Video Modeling

Study: Clees & Greene (2014)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: The students were identified as having EBD and had an IEP related to these needs.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Wanda (DS-SST)

16 years old

Female

African American

Not reported

EBD and Mild ID

Not reported

No other details provided (Clees & Greene, 2014).

Case 2: Jim (DS-SST)

17 years old

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Clees & Greene, 2014).

Case 3: Randy (PS-SST)

16 years old

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Clees & Greene, 2014).

Case 4: Stan (PS-SST)

17 years old

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

EBD

Not reported

No other details provided (Clees & Greene, 2014).

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

Design: Partially 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? No

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: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity data was reported with a procedural checklist used to assess implementation.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Implementation ranged from 97% – 100% depending on the session.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Percentage of compliant responses.

Interobserver agreement was measured with a percentage agreement index. The overall agreement mean was approximately 92.6% across all students.

The purpose of the intervention was to increase compliant responses.

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 increasing compliant responses. 

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: The data patterns seem to indicate a moderate level change for Wanda and a large level change for Jim for the DS-SST condition. In addition, it appears that the trend for compliance was increasing for Randy and that the overall level increased for Stan in the PS-SST condition.

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