Daily Report Card
Study: Fabiano et al. (2010)

Summary

The Daily Report Card (DRC) is an evidence-supported intervention for youth with disruptive behavior disorders and school performance challenges. The DRC is a list of targeted behaviors that are evaluated throughout the day by a teacher or other professional. The child is provided feedback on meeting/not meeting targets throughout the day. The DRC is then sent home with the child and home-based privileges and rewards are provided based on meeting daily goals.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
  • Other: Students with ADHD
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Physical Aggression
  • Verbal Threats
  • Property Destruction
  • Noncompliance
  • High Levels of Disengagement
  • Disruptive Behavior
  • Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
Where to Obtain:
Guilford Press / Fastbridge Learning
43 Main Street SE, Suite 509 Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-424-3714
www.fastbridge.org
Initial Cost:
$6.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
$6.00 per student per year

The book can be obtained from the Guilford Press for $31.45 DRC is available through FastBridge Learning. FAST is the Formative Assessment System for Teachers and it provides teachers with a set of tools and assessments for fast assessment of students’ skills, including Behavior assessment and intervention tools. Subscription to FAST is on an annual per student basis of $6/student and includes access to the full FAST system, all assessments and supporting tools, access to an online knowledge base, as well as online training and certification for teachers and administrators.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other: Parents
Training Requirements:
Less than 1 hour of training

Teachers, parents, and professionals will require some basic familiarity with behavioral principles and procedures.


Access to Technical Support:
Not available
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
Minimum Number of Weeks:
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

The Daily Report Card (DRC) is an evidence-supported intervention for youth with disruptive behavior disorders and school performance challenges. The DRC is a list of targeted behaviors that are evaluated throughout the day by a teacher or other professional. The child is provided feedback on meeting/not meeting targets throughout the day. The DRC is then sent home with the child and home-based privileges and rewards are provided based on meeting daily goals.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
not selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Students with ADHD

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

selected Physical Aggression
selected Verbal Threats
selected Property Destruction
selected Noncompliance
selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
43 Main Street SE, Suite 509 Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone Number
612-424-3714
Website
www.fastbridge.org

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$6.00
Unit of cost
student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$6.00
Unit of cost
student
Duration of license
year

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

The book can be obtained from the Guilford Press for $31.45 DRC is available through FastBridge Learning. FAST is the Formative Assessment System for Teachers and it provides teachers with a set of tools and assessments for fast assessment of students’ skills, including Behavior assessment and intervention tools. Subscription to FAST is on an annual per student basis of $6/student and includes access to the full FAST system, all assessments and supporting tools, access to an online knowledge base, as well as online training and certification for teachers and administrators.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
not selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
Minimum number of sessions per week
Minimum number of weeks
selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?
No

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
Free

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Less than 1 hour of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
Teachers, parents, and professionals will require some basic familiarity with behavioral principles and procedures.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
selected Other

If other, please describe:

Parents
Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
No

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Atkins, M.S., Pelham, W.E., White, .K.J. (1989). Hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Psychological Aspects of Developments and Physical Disabilities: A Casebook. (pp. 137-156). California: Sage Publications.

Fabiano, G.A. & Pelham, W.E. (2003). Improving the effectiveness of behavioral classroom interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A case study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 122-128.

Fabiano, G.A., Vujnovic, R., Pelham, W.E., Waschbusch, D.A., Massetti, G.M., Yu, J., Pariseau, M.E., Naylor, J., Robins, M.L., Carnefix, T., Greiner, A.R., Volker, M. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with ADHD using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39, 219-239.

Jurbergs, N., Palcic, J.L., & Kelley, M.L. (2010). Daily behavior report cards with and without home-based consequences: Improving classroom behavior in low income, African-American children with ADHD. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 32, 177-195.

Kelley, M.L. & McCain, A.P. (1995). Promoting academic performance in inattentive children. Behavior Modification, 19, 357-375.

McCain, A.P. & Kelley, M.L. (1993). Managing the behavior of an ADHD preschooler: The efficiacy of a school-home note intervention. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 15, 33-44.

