Increasing Teacher Praise and on Task Behavior for Students With Autism Using Mobile Technology.
Rivera, C. J., Mason, L. L., Jabeen, I., & Johnson, J. (2015). Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643415617375.
-
examining5Students, gradesK-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Mobile device prompts for teacher praise – Rivera et al. (2015))
- 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: 60%
Male: 40% -
Suburban
-
- 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
West
-
Race Other or unknown 80% White 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 80% Not Hispanic or Latino 20% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a suburban elementary school in two self-contained autism units. The school was located in the Southwestern United States.
Study sample
Of the five student participants, two are in kindergarten, two are in grade 4, and one is in grade 5. Two of the participants are male, and three are female. Race and ethnicity were combined in reporting: authors note that four of the participants are Hispanic, and one is Caucasian. All students have autism, and four of the five have multiple disabilities (including three with intellectual disorders, one of whom also has cerebral palsy, and the fourth student has ADHD). The older students are in a program focused on life skills, while the two younger students are in a pull-out program. All students had behavior intervention plans (BIPs) included with their individualized education program (IEP) and were selected for the study due to high rates of off-task behavior.
Intervention Group
Teachers or paraprofessionals were given a mobile device and were instructed to offer praise to students whenever prompted by the device. The positive praise was supposed to be related to some form of student on-task behavior. Teachers were instructed to use differential reinforcement if the participants were not on-task, such as praising another student's behavior or reminding students about what on-task behaviors look like. The intervention used a free high-intensity interval training application (HIIT) that was installed on a Samsung Galaxy Player. Instructors were asked to place the Samsung Galaxy Player in their pocket, and the device would vibrate to provide the prompt. If instructors didn't have a pocket, they were allowed to wear an ear bud which would give an audio prompt. Data were collected for 21-24 sessions for each student, including 10 sessions in the intervention phase. Only one session occurred per day, so the study was at least 5 weeks long. The sessions were either academic or functional (i.e., recreation and leisure) sessions. Each session was 10 minutes long, and the prompts were provided every 15 seconds.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. The baseline phases were implemented during individual and group instruction in academic (e.g., reading and writing) or functional lessons (e.g., recreation and leisure). The two observed baseline phases lasted between 5-9 sessions each.
Support for implementation
Data collectors provided training to the study interventionists (teachers and paraprofessionals). The training provided instruction how to use the mobile devices and how to perform behavior-specific praise when prompted by the device. The researchers supplied the mobile devices during the intervention phases.
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).