Group Contingency

Study: Rodriguez & Anderson (2013)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students in the small group reading instruction were identified as being at risk for reading disabilities though there is no indication that the students had emotional behavioral difficulties aside from the high rates of off-task behavior.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Group #1

Kindergarten

59% Male

73% Caucasian (school estimate)

65% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Rodriguez & Anderson, 2013).

Case 2: Group #2

Kindergarten

59% Male

73% Caucasian (school estimate)

65% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Rodriguez & Anderson, 2013).

Case 3: Group #3

Kindergarten

59% Male

73% Caucasian (school estimate)

65% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Rodriguez & Anderson, 2013).

Case 4: Group #4

Kindergarten

59% Male

73% Caucasian (school estimate)

65% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Rodriguez & Anderson, 2013).

Case 5: Group #5

Kindergarten

59% Male

73% Caucasian (school estimate)

65% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Rodriguez & Anderson, 2013).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by instructional assistants with no experience in behavior management or teaching. Their experience as instructional assistants ranged from 4 to 15 years.

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: 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 average 83% across all intervention sessions and interventionists.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with problem behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 96% across both classrooms.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of problem 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): 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 baseline data across all groups indicated that there were persistent issues with problem behavior in the reading groups. Across all five groups, the baseline data either demonstrate a relatively stable trend suggesting problem behavior or an increasing trend away from the therapeutic direction. The lone exception to this might be Natasha’s group whose data are moderately variable though the level does seem to remain high enough to note a concern. The intervention phase data patterns generally demonstrate a reduction in the level of intervals with problem behavior. However, Candice’s group does appear to not support the inference that the intervention worked for this group. The other groups do seem to have dropped in overall level however.

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