively disengaged behaviors including talking, laughing, and disrupting peers. Classroom observations before the study indicated less than 50% engagement (Rock & Thead, 2007).

Case 5: Alvin

10 years old

Male

African American

Middle income

None

None

Displayed disruptive behaviors during classwork. Classroom observations before the study indicated less than 50% engagement (Rock & Thead, 2007).

Case 6: Vanyel

3rd grade

Male

Not reported 

Low income

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive behaviors and not following directions (Rock & Thead, 2007).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the research staff who had a PhD and was the developer of the program.

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: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity was not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: None.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with academic engagement

Interobserver agreement (averaged above 90% across all students though there were sessions with lower IOA levels for individual students).

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

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: Each of the graphs demonstrates that academic engagement improved as a function of the intervention. Specifically, there were large level changes for each student as the intervention was removed and withdrawn.

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.