Learning Strategies Curriculum: Self-Advocacy Strategy
Study: Van Reusen et al. (1989)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The 16 students involved in the study were drawn from a population of 35 high-school students with identified learning disabilities attending the same high school in a medium-sized community with a population of approximately 60,000 residents. The 16 students were selected to participate as subjects for the study because their annual IEP conferences had not yet taken place. The IEP conferences of the other 19 students enrolled in the special education program had been completed prior to the study. Each of the 16 subjects had been receiving special education services (i.e., instruction) for at least one hour but no more than three hours a day in the high school’s resource room program. During the remaining hours, they were enrolled in regular or general education high-school classes. All of the parents of the participating students signed informed consent forms.

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

The students involved in the study had been identified as exhibiting learning disabilities according to the State of Kansas, Department of Education guidelines, as their primary disability. However, as substantiated by a long history of research in the special education field, they had difficulties in the social/emotional realm. With parent approval, they had been assigned to the high school’s learning disabilities resource program on the recommendation of a multidisciplinary assessment team. Each of the 16 students had been receiving special education instruction for at least one hour per day, but no more than three hours per day, in the high-school’s resource room program. During the remaining hours of the school day, they were enrolled in general education classes. The subjects were assigned to either the treatment group (n=8) or the control group (n=8) through the use of a sampling without replacement plan. The age of the treatment group subjects ranged from 16 to 17.9 years (M = 17.1 yrs.). The treatment group included two white females, three black males, and three white males. The grade placement of the treatment students ranged from 10th grade to 12th grade, (M = 10.6). The treatment group’s WAIS Full Scale IQ scores ranged from 78 to 109 (M = 91.75), their WAIS verbal IQ scores ranged from 69 to 108 (M = 90.25), and their reading achievement, as measured on the Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (WJPB), ranged from the 4.2 grade level to the 9.5 grade level (M = 6.9). The control subjects included one white female and seven white males. Their ages ranged from 16.1 to 18.11 (M = 17.2 yrs.). The grade placement of the control subjects ranged from 10th to 12th grade (M = 10.8). The control group’s WAIS Full Scale IQ scores ranged from 80 to 102 (M = 91.13). Their WAIS Verbal IQ scores ranged from 76 to113 (M = 87.13), and their reading achievement scores on the WJPB ranged from the 2.3 grade level to the 12.4 grade level (M = 5.0). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to age, grade placement, and aptitude scores. In addition, no significant differences were found between the two groups on the severity of specific learning disability in the areas of reading, mathematics, and written language as derived from aptitude-achievement discrepancy scores. The statistical measure applied was a two-tailed Mann-Whitney Test at the .05 level. Although the students involved in the study had been identified as exhibiting learning disabilities as their primary disability, the majority of the 16 students also displayed behavioral difficulties in making and maintaining positive interpersonal relationships with others. They often exhibited a passive role in the general education classroom and did not know how to actively solicit positive teacher and peer attention. These students also exhibited deficits in effectively using pragmatic communication skills and behaviors such as initiating conversations, engaging in eye contact, turn-taking, sharing information, requesting assistance, or responding to queries and questions. Further, some of these students exhibited problems with anxiety, attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. One student had engaged in suicide ideation and self-mutilation. In short, these students manifested both specific learning disabilities and behavioral difficulties.

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?

100.0%

Please describe the study design:

Two designs were used: a multiple-baseline across-subjects design and a posttest-only control-group design. The multiple-baseline across-subjects design was used to evaluate the effects the Self-advocacy Strategy instruction on the treatment-group subjects. The post-test only control-group design was used to evaluate the effects of the intervention with regard to the actual student verbal contributions (type and quality) made by the treatment subjects and control subjects in their IEP conferences. The posttest-only design was chosen because of the infrequent nature of the IEP conference (only required annually for all students receiving special education services), which rendered other experimental designs requiring pretests inappropriate.

