Contrasting approaches to the response-contingent learning of young children with significant delays and their social–emotional consequences
Dunst, C. J., Raab, M., & Hamby, D. W. (2017). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 63, 67-73.
-
examining71Students, gradePK
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2018
- IES Performance Measure (findings for IES Funded Studies )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Response contingent behavior per game |
IES Funded Studies vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
18.31 |
4.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent of learning trials with reinforcing consequence behavior |
IES Funded Studies vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
99.99 |
52.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Response contingent behavior, counts |
IES Funded Studies vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Concomitant child social-emotional behavior |
IES Funded Studies vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Collateral child social-emotional behavior |
IES Funded Studies vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Average non-prompted child behavior with reinforcing consequences per minute |
IES Funded Studies vs. Other intervention |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study included children and their families in three southeastern states in the United States. The intervention was delivered during home visits that practitioners made to children's homes.
Study sample
Practitioners visited children in their homes weekly or every other week for 8 weeks and, together with children’s parents, identified target behavior. The practitioners and parents also identified child-specific learning games related to these the target behaviors. Parents taught these learning games to their children during and between home visits. The only difference between the asset-based (intervention) and needs-based (comparison) groups was the manner in which target behaviors were identified—existing behaviors or “assets” were identified for the intervention group and missing behaviors or “needs” were identified for the comparison group. In the asset-based procedure used for the intervention group, parents and practitioners observed children’s daily home activities and parents provided feedback on the types of behavior their children used. Observations were guided by an investigator-developed checklist of behaviors. The parents and practitioners identified and focused on target behaviors that the children already used but had not used intentionally to produce social or learning interactions.
Intervention Group
The children in the comparison group had target behaviors identified based on a needs-based procedure. Through this procedure, children’s missing skills were identified using the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming Systems. The skills identified were part of six domains: fine motor, gross motor, adaptive, cognitive, social-communication, and social.
Comparison Group
Practitioners visited children in their homes weekly or every other week for 8 weeks and together with children's parents, identified missing skills that needed to be taught. They also identified learning games in which the target behavior was taught. Children's parents taught these learning games to their children during and between home visits. The only difference between the intervention and comparison groups was the manner in which target behaviors were identified—existing behaviors or 'assets' were identified for the intervention group and missing behaviors or "needs" were identified for the comparison group. The children in the comparison group had target behaviors identified based on a needs-based procedure. Through this procedure, children's missing skills were identified using the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming Systems (AEPS). The skills identified were part of six domains: fine motor, gross motor, adaptive, cognitive, social-communication, and social.
Support for implementation
Staff were taught the intervention practices over 2 months using an evidence-based procedure for adult learning. This procedure had four phases of learning: "1) acquiring information about and examples of the intervention practices; (2) authentic use of the interventions and evaluating the characteristics and outcomes of the practices; (3) reflecting on their overall understanding and mastery of the practices; and (4) identifying and participating in additional opportunities to learn to use their particular approach to intervention" (Raab et al., 2017). Staff learned what practices to identify using video examples and staff engaged in role playing and feedback to ensure they were consistent. These staff taught parents to use the practices in their homes using the same procedures.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Raab, M., Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2017). Efficacy trial of contrasting approaches to the response-contingent learning of young children with significant developmental delays and multiple disabilities. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 12-28.
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).