Functional Assessment–Based Interventions for Students With or At-Risk for High-Incidence Disabilities: Field Testing Single-Case Synthesis Methods

Abstract

This systematic review investigated one systematic approach to designing, implementing, and evaluating functional assessment–based interventions (FABI) for use in supporting school-age students with or at-risk for high-incidence disabilities. We field tested several recently developed methods for single-case design syntheses. First, we appraised the quality of individual studies and the overall body of work using Council for Exceptional Children’s standards. Next, we calculated and meta-analyzed within-case and between-case effect sizes. Results indicated that studies were of high methodological quality, with nine studies identified as being methodologically sound and demonstrating positive outcomes across 14 participants. However, insufficient evidence was available to classify the evidence base for FABIs due to small number of participants within (fewer than recommended three) and across (fewer than recommended 20) studies. Nonetheless, average within-case effect sizes were equivalent to increases of 118% between baseline and intervention phases. Finally, potential moderating variables were examined. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Meta-Analysis and Quality of Self-Monitoring Behavior Interventions with Children and Adolescents

“…The same training format used for coding descriptive characteristics was used for coding QIs. A binary score of one (met) or zero (not met) were used in the coding scheme (i.e., absolute coding) rather than using weighted coding (Common, Lane, Pustejovsky, Johnson, & Johl, 2017). The reason for using the more stringent approach was because of the extent to which self-monitoring has been used throughout the decades with positive results as typically determined through visual inspection.…”

“…The sheet consisted of three columns. The first column contained the QI, the second column had the description, and the third column consisted of clarification developed by Common et al (2017).…”

Effectiveness and Social Validity of FBAs for Youth At-Risk or With High Incidence Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

“…It is believed that the most effective interventions implemented in school and clinical settings are those based on the purpose maladaptive behaviors serve (Ervin et al, 2001). There have literally been hundreds of studies conducted on various aspects of FBA methodologies across different participant characteristics, and approximately 17 systematic reviews have been conducted on various procedures and populations-eight of which used meta-analytic approaches to calculate effect sizes (Bruni et al, 2017;Common, Lane, Pustejovsky, Johnson, & Johl, 2017;Delfs & Campbell, 2010;Gage, Lewis, & Stichter, 2012;Goh & Bambara, 2012;Losinski, Maag, Katsiyannis, & Ennis, 2014;McKenna, Flower, Kim, Ciullo, & Haring, 2015;Miller & Lee, 2013). Some of the variables addressed in these reviews included, but were not limited to, single case synthesis, effect size approaches, different populations, quality of studies, and positive supports in schools and clinics.…”

“…In addition, many reviews included studies conducted in clinic, residential, psychiatric, or home settings but only a few focused on students in K-12 grades that are either at-risk or have high incidence disabilities or display challenging behaviors in classroom settings. One such review was undertaken by Common et al (2017). However, their review only focused on 18 studies between 2007 and 2015 that used the function matrix and function-based intervention model developed by Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane (2007).…”

“…The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to expand on Common et al (2017) by reviewing the corpus of FBA studies beginning in 1982 when, arguably, the first FBA study was conducted by Iwata and colleagues. A second purpose was to evaluate the extent to which studies addressed social validity in terms of assessing the acceptability of interventions based on a FBA by the interventionist implementing them and the methods for collecting this information.…”