Self Management
Study: Barry & Messer (2003)

Summary

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
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Noncompliance
  • Disruptive Behavior
Where to Obtain:
Non-Branded Intervention
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

The intervention is a non-branded so there is no cost beyond the price of supporting materials which might include laminating sheets and rewards to give to students for meeting behavioral goals.

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:
Training Requirements:
Training not required


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:
No
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

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
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
not 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
Phone Number
Website

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$0.00
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)

The intervention is a non-branded so there is no cost beyond the price of supporting materials which might include laminating sheets and rewards to give to students for meeting behavioral goals.

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?
No

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 ?
0

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Training not required.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

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
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

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?
No

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?
No

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.

Barry, L. M., & Messer, J. J. (2003). A practical application of self-management for students diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(4), 238-248.

 

Harris, K. R., Friedlander, B. D., Saddler, B., Frizzelle, R., & Graham, S. (2005). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance effects among students with ADHD in the general education classroom. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 145-157.

 

Rock, M. L., & Thead, B. K. (2007). The effects of fading a strategic self-monitoring intervention on

students’ academic engagement, accuracy, and productivity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16,

389–412. doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9049-7.

 

Vance, M. J., Gresham, F. M., & Dart, E. H. (2012). Relative effectiveness of DRO and self-monitoring

in a general education classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 89–109.

Study Information

Study Citations

Barry, L. M. & Messer, J. J. (2003). A practical application of self-management for students with attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(4) 238-248.

Participants Half Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students were selected based on having displayed disruptive behaviors commonly associated with ADHD.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were identified by independent physicians as having ADHD. Diagnoses were based on information from and in consultation with the student’s families and school personnel. In addition, the students were currently taking medication for ADHD.

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?
%

Provide a description of the demographic and other relevant characteristics of the case used in your study (e.g., student(s), classroom(s)).

Case (Name or number) Age/Grade Gender Race / Ethnicity Socioeconomic Status Disability Status ELL status Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics
test test test test test test test test

Design Full Bobble

Please describe the study design:
A multiple baseline across five students was used. Each of the legs of the multiple baseline had a withdrawal embedded to assess the effectiveness of the self-management intervention for students.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
The intervention consisted of an initial student conference and a self-management training implemented by the teacher. The initial student meeting consisted of explaining the intervention, identifying a target behavior, setting goals, and establishing a reward system. Both the teacher and student monitored the student’s behavior and if they agreed, the student received a reward.

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]):
The teacher and paraprofessional recorded the student’s engagement behavior during baseline and provided praise for on-task behavior. Otherwise, the phase was business as usual.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)
The design included both multiple baseline across students and a withdrawal within students which provides additional protection against threats to internal validity that a multiple baseline along cannot provide. As such, there was replication both across participants and within each individual.

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).
There were five across individual replications and an additional three AB phases within students providing at least three demonstrations of experimental control both within and across cases.

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

Fidelity of Implementation Empty 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.)?

Condition A
Weeks
1.00
Sessions per week
4.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
120.00
Condition B
Weeks
1.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
120.00
Condition C
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The teacher implemented the intervention and provided training to students. The teacher provided instruction, modeling, and feedback to students. Information regarding the extent of support provided to the teacher was lacking.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Fidelity was evaluated using permanent product data recording sheets to assess student adherence. Specific fidelity data such as the percentage of steps implemented was not reported.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Inconclusive.

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
Fidelity was not measured at baseline though it is reasonable to assume that the intervention was not in place given the need to train the students.

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 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.
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Targeted Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Broader Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance
Admin Measure 1 Yes A2
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Results Full Bobble

Describe the method of analyses you used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g., visual inspection, computation of change score, mean difference):
Visual inspection was used to determine the overall effectiveness of the intervention for both on-task and disruptive behaviors.

Please present results in terms of within and between phase patterns. Data on the following data characteristics must be included: level, trend, variability, immediacy of the effect, overlap, and consistency of data patterns across similar conditions. Submitting only means and standard deviations for phases is not sufficient. Data must be included for each outcome measure (targeted, broader, and administrative if applicable) that was described above.
On-task. The on-task behaviors were grouped into attention and being seated. With regards to the attention variable, there does appear to be a consistent level and trend change both within and across all five students. These results are also observed for seated behavior. Disruptive. The disruptive behaviors were grouped into loud noises and physical behaviors. It appears that four out of the five students did have data patterns that would suggest an intervention effect for making loud noises. Specifically, there are a number of level and trend changes across phases to support this claim. The data for Student #5 does not support this as there were no loud noises recorded in baseline suggesting that this was not an issue for this student .In terms of physical aggression, the data does not support an intervention effect across students because there are very few instances across students in baseline. The exception might be Student #2 and Student #4 whose data do seem indicate that physical aggression was reduced. However, taken across the entire design, it appears that physical aggression was not positively influenced by the intervention.

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 :
Vance, M. J., Gresham, F. M., & Dart, E. H. (2012). Relative Effectiveness of DRO and Self-Monitoring in a General Education Classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 89-109.

Data Collection Practices

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.

Summary

Program Information
Descriptive Information
Program Specifications
Training
Evidence Base

Study Information
Study Citations
Participants
Design
Fidelity of Implementation
Measures and Results

Additional Research

Data Collection Practices