Treatment Utility of Functional Versus Empiric Assessment Within Consultation for Reading Problems.

Abstract

In this study, 18 teachers and 32 of their students who had reading difficulties were randomly assigned to one of two assessment conditions. In the functional assessment condition, consultants identified functional relationships among environmental events and targeted reading behaviors to develop an intervention plan. In the empiric condition, consultants selected an intervention plan based on interventions matched to various reading problems (i.e., omitting individualized problem analysis). Consultants facilitated interventions consistent with the two conditions through a problem-solving consultation model and collected multiple outcome measures. Both the functional assessment and empiric conditions led to improved outcomes in targeted reading behaviors, with most improvements falling within the moderate to large range of single-participant effect sizes. No significant differences were found between the functional assessment and empiric conditions on the outcome variables of intervention effects, curriculum-based assessment, consumer satisfaction, or material costs, although empiric assessment took less time than functional assessment. Implications regarding the generalizability of these results and directions for further study regarding the treatment utility of assessment for consultation are discussed.

Consultation-based Academic Interventions for Children with ADHD: Effects on Reading and Mathematics Achievement

“…In contrast to our hypothesis, consultation as usual was essentially equivalent to a more individualized, databased approach. This result, while surprising, is similar to outcomes found for assessment-based behavioral consultation (Beavers, Kratochwill, & Braden, 2004). Specifically, Beavers and colleagues found no difference in treatment effects for reading difficulties between a consultation approach using functional assessment and consultation without specific functional assessment data.…”

“…The use of behavioral consultation to ameliorate academic difficulties has led to mixed results with some studies finding large, positive effects (Sheridan, Eagle, Cowan, & Mickelson, 2001;Sheridan, Welch, & Ormi, 1996) and others showing no advantage of this model over a less individualized approach (Beavers, Kratochwill, & Braden, 2004). Further, a majority of school psychologists do not use the behavioral consultation model (Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson, & Wallingsford, 2002;Costenbader, Swartz, & Petrix, 1992).…”

Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) Reading Fluency Program with Latino English Language Learners: A Preliminary Evaluation

“…For clarity, we refer to such programs as ''manualized'' because they have a clear statement of what comprises the intervention, the rationale for using it, as well as detailed procedures for implementation. Also, in many cases, manualized programs offer teachers the needed materials for instruction (e.g., student's reading materials or worksheets).There is some evidence suggesting that standardized protocols for reading interventions may be as or more effective than individualized interventions that require more time-intensive instructional decision-making and problem-solving during the intervention process (Beavers et al 2004;Vaughn et al 2011). Further, standardized materials and procedures, together with explicit implementation instructions, may make it more likely that instructional staff will implement an intervention program with integrity.…”

Size and consistency of problem-solving consultation outcomes: An empirical analysis

“…Negative effect size values indicate worsening of a problem behavior, positive values indicate improvement, and values near zero indicate little or no change. Average effect sizes reported by some problem-solving consultation outcome studies ranged from 0.51 (SD = 1.04 with 35 cases and 21 consultants; Lepage et al, 2004) and 0.55 (SD = 0.55 with 32 cases and 3 consultants; Beavers et al, 2004) to 1.10 (SD = 1.07 with 66 CBC cases and 30 consultants; Sheridan et al, 2001). Additional research and consensus, however, is needed concerning the calculation and interpretation of effect sizes (see Shadish, 2014;Shadish, Rindskopf, & Hedges, 2008).…”

“…Single-case consultation outcome studies traditionally relied upon the "no assumptions" approach described by Busk and Serlin (1992) to calculate effect sizes (e.g., Beavers et al, 2004;, 1999Kratochwill et al, 1995;Lepage et al, 2004;Reddy, Barboza-Whitehead, Files, & Rubel, 2000;Schill, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1998;Sheridan et al, 2001Sheridan et al, , 2004. In that approach, no assumptions regarding the distribution shape or homogeneity of variance are made.…”