Extending Self-Management Strategies: the use of a Classwide Approach
Hoff,Kathryn E., Ervin,Ruth A. (2013). Psychology in the Schools, 50(2) 151-164.
-
examining64Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Classwide self-management - Hoff & Ervin (2013))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without 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.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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: 100% -
- 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
Midwest
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a public K-5 elementary school located in a Midwestern community.
Study sample
The three target students are male, located in general education classrooms, do not have academic deficits, and are not receiving special education services. Two of the target students had a prior diagnosis of ADHD.
Intervention Group
The intervention consisted of a teacher-directed phase and a self-management phase. Before starting the teacher-directed phase, the teacher and researchers worked together to define two or three rules for the classrooms. During the teacher-directed phase, students were taught about the the classroom rating scale, and teachers aimed to provide consistent feedback on student behavior to inform student learning. At the beginning of this phase, teachers described the new classroom rules to the students and outlined the rating system. Students received a class-wide rating from the teacher based on their behavior on a scale of 1-5. On this scale, 1 was "totally unacceptable", corresponding to breaking one or more rules for the entire period. A rating of 5 was "excellent", which corresponded to following all the rules for the entire period. The teacher would announce to students when the rating period had begun, which would correspond to a specific instructional block such as reading. At the end of the period, the teacher provided a class rating for each rule as well as specific feedback on why the class had received that rating. Rewards for student behavior depended upon the behavior of the entire class, also known as an interdependent group contingency. Rewards included small prizes or access to desirable activities. Students monitored both class-wide adherence to the classroom rules as well as their own behavior during the self-management phase. Students provided a rating of the classroom behavior and their own behavior using the same 1- to 5-point scale as the teacher had. The classroom rating was based on a class-wide vote on a randomly-selected classroom rule. Teachers did not provide individual reinforcement of student behaviors during the self-management phase, and instead used the interdependent group contingency as a method of rewarding appropriate behaviors.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group for single-case designs. During the baseline condition, the classroom teachers conducted business as usual classroom instruction. The baseline for Classroom 1 lasted until session 9, the baseline for Classroom 2 lasted until session 13, and the baseline for Classroom 3 lasted until session 18. Classroom 3 briefly returned to the baseline condition for three sessions after the intervention phase due to variability in the initial baseline phase.
Support for implementation
Teachers received four hours of training during teacher in-service, led by the first author, the school psychologist, and a graduate student. The training focused on the components of the self-management intervention, which included details about the self-management strategies. Teachers met regularly with the graduate student to debrief about the intervention, discuss implementation, and collaborate on solutions to any difficulties the teachers were facing.
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).