Losinski, Mickey; Maag, John W.; Katsiyannis, Antonis; Ryan, Joseph B. (2015). Education and Treatment of Children, v38 n2 p149-174. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070263
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 | 25% | |
| Other or unknown | 25% | |
| White | 50% |
The study took place in a rural, public middle school in the southeastern United States. The same reading and language arts teacher delivered the intervention to all four students in an eighth-grade general education classroom. Alexandra received instruction in one class, and the other three students (Brenda, Hannah, and Larry) were in the other class together. The intervention conditions were manipulated for these three students simultaneously.
Four students were part of the study sample. Alexandra and Brenda were both 13-year-old Caucasian females. Hannah was a bi-racial (Caucasian and African-American) 13-year-old female, and Larry was a 14-year-old African-American male. None of the students received any special education or related services at the time of the study, but all four students were at high risk of future anti-social behaviors. Alexandra demonstrated excessive lying and problem behaviors and had a negative attitude that frequently disrupted the learning of others. Brenda exhibited disruptive behaviors and a negative attitude, failed to complete assignments, was often non-compliant, and had low-academic performance, despite previous participation in a program for gifted and talented students. Hannah was frequently aggressive with peers, had behavior problems, frequently lied, and had a negative attitude. Larry received poor grades, had a generally negative attitude, and was prone to behavior problems including lying and aggression towards peers. Alexandra, Hannah, and Larry were eligible to receive free or reduced-price school meals.
This study used alternating treatments design experiments to explore the effect of interventions based on structural behavior assessment, which is a type of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) that focuses on the relationships between contextual variables (e.g., classroom climate) and subsequent behaviors; assessments were used to form hypotheses and design individualized interventions that change contextual factors. The FBA included reviewing student records, conducting structured and unstructured interviews with teachers, and completing a rating scale. According to interviews, the students’ disruptive behaviors were most likely to occur if students were sitting next to a preferred peer, and least likely to occur when engaged with the teacher. Based on these findings, two FBA-based interventions were developed for each student: (1) proximity to teacher (within eight feet of the student), and (2) separation from preferred peer (seated in a non-adjacent seat more than eight feet away). During the alternating treatment design experiments, three conditions (baseline, proximity to teacher, and separation from preferred peer) were each introduced once per day, over 5 consecutive days. The researcher prompted the teacher each time a condition was to change.
This study used alternating treatment design experiments for all four students. During the comparison condition, the teacher made no particular effort to stand near the sample students or separate them from preferred peers, so proximity was not controlled. Based on classroom recordings from baseline, it was clear that teachers and preferred peers were not routinely in close proximity of target students.
The students’ regular classroom teacher conducted the instruction in both the baseline and intervention conditions. The researcher provided a preset device that discreetly prompted the teacher when it was time to change conditions. The researcher also developed a procedural reliability checklist to measure the fidelity of each intervention.
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.
Losinski, M. L. (2013). Examining the use of structural analysis to develop interventions for students exhibiting challenging behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1437005624)
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