McCain, A.P. & Kelley, M.L. (1994). Improving the classroom performance in underachieving preadolescents: The additive effects of response cost to a school-home note system. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 27-41.

Miller, D.L. & Kelley, M.L. (1994). The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improving children’s homework performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 73-84.

Murray, D.W., Raniner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent-teacher consultation intervention for students. Child and Youth Care Forum, 37, 111-126.

O’Leary, K.D., Pelham, W.E., Rosenbaum, A., & Price, G.H. (1976). Behavioral treatment of hyperkinetic children. Clinical Pediatrics, 15, 510-515.

Palcic, J.L., Jurbergs, N., & Kelley, M.L. (2009). Comparison of teacher and parent delivered consequences: Improving behavior in low-income children with ADHD. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 31, 117-133.

Pelham, W.E. & Fabiano, G.A. (2001). Treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: The impact of comorbidity. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 8, 315-329.

***Note there are numerous additional studies of the DRC as used for children with disruptive behavior in general see Vannest et al. (2012) for a review

Study Information

Study Citations

1) Fabiano, G. A., Vujnovic, R., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Massetti, G. M., Yu, J., Pariseau, M. E., Naylor, J., Robins, M. L. & Carnefix, T. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with ADHD using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39() 219-239; 2) (2012). WWC Review of the report: Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. Retrieved from: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Children were diagnosed using evidence-based assessment procedures for ADHD (Pelham, Fabiano, & Massetti, 2005). These included parent and teacher Disruptive Behavior Disorder (DBD) ADHD symptom rating scales (Pelham, Gnagy, Greenslade, & Milich, 1992) and impairment rating scales (Fabiano et al., 2006), plus the semi-structured, DBD diagnostic interview completed with parents (Hartung, McCarthy, Milich, & Martin, 2005; Massetti et al., 2003). Symptoms rated as “pretty much” or “very much” on the DBD rating scale were counted as being present, and the DBD parent interview was used to obtain contextual information on the presence of symptoms, age of onset, and information on pervasiveness and chronicity. Two doctoral level clinicians completed independent file reviews to confirm agreement on diagnoses, and disagreements were resolved by a third doctoral level reviewer.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
Consultants conducted an initial meeting with each teacher of children in the DRC group during October of the school year. During this meeting, consultants and teachers used the IEP and any other related information to construct a DRC. Between the first and second meeting, the teacher was asked to implement the intervention. At the second consultant visit, target behaviors were refined, and using the data collected by the teacher, criteria for each target behavior was modified (e.g., a child who averaged 10 verbally intrusive behaviors per class would have a target behavior changed to “Has eight or fewer verbally intrusive behaviors”). The third consultant visit was conducted to fine-tune and trouble-shoot the DRC and inform the teacher of the home rewards established by the parents. The DRC included a direct accounting for IEP goals as well as other behavior problems common to a child with ADHD, and it is necessarily idiosyncratic – unique to each child. A standard list of common DRC goals has been created and was used to facilitate this target behavior selection (see http://ccf.buffalo.edu/pdf/school_daily_report_card.pdf for a downloadable handout that describes how to create, modify, and reward a DRC). The consultant could also add targets beyond those explicitly listed in the IEP that were appropriate for the current classroom situation, and this was typical, especially for social/behavioral targets (Fabiano, Vujnovic, et al., 2009). The DRC was evaluated and completed by the teacher daily, and feedback was provided to the child throughout the day on progress made toward DRC goals. The teacher was asked to implement the other procedures outlined in the IEP (i.e., academic interventions) as planned. At the end of each day, the teacher sent the DRC home with the child so that the parent received feedback on a daily basis regarding the child’s behavior at school. Parents attended three individual parent training meetings with the consultant conducted in parallel with the teacher meetings (generally held in the school library or cafeteria) to introduce them to the DRC. During these meetings, they established home-based rewards contingent on the child’s DRC performance. For example, a parent might remove computer access for a child where it was previously provided non-contingently, and only provide 10 minutes for each “yes” reported for the day. Parents were encouraged to develop a menu of rewards and to place the rewards in a hierarchy (i.e., the longest duration of computer time was provided for obtaining 90-100% of DRC goals, whereas a shorter duration was available for obtaining 70-80% of DRC goals). In addition to the home-based contingency management based on school feedback, which makes the child accountable at home for school-based behavior, the DRC served as a mechanism of daily communication between the parent and teacher. The consultant and parent also collaboratively constructed a plan for nightly homework and “returning completed homework” was targeted on all DRCs/ITBEs (Power, Karustis, & Habboushe, 2001). After the three initial meetings with the child’s teacher, consultants met monthly with the teacher to provide feedback on the child’s behavior during the month using a graphical representation of DRC performance. This information was used for data-driven decision making, and DRC targets were adjusted throughout the school year.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Consultants conducted an initial meeting with each teacher of children in the BAU group. During this meeting, consultants and teachers used the IEP and any other related information to construct an Individualized Target Behavior Evaluation (ITBE; Pelham, Fabiano, & Massetti, 2005). Follow-up meetings were conducted in the same manner as described for the DRC group, above. Teachers in the BAU group were instructed to work with the child the same way they would with any other child who had an IEP. Teachers and parents were contacted monthly in the BAU condition and asked general questions about the child’s functioning. The ITBE was completed each day by the teacher, and it was adjusted (i.e., behavioral criteria modified; targets modified) based on parent or teacher report in these phone calls or a review of monthly ITBEs. Teachers were mailed quarterly graphs of ITBE results. Thus, in the BAU condition, the ITBE was constructed in the same manner as the DRC, and it was completed every day. However, it was used as an idiosyncratic rating scale, not an intervention. The BAU condition was used solely to monitor functioning – it did not provide communication between the parent and teacher; it was not used to provide students feedback on behavior; it did not result in any contingency management for the child’s behavior; and it was not formally used to make data-driven decisions related to monitoring/intervening with the child.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):
N/A

