Modifying Students' Classroom Behaviors Using an Electronic Daily Behavior Report Card
Williams, Kashunda L.; Noell, George H.; Jones, Beth A.; Gansle, Kristin A. (2012). Child & Family Behavior Therapy, v34 n4 p269-289 2012. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ984745
-
examining46Students, grades1-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) - Internalizing |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
43.65 |
53.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) - Internalizing |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily behavior report cards without performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
40.70 |
53.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) - Internalizing |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily Behavior Report Card with performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group.;
|
46.40 |
53.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent of Time Intervals with Disruptive Behavior |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
24.47 |
59.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) - Teacher Report Form: Ages 6-18 - Externalizing |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
54.01 |
58.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)-Teacher Report Form: Ages 6-18 - Total Problems |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
55.66 |
58.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Conners' Rating Scales-revised (CRS-R), ADHD Index (short form) |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample;
|
57.25 |
60.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percent of Time Intervals with Disruptive Behavior |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily Behavior Report Card with performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
20.60 |
59.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Percent of Time Intervals with Disruptive Behavior |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily behavior report cards without performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
28.60 |
59.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) - Teacher Report Form: Ages 6-18 - Externalizing |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily behavior report cards without performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
53.60 |
58.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) - Teacher Report Form: Ages 6-18 - Externalizing |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily Behavior Report Card with performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
54.40 |
58.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Conners' Rating Scales-revised (CRS-R), ADHD Index (short form) |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily Behavior Report Card with performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group.;
|
54.10 |
60.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)-Teacher Report Form: Ages 6-18 - Total Problems |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily Behavior Report Card with performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
54.60 |
58.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)-Teacher Report Form: Ages 6-18 - Total Problems |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily behavior report cards without performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
56.80 |
58.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Conners' Rating Scales-revised (CRS-R), ADHD Index (short form) |
Daily behavior report cards – Williams et al. (2012) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Daily behavior report cards without performance feedback – Williams et al. (2012) vs. business-as-usual comparison group;
|
60.60 |
60.00 |
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.
-
Female: 20%
Male: 80% -
- 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, South
-
Race Black 13% White 87% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 17 classrooms in two K-5 elementary schools, one public and one private, located in the Southeastern and Midwestern United States.
Study sample
The study sample comprised forty-six students in total. Most of the students (87%) were Caucasian (non-Hispanic). Thirteen percent of students were African American. Eighty percent of students were male and 20% were female. Most students (82%) were in grade 3. A few students were in grades 1, 4, and 5. In summary, the study sample was primarily comprised of Caucasian, male, grade 3 students.
Intervention Group
For both interventions delivered in the intervention condition, parents emailed a blank daily behavior report card (DBRC) to the teacher before each school day. The teacher then completed the DBRC, evaluating the student's behavior that day, and returned the completed form to the parents. Parents initiated consequences based on the teacher's daily evaluation. This process was repeated five days per week over the three-week intervention period. For the intervention that included performance feedback, teachers provided feedback to parents three times, once at the start of each week of the intervention. This performance feedback focused on the number of emails sent by parents and on consequence delivery based on teacher reports.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the "business-as-usual" condition received classroom instruction as usual with no DBRC emails to parents.
Support for implementation
The authors of the study viewed the DBRC intervention as being parent-initiated. Therefore, formal training was not provided to teachers on how to complete the emailed DBRCs. However, the researchers did explain the overall procedures and responsibilities involved in the intervention to the teachers so that they understood their role in evaluating student behavior daily and communicating it back to parents via the emailed DBRC. Parents in the intervention conditions were provided with a DBRC template that they were instructed to email to their child's teacher each day. Parents in the DBRC with performance feedback condition were provided with additional support from the study authors. The authors provided these parents weekly performance feedback and encouragement and answered their questions about the intervention.
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).