The effects of multi-component, assessment-based curricular modifications on the classroom behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(4), 481–500.
-
examining3Students, grades1-4
Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report (977 KB)
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 66%
Male: 34% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in classrooms serving students with an emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD) at a public elementary school in a large southeastern US city. Ann and Michael were in the same classroom, which was served by one teacher and one aide. Gizelle was in a different classroom that was also served by one teacher and one aide. The study was conducted during English classes for Michael and Gizelle and during handwriting sessions for Ann.
Study sample
Three students were part of the study sample. All three students had been labeled “severely emotionally disturbed” by officials in their school. Each student exhibited problem behaviors and lack of task engagement prior to the study. Michael and Ann were 7 years old, and Gizelle was 9 years old. Michael and Ann were in the same classroom, although Michael was considered second-grade status, while Ann was first-grade status. Gizelle was in the fourth grade.
Intervention
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures included a review of records; interviews with teachers, students, and parents; and classroom observations. Based on the FBA, a multi-component, curricular intervention was designed for each student. The FBA-based intervention packages for all three students included elements of choice—Michael and Gizelle were allowed to choose from a menu of worksheets, and Ann was allowed to choose what words she would trace on a worksheet. Michael’s intervention also included dividing each longer assignment into two shorter assignments, and the font size of all printed materials was increased. For Gizelle, worksheets were modified by highlighting certain words to draw attention to them, adding pictures to clarify instructions, and adjusting worksheets to a lower reading level that was more consistent with her ability level; longer assignments were also divided into two shorter assignments. Ann’s intervention gave her the opportunity to select food items from a mock grocery store, after tracing food names on four different worksheets.
Comparison
The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for all three students. The baseline/withdrawal condition consisted of normal classroom activities without modifications.
Support for implementation
Not reported.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).