Student and Teacher Outcomes of the Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Team Efficacy Trial
Wills, Howard; Kamps, Debra; Fleming, Kandace; Hansen, Blake (2016). Exceptional Children, v83 n1 p58-76 Oct 2016. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116304
-
examining313Students, gradesK-6
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Time on task |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Disruptive behaviors |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
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.
-
Male: 70%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 159 elementary school classrooms in 17 elementary schools.
Study sample
The average age was 8 years old, with a total range of age 6-12. The sample was over 70% male, and approximately two-thirds of students qualified for free or reduced-priced lunch. Approximately two-thirds of students were minorities. 46% of the experimental group had an individual education plan (IEP), compared to 34% of the control group. Students and classrooms were fairly evenly distributed across grades K-5, with the exception of 6th grade and Special Education.
Intervention Group
The intervention provides class-wide lessons for 6 months (October through March). The procedures included (a) focusing teacher attention and points on appropriate behavior and minimizing attention directed to inappropriate behaviors, (b) creating teams to promote peer social attention to compliance with CW-FIT rules, (c) teaching hand raising, (d) using self-management for individual behavior to get teacher praise and attention from peers who are chosen as self-managers, and (e) using help cards as an alternative to using inappropriate behaviors to escape tasks. CW-FIT’s group-contingency component includes differential reinforcement for use of the skills, using points and rewards. Classes are divided into teams, a goal for the number of points is identified, and CW-FIT is implemented during a specified class period 3 to 5 days each week. All teams that meet the goal at the end of the CW-FIT session earn the reward. Tier 2 level self-management and help card components are implemented for students who are non responsive to CW-FIT.
Comparison Group
The control class condition received normal classroom management procedures. Teachers generally had posted classroom rules, reminders about the rules, and reprimands for infractions. Many teachers used a warning system with colored cards in pocket folders for each student.
Support for implementation
Teacher training for implementation consisted of 2 hours of training by project staff in the CW-FIT procedures, modeling of the scripts and using the point system by the building coaches or project staff, and feedback from the building coaches. Training consisted of: (a) teaching skills and practice using the scripts; (b) introducing the intervention, teams, points, setting goals, and rewards; (c) practicing using specific praise and points for targeted skills; (d) practicing with the timer and point delivery together; (e) establishing a reward menu; and (f) discussing potential problems and solutions using the intervention. Feedback from the coaches consisted of use of the fidelity checklist and additional modeling as needed. Coaches also assisted in data collection and shared on-task data and fidelity data with teachers on a biweekly basis. Teaching of skills followed a direct instruction model. Teachers defined the skill, modeled the skill, teachers and students role-played the skill, and teachers provided feedback as students practiced the skill. Each new skill was introduced with a lesson and then practiced for 2 to 3 days prior to teaching an additional skill. Students who did not perform well were eligible to receive more instruction, including the self-management and/or help cards interventions.
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).