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

The individualized strategy-training procedures used for the subjects in the treatment group focused on three phases of skill acquisition: awareness, practice, and direct application (Deshler, Schumaker, & Lenz, 1984). The awareness phase involved discussing how a student could gain more control of over decisions about his/her education and transition into adult life. This interactive discussion also outlined the different types of information the student could share with teachers, counselors, parents, and other professionals during a conference. In addition, the instructor obtained each student’s commitment to learn the strategy and gave a commitment to the student to help facilitate his/her learning of the strategy. This part of the awareness phase lasted approximately 20 minutes. During the second part of the session of the awareness phase, the instructor described the general characteristics of an Education or Transition Planning Conference and provided rationales for the student to participate in a conference. The instructor also discussed the results the student could expect by learning and using the strategy. Further, using an interactive discussion (eliciting student responses), the instructor described the behaviors needed for effectively communicating during a conference (the SHARE Behaviors), provided rationales, and demonstrated each behavior. The instructor prompted the student to make a cue card of the SHARE Behaviors. Next, the instructor provided an in-depth description of the individual steps of the strategy (the IPLAN Steps), again using an interactive format (eliciting student responses) to describe each step. The interactive discussion of the “I” Step was focused on when and how to make an inventory of the student’s learning strengths, areas to improve or learn, goals, and choices for learning or accommodations. Then each remaining step of the strategy was described and modeled for the student. Students were provided examples of how the steps of the strategy could be used before and during the conference situation, the behavioral components of each strategy step and communication behavior were specified, and the strategy was modeled in its entirety for the student. This part of the awareness phase lasted approximately 50 minutes for each treatment student. The initial session for the practice phase of the strategy training began with a review that involved describing each step of the strategy, provided rationales for the use of each step, described the characteristics of an IEP conference, provided examples of how the steps of the strategy could be used before and during a conference situation, identified the behavioral components of each strategy step, and modeled the steps of the strategy in its entirety to the student. During this phase, the instructor provided students with a detailed and interactive demonstration of how to complete the Education Inventory Sheet, how provide inventoried information during a conference, how to listen and respond during a conference, how and when to ask questions during a conference, and how to name goals during a conference. Each student was provided with a blank Education Inventory Sheet, and each student constructed an inventory on which he/she listed his/her learning strengths, skills to be improved, goals, and choices for learning and learning aids. In order to help students fill in their Inventory Sheets, the instructor used skill lists to allow students to identify and list their perceived learning strengths, skills to be improved, goals and learning aids and choices for learning they found helpful. Each student was required to list at least five skills under each area heading for a total of 30 pieces of information. Next, each treatment subject was required to name the SHARE Behaviors and the strategy steps at mastery (100%) accuracy before being engaged in role-play activities. This accomplished through a verbal practice session where the student learned through a rapid-fire question and answer process to name the strategy steps and needed communication behaviors without the use of prompts or cue cards as aids. Once a treatment student demonstrated 100% mastery of naming the strategy steps and communication behaviors, answering three questions accurately without help three times, the date of mastery was noted and he/she moved on to the Simulated Conference probe that provided the student with individual practice and feedback from the instructor. Role-play activities involved having each treatment subject apply the strategy by responding to IEP-related questions, ask questions, and make comments during a simulated IEP conference. During this phase of the training procedures, the role-playing situations were tape recorded and reviewed by the student and the researcher. This procedure allowed the researcher to provide the student with feedback on each individual response or comment the student made during the simulated conference. After each role-playing session, the researcher scored the student’s responses and compared the student’s scores to the imposed criteria of at least three positive relevant responses scores and no more than one negative relevant response score across 75% of 10 informational categories used to categorize a subject’s responses during a conference (a minimum total of 30 positive relevant responses and a maximum of 10 negative responses). If a subject did not meet these criteria, the student’s performance was discussed, and the student was required to participate in another simulated conference role-playing activity until the mastery criterion was met. Finally, after reviewing the student’s mastery performance with the student, a direct application phase was initiated by the administration of a follow-up probe that served as a post-test for the individual treatment student. The researcher again asked the student the ten probe questions that were originally used to measure the student entry responses prior to the strategy training. This post-test allowed the researcher to compare the student performance after training to the student’s original performance and to share the results with the student.

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]):

For the multiple-baseline design, baseline data were collected on students’ verbal responses to ten IEP related probe questions across 15 of the 16 subjects once a week for an initial period of three weeks. (One control subject [C#1] did not participate in the baseline condition as this student had already been scheduled to have an annual IEP conference during the first week of the initial baseline condition, and the conference took place as scheduled.) After the initial three-week baseline condition, responses to the ten probe questions were evaluated for stability of verbal response performance. Stability of verbal response performance was defined as less than a 20% departure from the mean for the three consecutive data points. Following the initial three-week baseline condition, three treatment subjects who had established stability of verbal response performance were selected to begin individual intervention training. Meanwhile, two control subjects who also had demonstrated stability of performance during the initial three-week baseline period were scheduled for their IEP conferences. These two subjects and the one control subject (C#1) who did not participate in the baseline condition made up the first group of control subjects to have their IEP conferences. Control student C#1 was permitted to remain in the study and received an IEP orientation, as was the case for all control subjects. Upon individual successful completion of the intervention training by the first group of three treatment students, a fourth baseline probe was administered to the remaining ten students. After all subject responses were scored for the fourth baseline condition probe, three of the remaining control students who continued to demonstrate stability of verbal response performance were then scheduled for their IEP conference. Three treatment students exhibiting stability were scheduled for individual intervention training. When the second group of three treatment students had all successfully completed individual intervention training, a fifth baseline probe was administered to the two remaining control subjects and the two remaining treatment subjects. Stability of verbal response performance to the probe questions was attained by these four subjects by the fifth probe session. IEP conferences were scheduled for the two control subjects, and individual intervention training (and subsequent IEP conferences) were scheduled for the two treatment subjects. This staggered application sought to control for the effects of the repeated nature of the baseline condition (the administration of the same ten probe questions). Further, each control student was yolked with one of the treatment students. Each time a treatment student received a baseline probe, his or her yolked control student also received the probe. Thus, the study design sought to ensure that baseline data were evenly collected across the control and treatment subjects, and the number and frequency of intervention sessions were also provided evenly and consistently during of the study.

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 through the application of the instruction across three subjects at varying times in two replications of the design (6 students in all) and across two subjects at different times in one replication of the design. Thus, there were eight replications of the treatment effect.

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).

The study used a multiple-baseline design across three students in two replications of the design and across two students in the third replication of the design, for a total of eight replication of the treatment effect.

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

Concurrent

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:

Measures related to two instruments were excluded: ratings on a student satisfaction questionnaire and an adult satisfaction questionnaire. These questionnaires were used by the respondents to report their satisfaction with their participation in the IEP conference. Since these questionnaires were used to gather social validity measures (and not outcome measures), they were not listed above.