Positive Behavior Change: Effects of an Intervention Package for Disruptive Behavior in a Specialized School Setting
Stremel, J. Meredith; Hawkins, Renee O.; Collins, Tai A.; Nabors, Laura (2022). Psychology in the Schools, v59 n3 p607-627. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1325774
-
examining20Students, grades2-6
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Positive peer reporting and dependent group contigency - Stremel et al. (2022))
- 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.
-
Female: 15%
Male: 85% -
- 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 Black 55% White 45% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at an alternative school that served students identified with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) located in the Midwest.
Study sample
The study sample is 45% White, 55% Black, and 85% male. All students were receiving special education services and had an EBD diagnosis.
Intervention Group
The intervention, which includes positive peer reporting and a randomized dependent group contingency, was implemented for 11-to-13 class sessions (depending on the class). Positive peer reporting involves offering students the opportunity to provide positive feedback to other students in the classroom, and teachers praising students when they were successful at providing positive feedback. During the randomized dependent group contingency, teachers rate randomly chosen student every five minutes based on whether they were engaged in on-task behavior. At the end of the rating period, the teacher calculates the percentage of time the student is observed as on-task. If the on-task behavior is observed at least 80% of the time, the teacher shares the name of the student with the class and that the student had earned that day's reward for the class.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group for single-case designs. During the baseline condition, the teachers engaged in their usual classroom practices. The study included 10-12 baseline/withdrawal sessions, depending on the class.
Support for implementation
During the baseline phase, the principal investigator provided two 20-minute training sessions to the teachers, including training on intervention procedures and an intervention script. Before implementing the intervention, the primary researcher and teaching team conducted a classroom training session to introduce the intervention package to the students.
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).