Self Management

Study: Moore, Prebble, Robertson, Waetford, & Anderson (2011)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were not identified with an emotional and behavioral disorder though there was evidence of off-task behavior.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Student 1

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

None

No other details provided (Moore et al., 2001).

Case 2: Student 2

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

None

No other details provided (Moore et al., 2001).

Case 3: Student 3

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

None

No other details provided (Moore et al., 2001).

Case 4: Student 4

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

None

No other details provided (Moore et al., 2001).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the research staff who had a PhD and was the developer of the program.

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 assessed.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity was not assessed.

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 behavior.

Interobserver reliability was measured with a correlation coefficient across observers. The correlation coefficient indicates the degree to which raters agreed on the number of intervals in which on-task behavior occurs. The correlation exceeded 0.90 across all sessions.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase on-task behavior as indicated by the set of behaviors targeted by the intervention.

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 patterns for each student indicated that most observations sessions were below 50% though there was some variability in each. When compared to the intervention phase data, which was characterized by relatively stable data at higher levels, there seems to be sufficient evidence for an intervention effect.

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.