Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT )
Study: Wills et al. (draft paper)

Summary

CW-FIT is a classroom management system with four primary components: teaching classroom rules/skills, using group contingency plans with differential reinforcement of appropriate behaviors (goal setting and points), minimizing social attention to inappropriate behavior (extinction) and the use of self-management and help cards for individual students who need enhancements to the group contingency. Three target skills are taught in class-wide lessons (1) gaining the teacher’s attention, (2) following directions, and (3) ignoring inappropriate behaviors. The teaching component uses scripted lessons last 3-5 days; and pre-corrects for skills are then implemented throughout all intervention sessions. The group contingency component of CW-FIT consists of a game format with class teams of 2-5 students (typically rows of students), and the use of a token economy. During the CW-FIT intervention period, the teacher sets the timer to beep every 2-3 minutes. At the beep, the teacher awards a point on the team chart to each team with ALL members engaged in appropriate behaviors. At the end of the class period, rewards were given to each team (all students on the team) who met the stated goal. Teachers provide differential reinforcement in the form of frequent, specific praise for appropriate behaviors and use of the skills when awarding team points, and to individuals and groups throughout the lesson. The self-management enhancement is designed for students who continue to have some difficulty during the initial sessions of CW-FIT intervention. Self-management consists of (a) two small group booster sessions for individual students and peers, and (b) use of a mini-chart on the students’ desk that matched the team goal chart posted for the class. Booster sessions focus on CW-FIT rules that are problematic for the target students, and modeling use of the self-management chart (self-evaluation and self-recording points for appropriate behaviors). Following booster sessions, self-management is implemented for target student during the CW-FIT session. The teacher initially prompts the self-management of behaviors during the CW-FIT sessions until students are able to record their points on the mini-charts independently. At the sound of the beep, the teacher marks team points on the goal chart, and then verbally directs self-management students to award themselves a point if they are engaged appropriately

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Noncompliance
  • High Levels of Disengagement
  • Disruptive Behavior
Where to Obtain:
Debra Kamps and Howard Wills
444 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS
913 321-3143
Initial Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

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)
Training Requirements:
4-8 hours of training

Training consists of a 3 hour workshop, followed by demonstation and modeling in the classroom by a CW-FIT coach for 2-3 sessions, followed by bi-weekly fidelity checks. A school-based coach can assume the role of CW-FIT coach.


Access to Technical Support:
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
  • BI ONLY: A classroom of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
30
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
16
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:

CW-FIT is a classroom management system with four primary components: teaching classroom rules/skills, using group contingency plans with differential reinforcement of appropriate behaviors (goal setting and points), minimizing social attention to inappropriate behavior (extinction) and the use of self-management and help cards for individual students who need enhancements to the group contingency. Three target skills are taught in class-wide lessons (1) gaining the teacher’s attention, (2) following directions, and (3) ignoring inappropriate behaviors. The teaching component uses scripted lessons last 3-5 days; and pre-corrects for skills are then implemented throughout all intervention sessions. The group contingency component of CW-FIT consists of a game format with class teams of 2-5 students (typically rows of students), and the use of a token economy. During the CW-FIT intervention period, the teacher sets the timer to beep every 2-3 minutes. At the beep, the teacher awards a point on the team chart to each team with ALL members engaged in appropriate behaviors. At the end of the class period, rewards were given to each team (all students on the team) who met the stated goal. Teachers provide differential reinforcement in the form of frequent, specific praise for appropriate behaviors and use of the skills when awarding team points, and to individuals and groups throughout the lesson. The self-management enhancement is designed for students who continue to have some difficulty during the initial sessions of CW-FIT intervention. Self-management consists of (a) two small group booster sessions for individual students and peers, and (b) use of a mini-chart on the students’ desk that matched the team goal chart posted for the class. Booster sessions focus on CW-FIT rules that are problematic for the target students, and modeling use of the self-management chart (self-evaluation and self-recording points for appropriate behaviors). Following booster sessions, self-management is implemented for target student during the CW-FIT session. The teacher initially prompts the self-management of behaviors during the CW-FIT sessions until students are able to record their points on the mini-charts independently. At the sound of the beep, the teacher marks team points on the goal chart, and then verbally directs self-management students to award themselves a point if they are engaged appropriately

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
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not 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
selected English language learners
not selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

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

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
selected Noncompliance
selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
not 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
444 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS
Phone Number
913 321-3143
Website

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
Unit of cost

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

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)

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

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

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

   3-25

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
30
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
16
not 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?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
4-8 hours of training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
Training consists of a 3 hour workshop, followed by demonstation and modeling in the classroom by a CW-FIT coach for 2-3 sessions, followed by bi-weekly fidelity checks. A school-based coach can assume the role of CW-FIT coach.

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)
not selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
Yes   

If yes, please describe: 

classroom teaching experience, though it is appropriate for first year tachers

Are training manuals and materials available?

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?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?

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.

