Video Modeling

Study: Hartley, Bray & Kehle (1998)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were not found to have an emotional or behavioral difficulty.

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

Not reported

No other details provided (Hartley et al., 1998).

Case 2: Student 2

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Hartley et al., 1998).

Case 3: Student 3

8 years old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

None

Not reported

No other details provided (Hartley et al., 1998).

Training of Instructors: The intervention was implemented by the school psychologist and the researcher.

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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity data was reported and completed by the research team through independent checklists of intervention procedures.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Integrity was 100%.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of hand raising.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 85% across all students.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase student participation, which was defined as hand raising.

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 increasing student participation.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: The data patterns associated with each of the three students followed a similar pattern. Specifically, students began the observations with low rats of participation behaviors with the trend steadily increasing across the intervention phase. As such, the overall level and trend of the outcome improved over time though there tended to be substantial variability that might limit confidence. However, the overall trend and level improvements suggest the intervention was effective.

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: 0 studies