Video Modeling

Study: Kern, Wacker, Mace, Falk, Dunlap, & Kromrey (1995) EXPERIMENT 2

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were enrolled in a hospital classroom for students with EBD and all had an educational label of EBD.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Juan (Classroom #1)

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 2: Miguel (Classroom #1)

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 3: Tommy (Classroom #2)

12 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 4: Earl (Classroom #2)

9 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 5: Larry (Classroom #2)

12 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 6: Susan (Classroom #3)

13 years old

Female

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 7: Debby (Classroom #3)

8 years old

Female

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Case 8: Mara (Classroom #3)

12 years old

Female

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern et al. 2, 1995).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the researcher.

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: Fidelity data was not reported.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Number of positive interactions with peers.

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

The purpose of the intervention was to increase student positive interactions, which was defined as hand raising.

N/A

Number of negative interactions with peers.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 92% across all students.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease student negative interactions, which was defined as hand raising.

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 promoting positive peer interactions.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: The data patterns associated with the students provide evidence that the intervention was effective. Specifically, the rates of appropriate and inappropriate behavior follow a similar pattern across most of the students in which there is a clear separation between the variables toward their respective therapeutic directions following implementation of the intervention. The only case that might provide some evidence of not working would be Tommy, though his rates of inappropriate behavior seem to change levels.

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