Group Contingency

Study: Maggin, Falolon, Sanetti, & Ruberto (2012)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were enrolled in a classroom specifically designed for students with EBD.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Classroom #1

7th grade

Male

Hispanic and African American

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Maggin et al., 2012).

Case 2: Classroom #2

5th and 6th grade

Male

Caucasian and Hispanic

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Maggin et al., 2012).

Case 3: Classroom #3

8th grade

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Maggin et al., 2012).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the paraeducators whose experience ranged from 4 – 12 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 collected by observing teachers implement the intervention according to a procedural checklist and graph. Fidelity remained high throughout the intervention.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: All paraeducators maintained implementation rates of higher than 80% throughout the duration of the intervention.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with student physical or verbal aggressive behaviors

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement ranged from 97% across all phases.

The purpose of the intervention was to decrease the rate of verbal and physical aggression.

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 data indicates that the group contingency was functionally related in reductions of student aggression for two of the classrooms. That is, the data for students enrolled in Classroom #1 was moderately variable in baseline, but stabilized with the implementation of the intervention for both students. Moreover, the students in the second classroom were also found to be following similar patterns. It is worth noting that the design of the research was limited in that data was not collected on student aggression rates for Classroom #3. This should be taken into account when making evidence determinations.

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