Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry : eISSN 2233-9183 / pISSN 1225-729X

Table. 5.

Table. 5.

Treatment procedures of two single case studies

Domains Cirelli et al. [26] Stephenson [25]
Materials used High preference books, pencils, erasers, 11.4-cm*11.4-cm spiral bound hard cover schedule book with five tabs, a piece of paper outside the schedule book's front cover, paper strips Ipad (Version 1.1.6; Good Karma Applications Inc., 2012)
Pre – experimental Procedure Teacher survey and Preference Assessment Nil
Targeted skills On-task behavior and on-schedule behavior Reading, writing, number and a special activity
Intervention Procedure Step 1: Students had to go to the horseshoe table, get one worksheet, complete it, place it in a work folder, and go to the horseshoe table to get the next worksheet (and so on, until all worksheets were completed and placed in the folder).
Step 2: Students had to bring the folder with all completed worksheets to the teacher, return to their desks, take out a self-selected book, and read quietly.
Step 1: Pictures shown on the iPad wherein activities for writing, reading, and number was provided in manila folders on the student's desk (writing, reading, and numbering, was labeled with text and a colored line drawing; the teacher chose the activities in the folder, which differed from session to session; tracing or writing letters and words, looking at picture books, and various counting and numeral recognition tasks were among the activities)
Step 2: When the reading choice was selected, the student could either choose a book or choose a folder from which to complete an activity
Step 3: The student could select the special activity from many choices represented by picture symbols which was depicted by a star graphic
Step 4: iPad presented with an open app and a verbal cue. If no response was received after 5 seconds, least to most prompts were given by the teacher
Step 5: If prompt did not elicit a correct response, the teacher repeated the verbal prompt and physically assisted the student to touch the correct picture
Step 6: The teacher waited 5 seconds after the student activated the first row of the schedule and heard the verbal prompt for the student to receive the corresponding task
Step 7: The teacher waited 5 seconds after the task was placed away for the student to hit the check mark indicating that the task was completed
Step 8: The teacher waited for the student to touch the next activity after the check mark was hit (In this manner, the student completed the four items on the schedule)
Duration of session 25 – 30 minutes 5 -10 minutes
Personnel for data recording Teacher Teacher
Reliability Inter-Observer Reliability (IOA) & Procedural Integrity (PI)
- Data collected by school’s Child Study Team (an intern, a learning disabilities teacher consultant, school psychologist)
- IOA data for on-task activity was collected for 32% of sessions for first participant (Student A) and 53% of sessions for second participant (Student B)
- Mean IOA obtained for on task activity was 99% (Student A) and 98% (Student B)
- Mean IOA obtained for on- schedule activity was 99% (Student A) and 100% (Student B) (PI was measured during each steps of both baseline and schedule teaching sessions)
- The PI scores obtained was 95% (Student A), 100% (Student B), and 100% (Student A & B)
Procedure Reliability (PR) & Observational Reliability (OR) (Both measures were collected in each of the sessions)
- The author recorded 10 of the 13 baseline sessions and 41 of the 71 sessions
- The obtained overall PR score was 92% (Baseline) and 97.8% (Intervention)
- The obtained mean OR score was 100% (Baseline) (for all students; Student 2 was the child with ADHD) and 95.5% (Intervention) for Student 2.
Social Validity - Ascertained from participants, peers, and teachers using a survey
- Yes/No response
a. Participant response
- Request for a larger schedule
- Request to use the schedule at home
- Claims his peer wanted one too
b. Peers response
- Exhibited interest in learning more about the schedule.
- Expressed desire to get one too
c. Teachers response
- Willing to keep using the schedule
- Felt it was fair and reasonable
- Agreed on its use to handle off-task and disruptive behaviors
- Ascertained from teachers using a survey
- Degree of agreeability
Both teachers agreed or strongly agreed that:
- Learning how to use the scheduling app was necessary
- It will help improve independence
- Would use the intervention again
- Would recommend it to others
Results Student A:
On-task performance (Baseline 1):50%
On-task performance (Baseline 2):58%
On – task performance (schedule teaching session):100%
On – Schedule performance (Schedule teaching session): 96% and 100%
On-task performance (post teaching session): 92 -100%
On-schedule performance (post teaching session): 100%
Student 2 completed two steps correctly in the first intervention session and then rapidly improved. Although student 2 never achieved mastery a clear intervention effect was evident with him, completing 10-12 steps correctly for over half of the intervention sessions. There were only three sessions where he completed fewer than 10 steps correctly.
Student B:
On-task performance (Baseline 1): 51.75%
On-task performance (Baseline 2): 52%
On-task performance (schedule teaching session): 100 %
On-schedule performance (schedule teaching session): 94%
On-task performance (post-teaching session): 99%
On-schedule performance: 100%
J Korean Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2022;33:2-15 https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.210021
© 2022 J Korean Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry