Progress Monitoring Using Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales in a Multiple-Baseline Design Study of the Daily Report Card Intervention
Fabiano, Gregory A.; Pyle, Kellina; Kelty, Mary Bridget; Parham, Brittany R. (2017). Assessment for Effective Intervention, v43 n1 p21-33. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1160518
-
examining3Students, grades4-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Daily Report Cards)
- 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
New York
-
Race Other or unknown 33% White 67% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was implemented in general education classrooms. Andrew was in grade 4, Stephen was in grade 5, and John was in grade 4.
Study sample
The sample consists of fourth-grade and fifth-grade students in general education classrooms. All three students are male. One student is Hispanic and two of the students are White.
Intervention Group
During the intervention phase, teachers provided daily behavior report cards on target disruptive and academic engagement behaviors. Parents reviewed the feedback and provided praise and agreed-upon home-based privileges if the student met their goals. For Andrew, the intervention was implemented during 15 math classes over the course of 2-3 weeks. For Stephen, the intervention was implemented during 16 English and math classes over the course of 3-4 weeks. For John, the intervention was implemented during 12 lunch/afternoon transitions over the course of 3 weeks.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group for single-case designs. The baseline phases likely consisted of typical classroom practices without the daily report card. The baseline period varied across participants: 19 days for Andrew, 22 days for Stephen, and 30 days for John. The baseline condition was business as usual.
Support for implementation
Consultants held an initial meeting with teachers to identify current behavior management approaches, target behaviors for the students, and potential antecedents and consequences for target behaviors. The consultants also explained data collection procedures to the teacher. Informed by this initial meeting, consultants developed the daily behavior report card and identified rewards for each student in dialogue with parents. All teachers participated in a 40-minute video training on how to complete the daily behavior report card. The authors noted that consultation integrity was based on completion of the steps for the Problem Identification Inventory, Problem Analysis Inventory, and Problem Evaluation Inventory by the consultant with the teacher. The consultant completed all the steps for all cases.
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).