Kamps, Debra; Wills, Howard; Dawson-Bannister, Harriett; Heitzman-Powell, Linda; Kottwitz, Esther; Hansen, Blake; Fleming, Kandace. (2015). Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, v17 n3 p134-145. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1064035
Reviewed: March 2022
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 Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT).
Reviewed: October 2017
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On-Task Behavior (Student) |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
82.99 |
56.31 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 65% | |
| White | 35% |
The study took place in seventeen elementary schools in the midwestern United States. Schools were recruited across four years, but any individual school only participated in the study for one year. These schools were located in and near a metropolitan area. All schools were elementary schools enrolling students in kindergarten through fifth grade.
Sample characteristics are not provided on the student analytic sample. However, the authors do provide information about all students at the schools participating in the study. Across the 17 schools, an average of 79% of students were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and an average of 65% identified as a racial minority. Of the 86 teachers in the intervention condition, 78 identified as female and 8 as male. Of the 73 teachers in the comparison condition, 70 identified as female and 3 as male.
Prior to notification of group assignment, each teacher was asked to choose a time of day where they experience challenging student behaviors. These time periods were used for study implementation, and included math, reading, writing, science, and other. CW-FIT was administered 3-4 times per week over a 6 month period (from mid October to the end of March). During the first 3-5 sessions, three skills were taught to students: gaining teacher attention, following directions, and ignoring inappropriate peer behavior. CW-FIT's group contingency component took the form of a game played in small groups. A timer was set to beep every 2 to 3 minutes. The teacher would then award points to all members of a group if all students in that group were demonstrating appropriate behaviors at the time of the beep. Rewards were distributed at the end of class to all students who met a predefined behavioral goal. Rewards included tangibles (e.g., pencils) and fun activities. Teachers were instructed to reinforce positive behaviors and give "minimal attention" to inappropriate behaviors.
This study had a business as usual comparison condition. Teachers managed their classrooms as usual.
CW-FIT teachers were trained by project staff in a 2-hour training workshop. They also received modeling of the procedures for 2-3 sessions, and weekly feedback from building coaches (district employees paid by the university through grant funding) and researchers. The building coaches provided additional modeling and feedback to teachers based on fidelity data, including a verbal report on their use of praise, reprimands, CW-FIT procedures, and class on-task data.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube