Wills, Howard; Kamps, Debra; Caldarella, Paul; Wehby, Joseph; Romine, Rebecca Swinburne (2018). Elementary School Journal, v119 n1 p29-51 Sep 2018. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1189571
Reviewed: February 2023
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).
|
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;
|
80.00 |
58.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Percentage of time students were engaged, based on researcher observation of classes |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.80 |
76.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Disruptive behaviors |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.19 |
8.76 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of teacher praise statements, based on researcher observation of teachers |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.20 |
3.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of teacher reprimand statements, based on researcher observation of teachers |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.60 |
4.60 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 39% | |
| Other or unknown | 19% | |
| White | 42% |
| Hispanic | 15% | |
| Other or unknown | 85% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 69% | |
| No FRPL | 31% |
The study took place in 21 elementary schools, with 7 elementary schools in each of three states: Missouri, Tennessee, and Utah. The classrooms in the study span grades K–6 and include general education and special education classrooms.
The researchers randomly assigned 86 teachers to the intervention group and 75 teachers to the comparison group. A total of 324 students in grades K–6 were included in the study. Approximately 42% were White, 39% were Black, and 19% did not report race. Fifteen percent were Hispanic or Latino. Seventy-three percent of students were male, and 23 percent had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). In the schools in which the study was conducted, 69% of students were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch.
The intervention, Class-wide Function-Related Intervention Team (CW-FIT), is a classroom management intervention aimed at reducing problem behaviors and supporting positive student behaviors. It is considered a “group contingency” intervention, in which students learn to engage in appropriate behaviors by sharing both rewards as well as consequences for behaviors. Teachers implemented the intervention by focusing on three target student behaviors: getting the teacher’s attention appropriately, following directions, and ignoring inappropriate behaviors. Students received an initial skills training lasting about 10 minutes, after which teachers provided “brief pre-corrects” of skills at the beginning of a regular school lesson and then provided incidental teaching of the skills throughout the lesson. Teachers used a rewards system where class teams earned points for meeting session goals and used differential and frequent praise for appropriate behaviors. The intervention included a timer that beeped every 2–5 minutes, at which time teachers assessed behavior and awarded points to students. When the class ended, teachers provided rewards (such as pencils and notebooks) to students in teams who met the behavior goals. Teachers implemented the intervention between 3–5 times per week in one school year from October to March and sessions typically lasted 10 minutes. Students who did not respond to this primary classroom-level intervention were provided “Tier 2” supports, which could include self-management supports or the use of help cards.
Teachers in the comparison group followed their typical classroom management practices by, for example, posting rules, providing reminders about rules, and reprimanding students who broke rules. Comparison teachers were also encouraged to follow school district protocols when they required assistance for students with behavioral problems. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school districts.
Intervention teachers received a 2-hour training workshop conducted by project staff prior to offering the intervention in their classrooms. In the training, teachers were introduced to CW-FIT procedures and the procedures were modeled for them in 2–3 sessions. The project staff provided ongoing feedback to teachers based on results of the fidelity measures and teachers’ need.
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.
Wills, Howard; Wehby, Joseph; Caldarella, Paul; Kamps, Debra; Swinburne Romine, Rebecca. (2018). Classroom Management That Works: A Replication Trial of the CW-FIT Program. Exceptional Children, v84 n4 p437-456.
Caldarella, Paul; Larsen, Ross A. A.; Williams, Leslie; Wills, Howard; Kamps, Debra; Wehby, Joseph H. (2018). Effects of CW-FIT on Teachers' Ratings of Elementary School Students at Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, v20 n2 p78-89.
Reviewed: November 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group on-task data (author developed) |
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
80.00 |
58.80 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in 21 elementary schools, with 7 elementary schools in each of three states: Missouri, Tennessee, and Utah. The grades included in the study span kindergarten through grade 6. 161 teachers within these schools were eligible for the study, and 157 were included in the analytic sample. These included both general education and special education teachers. (p. 133, 156)
Participating schools had on average 69 percent of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch, and 55 percent were minority students. About 96 percent of teachers in the analytic sample were female (150 of 157). Twelve percent of teachers were special education teachers (p. 133, supplemental paper p. 441)
The intervention, Class-wide Function-Related Intervention Team (CW-FIT), is a classroom management intervention aimed at reducing problem behaviors and supporting positive student behaviors. It is considered a “group contingency” intervention, in which students learn to engage in appropriate behaviors by sharing both rewards as well as consequences for behaviors. Teachers are provided professional development that is based on best practices for teaching prosocial behaviors, using a rewards system where class teams earn points for meeting session goals, and using differential and frequent praise for appropriate behaviors and minimizing attention to inappropriate behaviors. Teachers then implement the intervention by focusing on three target skills: how to get the teacher’s attention appropriately, how to follow directions, and how to ignore inappropriate behaviors. Students receive an initial skills training lasting about 10 minutes, after which teachers provided “brief pre-corrects” (p. 13) of skills at the beginning of a regular school lesson and then provided incidental teaching of the skills throughout the lesson. The intervention included using a timer that would beep every two to five minutes, at which time teachers would assess behavior and award points to students toward a stated goal. When the class ended, teachers would provide rewards (such as pencils and notebooks) to students to meet this goal. Teachers implemented the intervention between three and five times per week from mid- to late October through March of the same school year (pp. 139-141). Although not discussed in this article, a companion report of the same study stated that students who did not respond to this primary classroom-level intervention were provided “Tier 2” supports, which could include self-management supports or the use of help cards.(see citation of supplemental study in Notes section).
The comparison condition used business as usual practices. Teachers followed their typical classroom management practices by, for example, posting rules, providing reminders about rules, and reprimanding students who broke rules. (p. 139)
Intervention teachers received a 2-hour training workshop conducted by project staff. In the training, teachers were introduced to CW-FIT procedures and the procedures were modeled for them in two to three sessions. Teachers who needed additional support received feedback from researchers, and researchers gave ongoing feedback to all teachers based on results of the fidelity measures. (p. 141)
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