Group Contingency

Study: Ling, Hawkins, & Weber (2011)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: The student was not identified as having an emotional or behavioral disorder, though the teacher did refer him for high-rates of disruptive behavior and baseline data indicated that he displayed more off-task behaviors and disengaged behaviors than class peers.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Student

1st grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Ling et al., 2011).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the teacher participant. No specifics on the credentials held were provided.

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 data was reported and consisted of a checklist indicating the proportion of steps implemented.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was reported to be 100% across all intervention sessions.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals in which engagement was observed.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 97% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of engagement for the target student.

The peer comparison was exposed to the same set of conditions as the target student.

Percentage of Intervals in which off-task behaviors were observed.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 97% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of off-task behavior for the target student.

The peer comparison was exposed to the same set of conditions as the target student.

 

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 target student did display less academic engagement and more off-task behavior than the peer comparison. For academic engagement, however, there was an increasing trend in baseline that might limit confidence that a functional relation was demonstrated. It is noteworthy, however, that the student’s engagement did increase relative to baseline and was comparable to the peer comparison in the intervention phase. Moreover, the withdrawal resulted in a drop in engagement and a subsequent increase once the intervention was implemented again. The results associated with off-task behavior seem to provide more support for a functional relation given the sharp increase in trend observed during baseline and the consistent changes in level observed in the following phases.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individual, Small groups, Classroom

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