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 5 2 0.52
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 1 1 0.00
White 27 22 0.32
Other 0 1 2.08

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments 5 4 0.10
Learning Disabilities 6 6 0.08
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance 2 5 0.71
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 20 15 0.27
Not Identified With a Disability

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 30 24 0.56
Male

Mean Effect Size

0.52

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
During the spring and summer, children were recruited for participation in the study through mailings, radio advertisements, and school, doctor, and professional referrals. Following an intake to determine diagnosis and eligibility, eligible participants were randomly assigned to a business as usual control condition or an intervention condition.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
selected Individually
not selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
21.00
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
School psychology graduate student consultants were assigned to work with a family and teacher for the entire school year. They were supervised by a Ph.D.-level psychologist

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Integrity of implementation of DRC procedures were collected throughout the duration of the program in both groups.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Analyses to examine the integrity with which the intervention was implemented revealed that, on average, teachers completed 73% of DRCs compared to 77% of the ITBEs, and a chi-square test indicated this difference was not significant (p > .05). Interestingly this rate of adherence was nearly identical to another recent study that utilized DRCs across the school year (Owens et al., 2008). The range of completed DRCs was from 0%-98% with a median of 79%. ITBE completion ranged from 16%-99% with a median of 78%. Furthermore, across the entire school year, parents of participants in the DRC group returned 64% of the DRC’s with a signature; the range of signed DRCs was from 0%-100% with a median of 90%. Parents indicated that a reward was given for 56% of the returned DRC’s that should have earned one. Reward rates ranged from 0%-98% with a median of 68%. To explore the relationship between integrity and outcome, DRC completion rates were not significantly correlated with observations of classroom behavior at endpoint (p > .05), but the percent of DRCs rewarded was significantly correlated (r= -.53, p=.002), suggesting contingency management (i.e., contingent rewards based on school behavior) may be a key aspect of the approach used in this study. An examination of the integrity with which the behavioral consultation group implemented the DRC intervention revealed that teachers of students in the intervention condition participated in 94% of monthly behavior consultation meetings, completed 93% of meeting checklist items and met with the behavioral consultant in face-to-face meetings for approximately 20 minutes per month (SD=7.49). These meetings were supplemented by ongoing monitoring of DRC/ITBE data throughout the month and modification of the DRC as needed (e.g., multiple days in a row of missing a target, teacher comments reveal emerging behaviors that warrant targeting). The number of behaviors targeted for children across the study year ranged from 3-9. Children in the DRC group had an average of 5.53 (SD=1.22) behaviors targeted during the school year compared to 4.64 (SD=1.03) behaviors targeted on ITBEs, and this difference was significant, t (58) =3.03, p = .004. Table 4 lists the academic and social behaviors targeted on the DRCs/ITBEs and the percentage of children with each goal (homework was targeted for all children in the study as part of the consultation procedures).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
The integrity/fidelity measure was collected in both groups.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
