Group Contingency

Study: Kleinman & Saigh (2011)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: There was no indication that the students in this classroom had emotional or behavioral difficulties aside from the high rates of disruptive behavior and low rates of on-task behavior.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Classroom

9th grade

57% Male

73% Hispanic

88% Eligible for free or reduced lunch (school estimate)

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Kleinman & Saigh, 2011).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the teachers though no additional information on their experience or training is 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: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Not measured.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Not measured.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with verbal disruptive behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement ranged from 85% - 100% across all phases.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of verbal disruptive behavior.

N/A

Percentage of intervals with aggressive behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 84% - 100% across all phases.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease aggressive behavior.

N/A

Percentage of intervals with seat leaving behavior.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 82% - 100% across all phases.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of seat leaving behavior as specified by the behavioral expectations.

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 for talking and verbal disruption was high and relatively stable indicating that this behavior was in fact an issue in the classroom. Following the introduction of the group contingency, the behavior dropped substantially and though there was an increasing trend toward the end, the behavior remained at a level below that of both baseline phases. The effect of the group contingency on verbal disruptive behavior was replicated with its re-implementation. Similar effects can be seen on seat leaving behavior with a relatively high level in the initial baseline followed by a more stable drop. It is worth noting however that the trend in baseline was downward making the effect less convincing. Seat leaving behavior did increase however and drop again in the second implementation phase. The data pertaining to aggression are too variable and trending toward the therapeutic direction in all phases for confidence to be had that the intervention impacted this behavior substantially.

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