Self Management

Study: Amato-Zech, Hoff & Doepke (2006)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Two of the students had a learning disability with the third having been identified as emotionally disturbed. All three had been identified with a speech-language impairment. No additional identification information was provided.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Jack

11 years old/3rd grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

LD and SLI

None

Classroom observations indicated that students were engaged for less than 55% of the class period (Amato-Zech et al., 2006).

Case 2: David

11 years old/3rd grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

LD and SLI

None

Classroom observations indicated that students were engaged for less than 55% of the class period (Amato-Zech et al., 2006).

Case 3: Allison

11 years old/3rd grade

Female

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

None

Classroom observations indicated that students were engaged for less than 55% of the class period (Amato-Zech et al., 2006).

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: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity was assessed using a five-item implementation checklist though it is unclear for whom the data was collected.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was 100% for all sessions.

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 behavior.

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 on-task behavior as indicated by the set of behaviors targeted by the intervention.

N/A

Percentage of Intervals with off-task behavior.

Interobserver agreement (averaged above 80% across all students though there were sessions with lower IOA levels for individual students).

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease off-task behavior as indicated by the set of behaviors targeted by the intervention.

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 indicates that the intervention had a positive effect on off-task behavior. Specifically, the within-case data patterns across students were characterized by moderate levels of variability though were generally stable. The intervention phase data patterns all had an in increasing trend toward the therapeutic direction indicating that the intervention was positive.

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.