Treatment Components and Participant Characteristics Associated With Outcomes in Self-Monitoring Interventions

Abstract

Self-monitoring is one of the most widely used and widely researched strategies for improving student behavior. However, specific research-based guidance about how to design effective self-monitoring interventions and to whom they should be delivered does not yet exist. To this end, we examined how various treatment components and participant characteristics moderated response to self-monitoring interventions. We included 66 single-case studies on academic engagement and 21 single-case studies on disruptive behavior. These studies included 290 participants with challenging behavior, 183 of whom had a disability. After extracting raw data from original studies, we analyzed data using multilevel modeling for each dependent variable (i.e., academic engagement, disruptive behavior). Across both dependent variables, student age and educational setting impacted treatment effects, as did the inclusion of goal-setting, feedback, and reinforcement. Based on our findings, we describe implications related to designing self-monitoring interventions. We also discuss limitations and future directions.

Self‐management interventions for reducing challenging behaviors among school‐age students: A systematic review

“…No differences were noted for boys compared to girls—though most studies reported SM being applied to boys with challenging classroom behaviors. These findings are similar to those examined in a prior systematic review conducted by Bruhn et al (2020) that noted SM appeared more effective for younger students and for students in special education settings. In practice, behavioral interventions are most often applied to younger students and prior research has suggested these practices are less often applied in middle and high schools (Bruhn et al, 2015; Carter et al, 2011; Mooney et al, 2005; Thompson, 2011; Thompson & Webber, 2010).…”

Behavioral Self-Regulation: A Comparison of Goals and Self-Monitoring for High School Students With Disabilities

“…Relatedly, given that Jared displayed the greatest behavioral deficits of the three participants, based on his SSIS scores and baseline AE, it is possible that neither intervention was sufficiently intense to change his behavior. Additional components, such as self-evaluation, behavior-specific feedback, or contingent reinforcement, could have made a greater impact, as researchers have found that including feedback or reinforcement in self-monitoring interventions significantly improves AE ( p < .001; Bruhn et al, 2020). Given the empirical evidence supporting these methods of intensifying self-monitoring interventions, Jared may have demonstrated stronger improvements had those components been included.…”

“…Future researchers may consider studying the overall effects of a cohesive self-regulation intervention package (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-evaluation, etc.) rather than studying the comparative effects of each strategy individually, as these strategies are often used in tandem (Bruhn et al, 2020). This could build evidence for the overall efficacy of self-directed, packaged self-regulation interventions.…”

“…Goal setting and self-monitoring are two empirically supported self-regulation strategies for increasing AE (Bruhn et al, 2016(Bruhn et al, , 2020Carter et al, 2011); however, their differential impact as stand-alone interventions remained unexplored. We hypothesized that simple, low-intensity interventions such as student-set behavioral goals with daily reminders could be practical, feasible means of improving AE, as could the slightly more intense procedures of self-monitoring.…”

“…Self-monitoring interventions require students to think about their behavior at a given moment and record whether a specific behavior is occurring and they may include goals and self-evaluation (i.e., reviewing data and comparing it with goal achievement criteria; Bruhn et al, 2020), although are not essential (e.g., Wills & Mason, 2014). Two studies on self-monitoring with high school students with EBD reported functional relations between self-monitoring and improved on-task behavior (Clemons et al, 2016; Wills & Mason, 2014).…”