Kern, Lee; Starosta, Kristin M.; Bambara, Linda M.; Cook, Clayton R.; Gresham, Frank R. (2007). Behavioral Disorders, v32 n2 p94-108. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ785293
Reviewed: December 2016
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report (977 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
For Beatriz, the study took place during math, reading, and science in her special education classroom at an urban public middle school on the east coast. The study with Sean was conducted in his general education classroom in an urban public elementary school on the west coast, during language arts.
This study included two children (Beatriz and Sean) with selective mutism. Beatriz also had an emotional/behavioral disorder, and Sean was at risk for an emotional disturbance. Beatriz was 13 years old and in the eighth grade. Sean was 11 years old and in the fourth grade.
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for both students included review of records, observations, and interviews of parents, school staff, case workers, and students. The FBA-based interventions for both students consisted of having teachers ask questions in a way that required a verbal response, asking questions that were easy to answer, and notifying the student at the beginning of class how many questions would be asked. As a reward for meeting the day’s predetermined criterion, Sean could receive 5–10 minutes of extra recess time with a buddy. This reward was systematically faded. In addition, as part of an existing classwide reinforcement system, Sean also earned tickets that could be exchanged weekly for a prize from the class mystery box, if he met his daily criterion. Beatriz’s intervention did not include a reward.
This study used a changing criterion design (across outcomes) for both students. During baseline, teachers implemented their regular procedures and did not ask questions that required vocal responses.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube