A best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate interventions designed to decrease noncompliance in early childhood settings. Studies were examined for quality, intervention components, and outcomes for young children (ages 2–8 years) across settings. Results indicated most designs were high-quality and produced desired outcomes. However, participant inclusion criteria were commonly underreported, and social and ecological validity data were absent. Thus, for whom noncompliance interventions are effective, appropriate, feasible, or preferred is largely unknown. Contrary to prior evidence from the broader challenging behavior literature, function-based assessments had no impact on intervention outcomes. Reasons for this finding are explored, including the narrow application of function-based assessment findings to compliance interventions. Future implications for research and practice are presented.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-8. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Bulotsky-ShearerR. J.FernandezV.DominguezX.RouseH. L. (2011). Behavior problems in learning activities and social interactions in Head Start classrooms and early reading, mathematics, and approaches to learning. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 39–56.
4.
ChazinK. T.LedfordJ. R. (2021). Constant time delay and system of least prompts: Efficiency and child preference. Journal of Behavioral Education, 30(4), 684–707.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). The effect size. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 77–83.
6.
CoteC. A.ThompsonR. H.HanleyG. P.McKercharP. M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 157–166.
7.
CummingM. M.BettiniE.ChowJ. C. (2023). High-quality systematic literature reviews in special education: Promoting coherence, contextualization, generativity, and transparency. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 412–431.
Division for Early Childhood. (2017). Position statement on challenging behavior and young children.
10.
GloskiC. A.WoodsA. D.WangY.MorganP. L. (2022). How effective is special education? A best-evidence synthesis. In KauffmanJ. M. (Ed.), Revitalizing special education (pp. 143–168). Emerald Publishing Limited.
11.
HardyJ. K.McLeodR. H.SweigartC. A.LandrumT. (2022). Comparing and contrasting quality frameworks using research on high-probability requests with young children. Infants & Young Children, 35(4), 267–284.
12.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224–239.
13.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
14.
IngramK.Lewis-PalmerT.SugaiG. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224–236.
15.
IwataB. A.WallaceM. D.KahngS.LindbergJ. S.RoscoeE. M.ConnersJ.WorsdellA. S. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(2), 181–194.
16.
JooS. H.FerronJ. M. (2019). Application of the within-and between-series estimators to non-normal multiple-baseline data: Maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(5), 666–689.
17.
JooS. H.FerronJ. M.MoeyaertM.BeretvasS. N.Van den NoortgateW. (2019). Approaches for specifying the level-1 error structure when synthesizing single-case data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 55–74.
18.
JooS.WangY.FerronJ.BeretvasS. N.MoeyaertM.Van Den NoortgateW. (2022). Comparison of within-and between-series effect estimates in the meta-analysis of multiple baseline studies. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 47(2), 131–166.
19.
KenwardM. G.RogerJ. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53(3), 983–997.
20.
KimY. (2010). Personal safety programs for children with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 312–319.
21.
KuczynskiL.KochanskaG.Radke-YarrowM.Girnius-BrownO. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children’s noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 799.
22.
LedfordJ. R.BartonE. E. (2022). Examining critical issues in special education using single-case research methods. In FarmerT. W.TalbottE.McMasterK.LeeD.AcevesT. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research (Vol. 1, pp. 85–100). Routledge.
23.
LedfordJ. R.ChazinK. T.LaneJ. D.ZimmermanK. N.AyresK. A. (2020). Single case analysis and review framework (SCARF). http://ebip.vkcsites.org/scarfv2
24.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2018). (Eds.). (2018). Single case research methodology (3rd ed.). Routledge.
25.
LedfordJ. R.LambertJ. M.PustejovskyJ. E.ZimmermanK. N.HollinsN.BartonE. E. (2023). Single-case-design research in special education: Next-generation guidelines and considerations. Exceptional Children, 89(4) 379–396.
26.
LinH. L.LawrenceF. R.GorrellJ. (2003). Kindergarten teachers’ views of children’s readiness for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(2), 225–237.
27.
LipschultzJ. L.WilderD. A. (2017). Behavioral assessment and treatment of noncompliance: A review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 40, 263–297.
28.
LosinskiM.SandersS.KatsiyannisA.WisemanN. (2017). A meta-analysis of interventions to improve the compliance of students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 40(4), 435–463.
29.
MagginD. M.BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.FergusonT. D.ClarkC. (2014). A comparison of rubrics for identifying empirically supported practices with single-case research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 287.
30.
MaloneE. J.ZimmermanK. N. (2023). Noncompliance Assessments, Interventions, and Ethical Considerations for Young Children: A Systematic Review. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214231193323
31.
MoeyaertM.UgilleM.FerronJ. M.BeretvasS. N.Van den NoortgateW. (2013). The three-level synthesis of standardized single-subject experimental data: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(5), 719–748.
32.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6, e1000097.
33.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice: A position statement of the national association for the education of young children.
34.
Office of Head Start. (2015). Head start early learning outcomes framework: Ages birth to five. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
35.
OwenD. J.SlepA. M.HeymanR. E. (2012). The effect of praise, positive nonverbal response, reprimand, and negative nonverbal response on child compliance: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(4), 364–385.
36.
PalmerS. B.SummersJ. A.BrothersonM. J.ErwinE. J.MaudeS. P.Stroup-RentierV.WuH.-Y.PeckN. F.ZhengY.WeigelC. J. (2013). Foundations for self-determination in early childhood: An inclusive model for children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33(1), 38–47.
37.
ParkK. L.ScottT. M. (2009). Antecedent-based interventions for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 34(4), 196–211.
38.
PayneL. D.ScottT. M.ConroyM. (2007). A school-based examination of the efficacy of function-based intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 32(3), 158–174.
39.
PustejovskyJ. E.HedgesL. V.ShadishW. R. (2014). Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(5), 368–393.
40.
RadleyK. C.DartE. H. (2016). Antecedent strategies to promote children’s and adolescents’ compliance with adult requests: A review of the literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 19(1), 39–54.
41.
RitzM.NoltemeyerA.DavisD.GreenJ. (2014). Behavior management in preschool classrooms: Insights revealed through systematic observation and interview. Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 181–197.
ShadishW. R.HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E. (2014). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs with a standardized mean difference statistic: A primer and applications. Journal of School Psychology, 52(2), 123–147.
44.
SnodgrassM. R.ChungM. Y.MeadanH.HalleJ. W. (2018). Social validity in single-case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 160–173.
45.
TalbottE.MagginD. M.Van AckerE. Y.KummS. (2018). Quality indicators for reviews of research in special education. Exceptionality, 26(4), 245–265.
46.
TrumpC. E.AyresK. M.QuinlandK. K.ZabalaK. A. (2020). Differential reinforcement without extinction: A review of the literature.Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 20(2), 94.
47.
Van den NoortgateW.López-LópezJ. A.Marín-MartínezF.Sánchez-MecaJ. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 576–594.
48.
WahmanC. L.FettigA.ZimmermanK. (2023). Social and emotional intervention research as justice: A case for accountability. Remedial and Special Education, 44, 423–438.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
51.
ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R. (2017). Beyond ASD: Evidence for the effectiveness of social narratives. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(3), 199–217.
52.
ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R.GagnonK. L.MartinJ. L. (2020). Social stories and visual supports interventions for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 45(4), 207–223.
53.
ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R.SeveriniK. E.PustejovskyJ. E.BartonE. E.LloydB. P. (2018). Single-case synthesis tools I: Comparing tools to evaluate SCD quality and rigor. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 19–32.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