Kamps, D., Wills, H., Heitzman-Powell, Jaylin, J., Szoke, C., Hobohm, T., Culey, A. (2011).  ClassWide function-related intervention teams: Effects of group contingency programs in urban classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 154-167.(included)

 

Kamps, D., Conklin, C., & Wills, H.  (in press).  Use of Self-Management with the CW-FIT Group Contingency Program.  Education and Treatment of Children. (included)

 

Schmidt, A.  (s).  The Effects of a Group Contingency on Group and Individual Behavior in an Urban First-Grade Classroom.  University of Kansas, Department of Humand Development and Family Life.  (included)

 

Wills, H., Shumate, E., Iwaszuk, W., & Kamps, D.  (in press).  CS-FIT: Group Contingency Effects Across the Day.  Education and Treatment of Children. (not included)

 

  

Study Information

Study Citations

Wills, H., Kamps, D., Fleming, K., Miller, A. & Hansen, B. Student Outcomes of the Class-Wide Function-related Intervention Team (CW-FIT) Program. To obtain: Contact Debra Kamps dkamps@ku.edu or Howard Wills hpwills@ku.edu

Participants Half Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Teachers nominated the students they were most concerned about for disruptive behavior using the ranking procedures outlined in the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1991).

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students met the cut-points for "at-risk" on the Social Skills Rating System problem behavior subscale (Gresham & Elliott).

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:
CW-FIT Program as previously described., see pages 19-21

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The baselines and comparison condition: Teachers generally had posted classroom rules, reminders about the rules, and reprimands for infractions. Many teachers used a response cost warning system with colored cards in pocket folders for each student. Repeated rule infractions resulted in the students moving their cards to a different color with consequences for each card change (5 minutes from recess, call to parent).

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):

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 24 19 0.05
Grade 1 30 23 0.00
Grade 2 26 15 0.17
Grade 3 31 27 0.12
Grade 4 34 19 0.22
Grade 5 24 28 0.35
Grade 6 3 1 0.43
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 70 59 0.15
American Indian 6 3 0.25
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2 0.43
Hispanic 37 23 0.12
White 66 42 0.11
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 117 90 0.08
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments 5 0 2.08
Learning Disabilities 13 14 0.30
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance 6 3 0.25
Intellectual Disabilities 5 1 0.68
Other 7 9 0.36
Not Identified With a Disability 135 98 0.03

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 38 37 0.23
Male 143 95 0.23

Mean Effect Size

0.32

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 Full 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.
The randomization procedure included sorting participating teachers within a school. This was done by grade levels (K-2 and 3-6), then randomly assigning teachers (classrooms) evenly from each level into the intervention and comparison groups. This randomization procedure occurred for each school as the school entered the project.

What was the unit of assignment?
Teachers
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 Half Bobble

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

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
23
Minimum group size
20
Maximum group size
25

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

Weeks
24.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Teachers were the interventionists. Data were not collected on teachers' experience. Weekly feedback and monitoring of fidelity was conducted.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
A 13-item procedural fidelity checklist (see Figure 1) was used to determine the use of CW-FIT intervention components during sessions (e.g., skills are prominently displayed on posters, pre-corrects on skills occur at beginning of session, point goal is determined, points are awarded to individuals/teams for use of the skills at set intervals, etc.). A total of 532 probes (mean, 5.8 sessions, range of 2-13 sessions across teachers) were collected in baseline for the experimental group and 1,484 (mean, 16.7, range, 3-29) during CW-FIT conditions across all four years.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Teachers in CW-FIT classrooms implemented the intervention with high fidelity, across all 4 years; averaging 92.4% (see Table 3). Baseline levels (use of intervention) was low 1-2%

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
Frequency of probes collected for the comparison group was 408 (mean, 5.3, range, 1-11) and 737 (mean, 9.9, range 1-23) across conditions, respectively. The use of procedures was low for comparison teachers ranging from 1%-2%.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash

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:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
1) General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) analyses were used because of the nested structure of the data consisting of students nested within classrooms. A three-level model was used to analyze the data Level 1--Time (pre and post) was nested within Level 2—Students, which were nested in Level 3—Classrooms; however, no variables were entered at the classroom level (level three) of the model. Gender was a level 2 covariate. Separate models were estimated for each dependent variable. First, an unconditional model was examined determining the amount of variability in the dependent variable due to classroom level influences. Then the predictor variables were added to the model examining their influence on engagement and disruptions. Coefficients were estimated using the PROC MIXED routine in SAS with maximum likelihood estimation. Fully unconditional HLM models were estimated in preliminary analyses. These random-effect models enable estimation of the between-classroom and within-classroom variances. The analyses determine if there are between classroom differences on the outcome variables of engagement and disruptions. Although student’s classrooms were nested within schools, examination of unconditional models revealed that there was not a significant amount of variation between schools while there was a significant amount of variation between classrooms; therefore the school level was not included in final analyses. There was significant between classroom variation for both engagement and disruptions. The adjusted intraclass correlations for the repeated measure models for each outcome were 18% and 22% respectively. This indicates that approximately 82% of the variation in on-task and 78% of the variation in disruptions can be contributed to individual student differences. 2) Fully unconditional HLM models were estimated in preliminary analyses. These random-effect models enable estimation of the between-classroom and within-classroom variances. The analyses determine if there are between classroom differences on the outcome variables of engagement and disruptions. Although student’s classrooms were nested within schools, examination of unconditional models revealed that there was not a significant amount of variation between schools while there was a significant amount of variation between classrooms; therefore the school level was not included in final analyses. 3) Multilevel regression analyses were conducted to evaluate child and teacher behavior, one for each dependent variable. Gender, time and group were the independent variables in all models.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
1
Citations for Additional Research Studies :
Wills, H. P., Iwaszuk, W. M., Kamps, D., & Shumate, E. (2014). CW-FIT: Group Contingency Effects Across the Day. Education & Treatment Of Children, 37(2), 191-210.

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.