Student and Teacher Outcomes of the Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Team Efficacy Trial
Wills, Howard; Kamps, Debra; Fleming, Kandace; Hansen, Blake (2016). Exceptional Children, v83 n1 p58-76 Oct 2016. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116304
-
examining313Students, gradesK-6
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of time on-task, based on researcher observation of classes |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.20 |
65.85 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Percentage of time displaying disruptive behaviors, based on researcher observation of classes |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.01 |
15.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of teacher praise statements to a group of students, based on researcher observation of teachers |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.21 |
0.55 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of teacher reprimands to a focal student, based on researcher observation of teachers |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.72 |
1.31 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of teacher praise statements to a focal student, based on researcher observation of teachers |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.78 |
0.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of teacher reprimands to a group of students, based on researcher observation of teachers |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.26 |
1.63 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 24%
Male: 75%
Other or unknown: 1% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Other or unknown 68% White 32% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 32% Other or unknown 68% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 66% No FRPL 34%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 17 elementary schools in three school districts in the Midwest. The three districts were located with 40 miles of one another in a central city, an adjacent city, and a university community approximately 40 miles distant.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 86 teachers to the intervention group and 73 teachers to the comparison group. A total of 313 students in grades K–5 were included in the study. The 313 students in elementary schools were taught by 159 teachers in 17 schools. The study included students who were at risk for emotional behavior disorders. Approximately 75% of the students were male, 66% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 25% were eligible for special education services.
Intervention Group
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) is a classroom management system that is intended to teach and reinforce positive behavioral skills. The intervention was implemented 3–4 times per week from October to March and involved whole-class instruction, a group contingency game, and individual student self-management sessions. In the first few sessions, teachers taught behavioral skills in whole-class instruction by defining a skill, modeling it, and having students practice the skill while providing feedback. These lessons would typically last 10–15 minutes. In subsequent sessions, teachers reviewed the skills at the start of each lesson and provided guidance on the skills throughout the lesson as needed. In the group continency component of CW-FIT, students were divided into teams of 2–5 and the teacher would explain the game's objective and behavioral goals and set a timer to beep every 2–5 minutes during a game. At the end of the game, rewards were given to teams that met the goals. The self-management component of CW-FIT was used for students that had difficulty during initial CW-FIT sessions. Specifically, teachers utilized self-management, or booster sessions for individual students, for students that showed continuing disruptive behaviors during sessions.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison group followed their typical classroom management practices. Many comparison group teachers used a response cost warning system with colored cards for each student. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Support for implementation
All intervention teachers received a 2-hour training prior to offering the intervention in their classrooms. Coaches also provided weekly feedback to teachers and shared on-task data with teachers on a biweekly basis.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Kamps, Debra; Wills, Howard; Dawson-Bannister, Harriett; Heitzman-Powell, Linda; Kottwitz, Esther; Hansen, Blake; Fleming, Kandace. (2015). Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams "CW-FIT" Efficacy Trial Outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, v17 n3 p134-145.
-
Caldarella, Paul; Williams, Leslie; Hansen, Blake D.; Wills, Howard. (2015). Managing Student Behavior with Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams: An Observational Study in Early Elementary Classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, v43 n5 p357-365.
-
Kathurima, B. N. (2014). Conditional probabilities and contingency space analysis: A statistical overview of the relationship between student behavior and teacher consequence. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. KU ScholarWorks. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/15066.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Time on task |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Disruptive behaviors |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Male: 70%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 159 elementary school classrooms in 17 elementary schools.
Study sample
The average age was 8 years old, with a total range of age 6-12. The sample was over 70% male, and approximately two-thirds of students qualified for free or reduced-priced lunch. Approximately two-thirds of students were minorities. 46% of the experimental group had an individual education plan (IEP), compared to 34% of the control group. Students and classrooms were fairly evenly distributed across grades K-5, with the exception of 6th grade and Special Education.
Intervention Group
The intervention provides class-wide lessons for 6 months (October through March). The procedures included (a) focusing teacher attention and points on appropriate behavior and minimizing attention directed to inappropriate behaviors, (b) creating teams to promote peer social attention to compliance with CW-FIT rules, (c) teaching hand raising, (d) using self-management for individual behavior to get teacher praise and attention from peers who are chosen as self-managers, and (e) using help cards as an alternative to using inappropriate behaviors to escape tasks. CW-FIT’s group-contingency component includes differential reinforcement for use of the skills, using points and rewards. Classes are divided into teams, a goal for the number of points is identified, and CW-FIT is implemented during a specified class period 3 to 5 days each week. All teams that meet the goal at the end of the CW-FIT session earn the reward. Tier 2 level self-management and help card components are implemented for students who are non responsive to CW-FIT.
Comparison Group
The control class condition received normal classroom management procedures. Teachers generally had posted classroom rules, reminders about the rules, and reprimands for infractions. Many teachers used a warning system with colored cards in pocket folders for each student.
Support for implementation
Teacher training for implementation consisted of 2 hours of training by project staff in the CW-FIT procedures, modeling of the scripts and using the point system by the building coaches or project staff, and feedback from the building coaches. Training consisted of: (a) teaching skills and practice using the scripts; (b) introducing the intervention, teams, points, setting goals, and rewards; (c) practicing using specific praise and points for targeted skills; (d) practicing with the timer and point delivery together; (e) establishing a reward menu; and (f) discussing potential problems and solutions using the intervention. Feedback from the coaches consisted of use of the fidelity checklist and additional modeling as needed. Coaches also assisted in data collection and shared on-task data and fidelity data with teachers on a biweekly basis. Teaching of skills followed a direct instruction model. Teachers defined the skill, modeled the skill, teachers and students role-played the skill, and teachers provided feedback as students practiced the skill. Each new skill was introduced with a lesson and then practiced for 2 to 3 days prior to teaching an additional skill. Students who did not perform well were eligible to receive more instruction, including the self-management and/or help cards interventions.
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).