Choice as an Antecedent Intervention
Study: Dunlap et al. (1994)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were referred for the study by their homeroom teacher.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):

Based on diagnoses of EBD and observed problem behaviors

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?

%

Please describe the study design:

Study 1: Reversal Design. Comparision of Choice and No-Choice. Wendall- ABAB and Sven- ABA Study 2: (Ahmad only) - Reversal Design. Comparison of Choice and No Choice. ABAB design. The second No Choice condition was yoked to the preceding choice phase in an effort to distinguish the effects of preference from choice making.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:

Study 1: (Wendall and Sven) Tasks presented in both conditions were typical independent activities that were appropriate for the students' level of achievement and consistent with the classroom's movement throughout the designated curriculum. Analyses for Wendall were conducted during English and for Sven during Spelling. Students were given an individualized menu of academic activities in their classroom. The menus were written on pieces of paper and remained on the studens' desks throughout the class period. The menus contained 6-8 options for Wendall and 8-10 options for Sven. The menus were presented by first asking if the participant wished to choose his assignments on that day. The participant was then asked to select from the menu and was allowed to review the assignments and materials before selecting. The participant was also permitted to change tasks in the middle of a session. Study 2: (Ahmad) The participant was expected to listen to one of eight story books that was selected and read by the behavior consultant (who served as teacher). During the Choice phase, the consultant allowed Ahmad to select the book he was read. Appropriate listening and participation were followed with specific praise statements and affection from the teacher. Mild off-task and disruptive behaviors were ignored.

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):

Study 1: (Wendall and Sven) In the No Choice condition, academic assignments for the day were routinely presented on the blackboard. The assignments were selected by the teacher and the students were expected to complete the assignments independently as listed on the board. Study 2: (Ahmad) During the No Choice condition, prior to the session the consultant selected a book at random from a pool of eight options. During the second No Choice Yoked Control condition, the consultant read the same books that Ahmad had selected during the previous Choice condition.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)

Reversal design for each participant.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).

ABAB was conducted with two of the three participants. An ABA design was used with the third.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?

N/A

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

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 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.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion: