Self Management

Study: Levendoski & Cartledge (2000)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Details on the process for identifying the students as having an emotional or behavioral disorder is not provided, though each is reported to have been given the label at some point in their schooling.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Student 1

10.5 years old/4th grade

Not reported

Caucasian

Not reported

EBD

None

No other details provided (Levendoski & Cartledge, 2000).

Case 2: Student 2

9 years old/4th grade

Not reported

African American

Not reported

EBD

None

No other details provided (Levendoski & Cartledge, 2000).

Case 3: Student 3

11.6 years old/5th grade

Not reported

Caucasian

Not reported

EBD

None

No other details provided (Levendoski & Cartledge, 2000).

Case 4: Student 4

10.3 years old/3rd grade

Not reported

Caucasian

Not reported

EBD

None

No other details provided (Levendoski & Cartledge, 2000).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented mostly by the teacher/researcher. That is the teacher was the individual responsible for implementing the intervention. Specific credentials of this individual were not reported.

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: Fidelity data was not reported.

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

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of Intervals in which the student was on task.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was 95% across all students.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase time on task behaviors as indicated by the definition of the dependent variable.

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 patterns for Student #1, Student #2, and Student #3 support the notion that there is a functional relation. Specifically, the baseline data patterns are generally variable for these students though the overall level does appear to increase and stabilize with the introduction of the intervention. The data for Student #4 does not provide enough data for a functional relation to be inferred.

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.