Tactile Prompting and Weekly Performance Feedback for Increasing Teachers' Behavior-Specific Praise
O'Handley, Roderick D.; Dufrene, Brad A.; Whipple, Heather (2018). Journal of Behavioral Education, v27 n3 p324-342. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1187557
-
examining47Students, grades1-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Behavior-specific praise with tactile prompting - O'Handley et al. (2018))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet 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: 45%
Male: 55% -
Race Black 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 three elementary general education classrooms: one grade 1 and two grade 5 classrooms. The school enrolled 441 students in grades pre-K through grade 5. Eighty percent of students at the school were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 96 percent of the student population identified as Black. No information is provided on the school location or type.
Study sample
All of the students are Black, 55 percent are male, and 26 percent receive additional behavioral support through the school's response to intervention process. The three teachers are female. Two teachers are White, and one teacher is Black.
Intervention Group
The intervention components for the teachers consist of a brief (15-minute) consultation, tactile prompting (supported by MotivAider, a device that vibrates to provide tactile reminders at regular intervals), and two brief (15-minute) performance feedback sessions (one per week). The intervention components for the students consist of behavior-specific praise provided by the teacher during math class (Classrooms 1-2) and unspecified class time (Classroom 3). Training on the behavior-specific praise was provided to teachers one month prior to screening for inclusion in the consultation. The intervention phase lasted for approximately two weeks. The maintenance phase lasted for three sessions, corresponding to approximately one week. No training or assistance was provided by the researcher.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Teachers continued to respond to student behavior as they typically would. No training or assistance was provided by the researcher. The baseline phases lasted for between one and two weeks, depending on the teacher.
Support for implementation
All teachers at the study school received professional development on Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and delivering behavior-specific praise. The first author served as the consultant for the behavior-specific praise training and provided consultations to teachers during the intervention phase.
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).