Self Management

Study: Harris, Friedlander, Saddler, Frizzelle, & Graham (2005)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were identified by independent physicians as having ADHD. In addition, the students were currently taking medication for ADHD.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Raven

4th grade

Female

Unclear

Not reported

ADHD

None

Difficulty completing school work and staying on task. Also diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (Harris et al., 2005).

Case 2: Samuel

4th grade

Male

Unclear

Not reported

ADHD

None

Difficulty cooperating with peers, following directions, and completing work. Also diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome (Harris et al., 2005).

Case 3: Ryis

5th grade

Male

Unclear

Low

ADHD

None

Difficulty with organization and completing work (Harris et al., 2005).

Case 4: Thomas

5th grade

Male

Unclear

Middle class

ADHD

None

Difficulty following directions and completing work. Also diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. Described as exhibiting disruptive and loud behaviors (Harris et al., 2005).

Case 5: William

5th grade

Male

Unclear

Middle income

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive behaviors (Harris et al., 2005).

Case 6: Vanyel

3rd grade

Male

Unclear

Low income

ADHD

None

Described as exhibiting disruptive behaviors and following directions (Harris et al., 2005).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the teacher though there no additional details regarding training and experience 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? Yes

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity was not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: None.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals with on-task behaviors

Interobserver agreement (95% mean)

The purpose of the intervention was to increase on-task behaviors as indicated through teacher report. These behaviors included paying attention and being seated.

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 intervention appears to have been moderately effective for the students. Specifically, there was a reduction in variability across all student participants with the overall level increasing between baseline and intervention phases across students and student pairs. The data in the second leg of the design could be seen as having an increasing trend toward the end of the baseline phase which might reduce confidence in the intervention, though the data do remain stable and at a higher level in this particular leg. The other legs are more convincing.

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: 1 study

Vance, M. J., Gresham, F. M., & Dart, E. H. (2012). Relative Effectiveness of DRO and Self-Monitoring in a General Education Classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 89-109.