Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT )
Study: Schmidt (n.d.)

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

Schmidt, A. The effects of a group contingency on group and individual behavior in an urban first-grade classroom. To obtain: Contact Debra Kamps dkamps@ku.edu

Participants Half Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students were participating in CW-FIT intervention program and met criteria and had parental consent to monitor performance. Students were not as responsive to initial intervention as other students and thus were selected to also participate in self-management as a tier 2 level of CW-FIT.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were nominated by their teacher based on frequent disruptive behavior and ranking using the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker et al.). Students met the cut score for 'at-risk' on the SSRS Problem Behavior subscale.

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 Half Bobble

Please describe the study design:
A reversal single case design ABAB was used to demonstrate experimental control.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
CW-FIT as described in prior sections.

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]):
During baseline the school was implementing School-wide Positive Behavior Support. The teacher taught expectations in the classroom and acknowledged appropriate behavior using hole punches on a reward ticket linked to the SWPBS.

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

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 design

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

Fidelity of Implementation Half Bobble

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

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
11
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
16.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
Condition B
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
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 teachers was the interventionist, a first year teacher, female. Researchers provided training and in class monitoring was provided twice weekly.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
A 16-item procedural fidelity checklist 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). The ratings were scored as yes or no. Fidelity probes were conducted during all data sessions in baseline and intervention phases.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Fidelity during intervention averaged 89% (range, 20% to 100%).

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
No

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:
Class-wide on task data and teacher praise and reprimand data are excluded. Only individual target data is reported.

Results Half 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, mean difference

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.
Disruptive Behavior Data (see Figure 1): During baseline, Student 1 had a mean of 23 disruptions (range, 2 to 36), st dev 13.5 per 10-min observation period. The number of disruptions immediately dropped well below baseline levels and became stable when CW-FIT was implemented (M = 7; range, 2 to 14, stdev 3.1). Upon removal of intervention, her disruptions increased to a mean of 21 (range, 10 to 28), st dev 9.4. When intervention was re-implemented, disruptions returned to levels below both the initial and second baseline, with a mean of 4 (range, 2 to 6), st dev 2.2. Student 2 disruptions, before CW-FIT, were a mean of 28 (st dev 11.5)and were quite variable (range, 16 to 49). Mean disruptions dropped dramatically when intervention was introduced, to 4 (range, 0 to 10), st dev 3.2 per 10-min observation. In the return to baseline, mean number of disruptions increased to 16 (range, 5 to 22), st dev 9.5. With the reintroduction of CW-FIT in the classroom, disruptions fell to a mean of 6 (range, 0 to 18), st dev 6.7. Student 3 mean disruptions in baseline were 18 (range, 3 to 27), st dev 7.2. This decreased to 2 (range, 0 to 8), st dev 2.8 with the implementation of CW-FIT. Disruptions rose sharply when intervention was removed (M = 16; range, 3 to 31), st dev 9.8; but when CW-FIT was reintroduced, disruptions returned to levels seen during the first intervention phase (M = 3; range, 0 to 5), st dev 2.1. On Task Data (see Figure 2): Student 1 baseline on-task mean = 77% (range, 62% to 100%), st dev 13.7. After implementing intervention, on-task behavior rose slightly to 79% (st dev 28.7) and the data remained variable (range, 17% to 100%). In the return to baseline, on-task mean was 43% (range, 3% to 100%), st dev 50.6. On-task behavior rose substantially during the final implementation of CW-FIT and stabilized at a mean of 99% (range, 97% to 100%), st dev 1.3. Student 2 on-task behavior was variable during initial baseline, mean of 61% of intervals, with a range of 19% to 100%, st dev 28.6. Mean percentage on-task rose to 95% (st dev 13.2) when intervention was in place in phase two and variability substantially decreased with 9 of 13 days at 100% of intervals on-task (range, 52% to 100%). On-task behavior fell only slightly to 90% (range, 70% to 100%, st dev 17.3) when intervention was removed. Final implementation of CW-FIT, mean percent on-task rose to 96% (range, 84% to 100%, st dev 6.2). Student 3 on-task behavior during baseline was variable, mean 68% (range, 31% to 100%), st dev 26.3. On-task behavior stabilized to a mean of 97% (st dev 5.9) when CW-FIT was introduced, range of 83% to 100%. When CW-FIT was removed, mean percentage on-task was reduced to 76% of intervals (st dev 24.2) and the data again became more variable, with a range of 52% to 100%. On-task behavior returned to high levels when CW-FIT was reintroduced (M = 94%; range, 70% to 100%, st dev 13.4).

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.