IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jedpjl/v9y2019i1p41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • John W. Maag

Abstract

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness and social validity of 44 functional behavioral assessment (FBA) studies using single case research designs (SCRDs) conducted with youth displaying challenging behaviors or had high incidence disabilities. Three effect sizes were calculated- standard mean difference (SMD), Tau-U, and improvement rate difference (IRD). Fisher’s conservative dual criterion (CDC), which is a statistical aid to visual analysis, was also applied. Social validity was assessed by using indicators described by Kazdin (2010). Effect sizes were in ranges indicating moderate to large effects. Approximately 71% of AB contrasts reflected CDC systematic change. However, only 44% of studies assessed social validity. There were no significant differences in effectiveness of interventions whether or not a functional analysis was conducted nor whether the controlling function was escape or attention. Results are discussed in terms of FBA implementation issues related to social validity and the necessity for conducting a functional analysis for these youth.

Suggested Citation

  • John W. Maag, 2019. "Effectiveness and Social Validity of FBAs for Youth At-Risk or With High Incidence Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 1-41, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jedpjl:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:41
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jedp/article/download/0/0/38636/39285
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jedp/article/view/0/38636
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jedpjl:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.