Video Modeling

Study: Axelrod, Bellini, & Markoff (2014)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were all enrolled in an acute care psychiatric hospital indicating that they had emotional or behavioral challenges. Moreover, there were psychiatric records that confirmed the diagnoses of ODD and ADHD for the students.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Dan

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Axelrod et al., 2014).

Case 2: Bob

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Axelrod et al., 2014).

Case 3: Tom

7 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Axelrod et al., 2014).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by both the school and unit staff. School staff consisted of a teacher with a master’s degree and two paraprofessionals. Unit staff consisted of psychiatric nurse practitioners and direct care staff.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? No

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? No

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: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity data was reported and completed by the research team through independent checklists of intervention procedures.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Integrity was 100%.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of compliance to adult instruction within 10 seconds.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 90%.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase compliant behaviors.

N/A

Percentage of instructions leading to an aggressive act.

IOA not reported for this outcome.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease aggressive episodes.

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): Partially 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 in promoting compliance with adult instructions.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: It must be acknowledged that the use of two legs per student might be considered by some to be a limitation. However, it is worth acknowledging that multiple baselines with sufficient control in the second AB phase might provide adequate support. Moreover, the three student cases presented further strengthens the study. In terms of the data patterns, those associated with Student 1 demonstrate both a level and trend change between the baseline and intervention phases; those associated with Student 2 provide moderate support with the data in the first intervention phase returning to near baseline levels; those associated with Student 3 also provide moderate support based on the high levels of variability in the intervention phase.

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