We did not include academic achievement as measured by the Woodcock Johnson as this was not a targeted outcome of the intervention (though outcomes on this measure are included in the report).
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
One of the measures of primary outcome collected at baseline and post-treatment was the observations of classroom behavior. Given the repeated measures nested within baseline and post-treatment for this particular measure, the observations were analyzed using a hierarchical linear modeling approach. Academic achievement measures were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) procedures, with baseline achievement scores entered as a covariate. For other measures of outcome, collected at pre and post intervention, ANCOVA procedures were also used, where pre-treatment ratings were entered as covariates in the analysis. ANCOVA procedures were used because of the unique situation a school-year study presents - teacher ratings completed at the beginning of the year reflect only a month of observation whereas endpoint ratings included knowledge of the child’s behavior over the entire year. Thus, the primary aim of these analyses was to compare groups at the endpoint rating, and the baseline ratings were entered as covariates to account for the teachers’ perception at the beginning of the school year. Within “families” of statistical tests related to primary outcomes: (1) ADHD symptoms, ODD/CD symptoms, and impairment; (2) academic performance; and (3) academic achievement, corrections to alpha levels using a modified “step down” Bonferroni approach were implemented to account for multiple statistical tests (Holm, 1979; Jaccard and Guilamo-Ramos, 2002). Table 2 contains descriptive information for all dependent measures collected at baseline and end of the intervention. Measures collected at post-treatment only were analyzed using an independent samples t-test (descriptive statistics are listed in Table 3). For all measures, estimates of effect sizes are reported where appropriate. The clinical significance of the findings was investigated by calculating the percent of participants in each group that exhibited behavior within the normative range at post-treatment (Kendall & Grove, 1988).

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
WWC
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

WWC only reviewed the report “Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card.” The findings from this review do not reflect the full body of research evidence on Daily Report Card.

WWC Rating: The research described in this report meets WWC evidence standards without reservations.

Full Report

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
6
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Atkins, M.S., Pelham, W.E., White, .K.J. (1989). Hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Psychological Aspects of Developments and Physical Disabilities: A Casebook. (pp. 137-156). California: Sage Publications.

Kelley, M.L. & McCain, A.P. (1995). Promoting academic performance in inattentive children. Behavior Modification, 19, 357-375.

McCain, A.P. & Kelley, M.L. (1993). Managing the behavior of an ADHD preschooler: The efficacy of a school-home note intervention. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 15, 33-44.

McCain, A.P. & Kelley, M.L. (1994). Improving the classroom performance in underachieving preadolescents: The additive effects of response cost to a school-home note system. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 27-41.

Murray, D.W., Raniner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent-teacher consultation intervention for students. Child and Youth Care Forum, 37, 111-126.

O’Leary, K.D., Pelham, W.E., Rosenbaum, A., & Price, G.H. (1976). Behavioral treatment of hyperkinetic children. Clinical Pediatrics, 15, 510-515.

Palcic, J.L., Jurbergs, N., & Kelley, M.L. (2009). Comparison of teacher and parent delivered consequences: Improving behavior in low-income children with ADHD. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 31, 117-133.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.