Peer Management Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Single-Case Research

Dart, Evan H.; Collins, Tai A.; Klingbeil, David A.; McKinley, Lauren E.

doi:10.17105/spr-14-0009.1

Cited by 35 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shadish, Hedges, and Pustejovsky (; see also Shadish, Hedges, Pustejovsky, Boyajian, et al, ) provide worked‐through examples for computing all these analyses, including syntax. These meta‐analytic publication‐bias methods are just starting to be used in the SCD meta‐analytic literature (e.g., Dart, Collins, Klingbeil, & McKinley, ), although their use with effect‐size indices that they were not designed for, such as tau U in Dart et al (), is of unknown validity. The reason is that most of these methods require knowledge of the sampling error of the effect‐size statistic being used, where sampling error is a measure of the precision of the effect size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of publication practices of single‐case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects

Shadish

Zelinsky

Vevea

et al. 2016

J of App Behav Analysis

111

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The published literature often underrepresents studies that do not find evidence for a treatment effect; this is often called publication bias. Literature reviews that fail to include such studies may overestimate the size of an effect. Only a few studies have examined publication bias in single-case design (SCD) research, but those studies suggest that publication bias may occur. This study surveyed SCD researchers about publication preferences in response to simulated SCD results that show a range of small to large effects. Results suggest that SCD researchers are more likely to submit manuscripts that show large effects for publication and are more likely to recommend acceptance of manuscripts that show large effects when they act as a reviewer. A nontrivial minority of SCD researchers (4% to 15%) would drop 1 or 2 cases from the study if the effect size is small and then submit for publication. This article ends with a discussion of implications for publication practices in SCD research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of publication practices of single‐case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects

Shadish

Zelinsky

Vevea

et al. 2016

J of App Behav Analysis

111

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like Dart et al. (), a p < .15 was used to make this determination. Second, the Tau‐U was calculated for each A and B phase contrast in the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tau‐U has been used in several meta‐analyses of Single Case Design (SCDs) since its development. For example, it has been used to document the effectiveness of several school‐based interventions including peer tutoring (Bowman‐Perrott et al., ; Bowman‐Perrott, Burke, Zhang, & Zaini, ), social skills interventions in inclusive settings for children with autism spectrum disorder (Camargo et al., ), peer management interventions (Dart, Collins, Klingbeil, & McKinley, ), and check‐in check‐out (Wolfe et al., ).…”

Section: Fba In School Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Functional Behavior Assessment on School‐based Interventions: A Meta‐analysis of Single‐case Research

Bruni

Drevon

Hixson

et al. 2017

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of behavior reduction strategies is likely affected by any number of ancillary variables. The purpose of this study was to provide a quantitative review of school‐based behavior reduction interventions and some ancillary variables that may modulate the effectiveness of those interventions. Tau‐U, an effect size statistic for single‐case designs that takes into account level and trend, was calculated across studies, allowing for examination of several moderator variables including type of functional behavior assessment method used. Moderate intervention effects were found across all studies with a small yet insignificant difference between function‐ and nonfunction‐based interventions. The largest difference in a moderator variable was intervention setting, with studies conducted in the natural environment producing larger effects than those in pull‐out settings. Possible explanations for these findings, limitations of the study, and areas of future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…There is a long history of students serving as interventionists to deliver academic and behavioral support services to their peers (Kohler & Strain, 1990). Although most research is focused on elementary school populations, students from preschool to high school have been charged with supporting their peers' social skills, classroom behavior, and communication (Dart, Collins, Klingbeil, & McKinley, 2014; Kohler & Strain, 1980). Multiple meta‐analyses have found positive outcomes associated with peer‐mediated interventions (Dart et al, 2014; Kohler & Strain, 1990; Zhang & Wheeler, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although most research is focused on elementary school populations, students from preschool to high school have been charged with supporting their peers' social skills, classroom behavior, and communication (Dart, Collins, Klingbeil, & McKinley, 2014; Kohler & Strain, 1980). Multiple meta‐analyses have found positive outcomes associated with peer‐mediated interventions (Dart et al, 2014; Kohler & Strain, 1990; Zhang & Wheeler, 2011). Many of these studies report high levels of treatment integrity (e.g., Laushey & Heflin, 2000; Lee, Odom, & Loftin, 2007), which suggest that student interventionists are able to assume a role traditionally reserved for adults by accurately and appropriately implementing intervention procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐informant assessment of treatment integrity in the classroom

Dart

Collier‐Meek

Chambers

et al. 2020

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the degree to which interventions are implemented in school settings is critical to making decisions about student outcomes. School psychologists may not be available to regularly conduct observations of intervention implementation, however, their data may be used alongside other methods for multi‐informant assessment. Teacher self‐report is a commonly used and feasible assessment method. Students have been trained to implement interventions with their peers in instances where traditional adult interventionists were unavailable. This exploratory study investigated the accuracy with which classroom teachers and middle and high school students assessed implementation of the Good Behavior Game and the impact of performance feedback on their accuracy. Results indicated that most students and teachers were able to provide accurate assessments of treatment integrity compared to researcher direct observation; however, some required performance feedback to do so. These findings suggest that multi‐informant assessment may be a feasible and accurate way for school psychologists to collect formative treatment‐integrity data in the classroom. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

Peer Management Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Single-Case Research

Cited by 35 publications

References 46 publications

A survey of publication practices of single‐case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects

A survey of publication practices of single‐case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects

The Effect of Functional Behavior Assessment on School‐based Interventions: A Meta‐analysis of Single‐case Research

Multi‐informant assessment of treatment integrity in the classroom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About