Hagan-Burke, S., Gilmour, M. W., Gerow, S., & Crowder, W. C. (2015). Behavior Modification, 39(1), 215–241.
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.
| Black | 50% |
| Hispanic | 50% |
The study took place in a public elementary school in a suburban area. It was a Title 1 I school with grades pre-K through fifth grade. At least 90% of students in the school received free or reduced-price lunch; the ethnicity of the school population was 71% African American, 20% Hispanic, 4% multi-racial, 3% Caucasian, and 2% Asian American. The intervention sessions took place in the participants’ special education classrooms.
Two students were referred to the school’s behavior support team for problem behaviors that were associated with academic performance. The first student, Freddy, was a first-grade (age 7) Hispanic student with a behavior disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Freddy spent approximately one-third of the school day in a special education classroom receiving social behavior support, along with academic support for reading and math. The second student, Clay, was a third-grade (age 9) African-American student with a behavior disorder. His special education services were provided 90 minutes per day and included social behavior support, along with academic support for reading, spelling, and math.
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’ general and special education classrooms. After coding the direct observation data and identifying potential triggers, the researchers conducted a structural analysis for each participant to determine the contextual variables (e.g., classroom climate) associated with each student’s behaviors. The researchers determined that Freddy was most likely to exhibit decreased task engagement during circle time, when activities used a choral response format with fast-paced instruction, as opposed to an independent work setting, where his task engagement was higher. As a result, the FBA-based intervention that was developed used slow-paced instruction during circle time. The researchers held constant the choral group leader, the length of each session, and the approximate number of peers present. They asked the teacher to only praise or give affirmation statements to Freddy after each session had ended. For Clay, the researchers examined his behavior across four content areas and determined that independent math work with unknown multiplication facts was associated with his decreased task engagement. The FBA-based intervention that was developed provided Clay with a worksheet consisting of multiplication problems using known facts. The length of sessions, number of problems per worksheet, and total number of digits per worksheet were controlled; order effects were controlled by counterbalancing conditions. The researchers made sure that the teacher was blind to which condition was in effect and asked the teacher to use the same interaction level and type as she typically would when Clay was engaged in independent academic work.
The study used an alternating treatment design for both participants. Freddy’s alternating treatment design compared the effect of using slow-paced instruction (FBA-based intervention) to fast-paced instruction (comparison). Clay’s alternating treatment design compared the effect of using known multiplication problems (FBA-based intervention) with unknown multiplication problems (comparison). The FBA conducted prior to intervention documented that both participants engaged in high levels of baseline problem behavior during specific times in the academic day.
The researchers observed Freddy’s teacher to document that she followed the correct pace. They also asked Freddy’s teacher to follow a prescribed way to deliver praise, but they did not describe how they trained her. The researchers instructed Clay’s teacher to maintain the same level of interactions she typically had with Clay during independent work, across both conditions.
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