Sheridan, Susan M.; Witte, Amanda L.; Holmes, Shannon; Wu, ChaoRong; Bhatia, Sonya A.; Angell, Samantha (2017). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581450
Reviewed: February 2018
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Compliance (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
0.04 |
No |
-- | |
|
Ignoring Negative Stimulus (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Non-Physical Aggression (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Physical Aggression (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Motor Movement (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.11 |
0.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Interference (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Off-Task Behavior (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.09 |
0.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Noncompliance (Classroom Observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.01 |
0.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On-task behavior |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.97 |
0.93 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Improvement Scale (SSiS): Social Skills |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
49.75 |
43.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Appropriate social behavior (observation) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.19 |
0.16 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 11% | |
| White | 86% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
The study took place in 40 rural communities in three Midwestern states. There were 45 schools with 152 classrooms included in the study. Of the 45 schools, 24 were defined as rural schools and 21 were defined as town schools based on the distance from an urbanized area and urbanized cluster. Across the 45 schools, the average class size was 13.3 students, with an average school enrollment of 260 students (it is unclear if this is for grades K-3 or the entire school), and the school had 18.9 classroom teachers employed, on average. Thirty-eight of the 45 schools in the study were Title I schools.
Of the 267 students randomly assigned, 76% were male and 24% were female. The average age of the students was 6.88 (1.22 SD) and the average grade was 1.48 (1.12 SD). Students were in kindergarten (27%), grade 1 (21%), grade 2 (29%), and grade 3 (23%). Eighty-six percent of students were White/non-Hispanic, 3% were African American, 5% were Hispanic or Latino, and 6% were Asian or another race. The average behavior severity (1-9 scale) was 6.57 (1.40 SD), 44% of parents reported their student had a disability, 24% of the students had an IEP according to the teachers report, and 56% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Of the 267 parents involved in the study, 90% were female and 10% were male. The average age of the parents was 34.19 (7.55 SD). Ninety percent of parents were White/non-Hispanic, 2% were African American, 4% were Hispanic or Latino, and 3% were Asian or other. Twenty-one percent of parents indicated there were fewer than two adults in the home. Of the students' mothers, 10% had less than a high school education, 59% had a high school diploma or GED, and 31% had a college or advanced degree. Fifty-seven percent of parents were married, 19% were single, 16% were divorced, and 8% were indicated some other marital status.
Consultants met with parents and teachers for four 45-60 minute sessions over the course of an 8-week period. Each session followed the CBC problem-solving protocol. The first session was focused on the specific behaviors the intervention would target, the goals, and instructions for the parents and teachers on how to collect data. The first session was conducted with a teacher-parent pair. In the second CBC session, the parents developed an implementation plan to use in the home. The third CBC session was a home visit per student and offered support for the intervention. The final CBC session evaluated students' progress toward the intervention goals and reviewed the next course of action. All of the teachers in the study were White/non-Hispanic and the majority (97%) were female. The teachers were, on average, 41.22 (12.6 SD) years old and had 15.3 (11.31 SD) years of teaching experience. All of the consultants in the study were White/non-Hispanic and all but one of the 14 consultants were female. The consultants were, on average, 29.63 (5.97 SD) years old with 2.64 (0.71 SD) years of graduate school.
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual behavioral services and general school policies related to disruptive behaviors to which all students were subject. This included referrals to the office (presumably, an administrative office) for in-school or out-of-school suspension.
The 14 masters level clinicians serves as consultants and completed a four week, 64-hour long training on the implementation of the CBC program over a four-week period. During the intervention, consultants received 1 hour of supervision per week from CBC experts and 2 hours of group supervision per month from a licensed psychologist. Teachers and parents both received support from consultants and received a CBC behavioral, strategies toolkit of intervention plans based on The Tough Kid Tool Box series.
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.
Sheridan, S. M., Witte, A. L., Holmes, S. R., Coutts, M. J., Dent, A. L., Kunz, G. M., & Wu, C. (2017). A randomized trial examining the effects of Conjoint Behavioral Consultation in rural schools: Student outcomes and the mediating role of the teacher–parent relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 33-53.
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