Self Management

Study: Wolfe, Heron & Goddard (2000)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were not identified with an emotional and behavioral disorder though they did demonstrate high rates of off-task behavior and were identified as have learning disabilities.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Student 1

9 years old/2nd-3rd grade

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

LD

None

No other details provided (Wolfe et al., 2000).

Case 2: Student 2

9 years old/2nd-3rd grade

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

LD

None

No other details provided (Wolfe et al., 2000).

Case 3: Student 3

9 years old/2nd-3rd grade

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

LD

None

No other details provided (Wolfe et al., 2000).

Case 4: Student 4

9 years old/2nd-3rd grade

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

LD

None

No other details provided (Wolfe et al., 2000).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented mostly by the research staff who had PhD's. The teacher did provide praise, but all other aspects appear to have been implemented by members of the research team.

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: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Procedural fidelity was collected on approximately 22% of the sessions through a checklist. However, fidelity data such as the percentage of steps observed as implemented were not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity data does not appear to have been reported.

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 percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was 96% across all students

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): Partially 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 patterns for all four students provided support that on-task behaviors improved as a function of the intervention. Specifically, the data in the baselines are generally variable. However, following the implementation of the intervention, the data become less variable and the overall level increases suggesting an effect. (Note: These were not replicated for the academic outcomes).

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.