Video Modeling

Study: Clare, Jenson, Kehle & Bray (2000)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were all reported to have a disabilit,y with one having an EBD and two having a LD.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Student 1

Between 9 and 11 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Clare et al., 2000).

Case 2: Student 2

Between 9 and 11 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

LD

Not reported

No other details provided (Clare et al., 2000).

Case 3: Student 3

Between 9 and 11 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

LD

Not reported

No other details provided (Clare et al., 2000).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the school psychologist, though the videoing and narration appear to have been implemented by the research team.

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 data was not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: N/A

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals in which on-task behavior was observed.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a kappa index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 0.80 to 1.0 based on Cohen’s kappa.

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

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 data patterns indicate that the behaviors were improved following the implementation of the intervention. Specifically, each of the student’s had low and variable on-task rates prior to the intervention with both the level and variability improving toward the therapeutic direction. Given that the design provided sufficient grounds for demonstrating experimental control, the intervention can be deemed effective.

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: 0 studies