Clarke, Shelley; And Others (1995). Behavioral Disorders, v20 n4 p221-37. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ511799
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.
The study took place in two classrooms at a public elementary school. Ahmad was in a kindergarten classroom for students with severe emotional disturbance (SED). The classroom contained eight children and was staffed by a teacher and a full-time aide; Ahmad’s study took place during language arts lessons. Juan and Shane were in a class for students who exhibited SED and included eight to nine children, a teacher, and an aide. Their grade-level was not reported.
Four students were part of the study sample. Ahmad was 5 years old and Juan and Shane were 11. All three students had been diagnosed as having an SED. Ahmad’s teacher reported that his most problematic behaviors at school were aggression, noncompliance, property destruction, inability to maintain task engagement, and leaving his area without permission. Juan’s disruptive behaviors included noise making, talking out, property destruction, excessive off-task behavior, and noncompliance. At the time of the study, Juan was taking Imipramine. In addition to SED, Shane was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; he demonstrated excessive off-task behavior, an inability to complete assignments, property destruction, and noncompliance. The single-case design experiments for an additional student, Arnold, are not eligible for this review because he did not have an emotional disturbance, but had instead received a diagnosis of autism. As a result, Arnold’s single -case design experiments are not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness.
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for each student included interviews with teachers, other adults, and students, followed by direct observations. Based on the results, researchers developed FBA-based interventions that involved incorporating students’ interests in the curriculum. Ahmad’s intervention involved replacing standard alphabet letter worksheet pictures with pictures of cars and motorcycles. Juan’s intervention involved replacing the content of cursive sentences he was to copy from a handwriting workbook with content from Nintendo game booklets. The first phase of Shane’s intervention was identical to Juan’s, but later phases also involved presenting the assignments in smaller increments (one sentence at a time) and permitting him to copy directly onto the handwriting sheet.
The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for all three students. The baseline/withdrawal condition consisted of identical assignments as the intervention, without the curricular modifications. The classroom staff utilized their business-as-usual behavior management system throughout all phases of the study, whereby appropriate behavior was reinforced with tokens that were exchangeable for rewards on a weekly basis.
Not reported.
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