Hansen, Blake D.; Wills, Howard P.; Kamps, Debra M.; Greenwood, Charles R. (2014). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, v22 n3 p149-159. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1037067
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.
| White | 100% |
The study took place in three classrooms in a school in a large urban area in the Midwest. The school had 460 students in grades 1–6 and served more than 72% economically disadvantaged students. Isaac was taught exclusively in a special education classroom with one or two adults, and Jeremiah and Ben were taught in general education classes, with paraprofessional support. The study intervention took place in the class where each student had the most behavior problems: math for Isaac and Ben, and writing for Jeremiah.
Three students were part of the study sample. Isaac was a 12-year-old Caucasian male who spoke English at home. He was in sixth grade but tested at least three grades below his age level and tested in the mild intellectual disability range (IQ = 67). He was in a school-based program for children with an emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD) and had been in the self-contained special education classroom since first grade, spending more than half of the day with one or two adults and no peers. Jeremiah was a 7-year-old Caucasian male who spoke English at home. He was in second grade, tested slightly below grade level in all academic areas, and had average cognitive skills. He was in a school-based program for children with EBD, had a health impairment, and spent most of the day in a general education classroom with support from paraprofessionals. Ben was a 9-year-old Caucasian male who spoke English at home. He was in third grade and had an average IQ of 94. He was in a school-based program for children with EBD, and had previously been in a self-contained special education classroom under the category of developmental delay. He spent most of his day in a general education classroom with support from paraprofessionals.
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for each student included interviewing the participants’ teachers, examining records of discipline referrals, and conducting direct observations in the students’ classrooms. FBA indicated that Isaac’s and Ben’s disruptive behaviors were maintained by escape from academic demands, and that Jeremiah was disruptive to obtain peer attention. The FBA-based intervention for all three students, functional based self-management (FBSM), included a system of consequences and rewards. The student observed and recorded his own problem behavior and received consequences and/or rewards, depending on whether they met the goal they were monitoring. The rewards for appropriate behavior were “break tickets,” which could be used for a 1-minute break from instruction or a 1-minute break with a friend. The consequences for negative behaviors were prompts for getting back on task. The FBA-based intervention also included self-monitoring (see summary in the comparison description).
The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for all three students. During the baseline/withdrawal condition, students used self-monitoring techniques. The teacher asked the student to set a goal for a 5-minute period. After 5 minutes had passed, the student would note whether he was on task. At the end of the lesson, the student tallied the number of times he was on task. Isaac and Ben’s teachers could use prompts for on-task behavior; but all three teachers were told to limit attention to positive behaviors.
The researchers trained the teachers on the self-monitoring component, provided a protocol, and trained teachers on how to use consequences for appropriate and disruptive behavior.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Hansen, B. D. (2011). The effects of function-based self-management interventions. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 72(4-A), 1257.
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