The Nature and Extent of Component Analyses for Improving or Mitigating Behavior: A Systematic Review

Abstract

A component analysis is an approach where two or more independent variables are evaluated as a package and independently. The approach is used to assess and identify which component of a treatment package is the most effective. The purpose of this review is to document the application of component analyses to improve or mitigate non-academic behaviors with individuals with disabilities. We identified 21 research articles that used a component analysis to evaluate treatment packages with students who were identified as having or at-risk for a disability in classroom and/or alternative settings. Results from reviewing 21 articles (22 cases) indicate that 11 intervention packages had a single component that was critical for successful behavior change. Two articles suggested the entire intervention package was necessary while nine articles did not report a critical component or had variable results pertaining to critical components. The benefits and drawbacks of using component analyses for single case research are discussed. Implications for future research are also presented.

Toward a synthesis of cognitive behaviour therapy via component analysis of self‐regulation

“…Viable alternatives are SCED studies, which require fewer participants per study, are responsive to individual clients, flexible and practical (can be done by clinicians in community clinics as well as academic researchers), and experimentally sound, with generalizable results when accumulated over many studies showing replications across particular client characteristics, problems, components, settings, and so on—in other words, most suitable for effectiveness research (Birnbrauer, 1981; Blampied, 1999; Borckardt et al, 2008; Holman & Koerner, 2014; Morley, 2018; Persons, 2016). However, it should be noted that although SCEDs may be a more cost‐effective approach to component analyses, longitudinal and multi‐sequential studies require time and commitment for analysing multicomponent therapies (Riden et al, 2022).…”

Systematic Identification, Implementation, and Evaluation of High-Leverage Practices in Teacher Preparation

“…Researchers face a paradox when conducting intervention science (Riden et al, 2020). On one hand, they want to enact change for the betterment of participants.…”

“…The downside is that these intervention packages are often more difficult to implement, reduce implementation fidelity, and are less likely to be adopted and used by practitioners (Riley-Tillman & Chafouleas, 2003). Additionally, multi-component packages muddle researchers' abilities to isolate active ingredients and document which independent variables contributed to overall effect (Riden et al, 2020).…”

“…Any changes in behavior following a removal indicate the effects of that component in relation to the entire package (i.e., student performance is the same, better, or worse). An advantage to drop-out analyses is that treatment effects are often immediate and subsequent removals can identify those parts that are essential to treatment effectiveness (Riden et al, 2020).…”

“…By presenting components alone and then in combination, researchers can identify which components are contributing to overall intervention effects. The main disadvantage of add-in component analyses is that floor or ceiling effects may make it difficult to assess individual component efficacy towards the end of the analyses (Riden et al, 2020). Ward-Horner and Sturmey (2010) concluded that addin reversal or alternating treatments designs provide the most comprehensive analyses of treatment packages because they reduce potential confounding from component combinations.…”