Video Modeling

Study: Kern-Dunlap, Dunlap, Clarke, Childs, White & Stewart (1992)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were identified as having EBD and had an IEP related to these needs.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Sam (School 1)

12 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern-Dunlap et al., 1992).

Case 2: Dave (School 1)

12 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern-Dunlap et al., 1992).

Case 3: Adam (School 2)

11 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern-Dunlap et al., 1992).

Case 4: Dale (School 2)

13 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern-Dunlap et al., 1992).

Case 5: Mike

12 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Kern-Dunlap et al., 1992).

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

Design: Partially 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

Frequency of desirable behavior

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 81% across all students.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase desirable behavior.

N/A

Frequency of undesirable behavior

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 86% across all students.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease undesirable behavior.

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 for increasing desirable behavior. 

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns:

School 1: The data patterns indicated that undesirable behavior decreased following the introduction of the intervention and that desirable behavior increased. For desirable behavior, the data remained highly variable (particularly for Sam) though the overall level seemed to change. The data for Dave was also stable though the trend was more positive.

School 2: The data patterns associated with Mike and Adam indicated a decrease in undesirable behaviors and an increased trend in desirable behaviors which was differentiated from baseline. The data for Dale, however was less convincing for desirable behaviors and does not support an effect. Dale’s responses on desirable behavior do indicate a meaningful change, however.

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