Teacher-directed self-monitoring (TD-SM) is often recommended to special education teachers as a simple and efficient method for improving the implementation fidelity of evidence-based practices in the classroom and strengthening outcomes for students. This systematic review and outcomes analysis investigated the conditions and intervention packages under which TD-SM can be effective at improving implementation fidelity as well as the associated effects of TD-SM on student outcomes targeted by the practices monitored for fidelity. Results indicate TD-SM demonstrated generally positive outcomes when used to improve the fidelity of instructional methods with varying intervention packages. Gains in instructional method implementation fidelity sometimes resulted in gains in student outcomes. The use of TD-SM to improve the fidelity of behavioral interventions resulted in varied fidelity and student outcomes, despite the use of consistent intervention packages. Implications for future research and practical use of TD-SM are discussed.
BartonE. E.MeadanH.FettigA. (2019). Comparison of visual analysis, non-overlap methods, and effect sizes in the evaluation of parent implemented functional assessment based interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 85, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.11.001
2.
BrieschA. M.DanielsB.BenevilleM. (2019). Unpacking the term “self-management”: Understanding intervention applications within the school-based literature. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9303-1
3.
BrockM. E.Cannella-MaloneH. I.SeamanR. L.AndzikN. R.SchaeferJ. M.Justin PageE.BarczakM. A.DuekerS. A. (2017). Findings across practitioner training studies in special education: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917698008
4.
*BrowderD. M.LibertyK.HellerM.D’HuyvettersK. K. (1986). Self-management by teachers: Improving instructional decision making. Professional School Psychology, 1(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090506
5.
BrowderD. M.ShapiroE. S. (1985). Applications of self-management to individuals with severe handicaps: A review. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 10(4), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698501000403
6.
*BrowderD. M.TrelaK.JimenezB. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040301
7.
Collier-MeekM. A.FallonL. M.SanettiL. M.MagginD. M. (2013). Focus on implementation: Assessing and promoting treatment fidelity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(5), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500506
8.
*CoogleC. G.NagroS.ReganK.O’BrienK. M.OttleyJ. R. (2022). The impact of real-time feedback and video analysis on early childhood teachers’ practice. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41, 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419857142
9.
CookB.OdomS. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900201
10.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.
11.
*FallonL. M.CathcartS. C.DeFouwE. R.O’KeeffeB. V.SugaiG. (2018). Promoting teachers’ implementation of culturally and contextually relevant class-wide behavior plans. Psychology in the Schools, 55(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22107
12.
*HyerG.Cooper-DuffyK. (2019). Preparing interns to use functional story-based instruction to teach students with a severe intellectual disability in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 38(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519826928
13.
King-SearsM. E.WalkerJ. D.BarryC. (2018). Measuring teachers’ intervention fidelity. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218765229
14.
LarsonM.CookC. R.FiatA.LyonA. R. (2018). Stressed teachers don’t make good implementers: Examining the interplay between stress reduction and intervention fidelity. School Mental Health, 10(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9250-y
15.
LedfordJ. R.ChazinK. T.LaneJ. D.ZimmermanK. N.AyresK. A. (2020, September). Single case analysis and review framework (SCARF). http://ebip.vkcsites.org/scarfv2
16.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.). (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
17.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.SeveriniK. E. (2018). Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single case design studies. Brain Impairment, 19(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.16
18.
LockeJ.LawsonG. M.BeidasR. S.AaronsG. A.XieM.LyonA. R.StahmerA.SeidmanM.FrederickL.OhC.SpauldingC.DorseyS.MandellD. S. (2019). Individual and organizational factors that affect implementation of evidence-based practices for children with autism in public schools: A cross-sectional observational study. Implementation Science, 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0877-3
19.
MoeyaertM.MagginD.VerkuilenJ. (2016). Reliability, validity, and usability of data extraction programs for single-case research designs. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516645763
20.
MoeyaertM.ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R. (2018). Synthesis and meta-analysis of single case research. In LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 393–416). Routledge.
21.
*MouzakitisA.CoddingR. S.TryonG. (2015). The effects of self-monitoring and performance feedback on the treatment integrity of behavior intervention plan implementation and generalization. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715573629
22.
MyersD.SugaiG.SimonsenB.FreemanJ. (2017). Assessing teachers’ behavior support skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.117/088840641770964
23.
NoellG. H.GansleK. A.MeversJ. L.KnoxR. M.MintzJ. C.DahirA. (2014). Improving treatment plan implementation in schools: A meta-analysis of single subject design studies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(1), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9177-1
24.
PageM. J.MoherD.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.. . . McKenzieJ. E. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
25.
*PelletierK.McNamaraB.Braga-KenyonP.AhearnW. H. (2010). Effect of video self-monitoring on procedural integrity. Behavioral Interventions, 25(4), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.316
26.
*PinkelmanS. E.HornerR. H. (2017). Improving implementation of function-based interventions: Self-monitoring, data collection, and data review. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(4), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716683634
27.
*PlavnickJ. B.FerreriS. J.MaupinA. N. (2010). The effects of self-monitoring on the procedural integrity of a behavioral intervention for young children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(2), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-315
28.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
29.
PustejovskyJ. E.ChenM.HamiltonB. (2021). scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version 0.5.2) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm
30.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614547577
31.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
32.
RispoliM.ZainiS.MasonR.BrodheadM.BurkeM. D.GregoriE. (2017). A systematic review of teacher self-monitoring on implementation of behavioral practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.007
33.
*RobertsC. A.LekoM. M. (2013). Integrating functional and academic goals into literacy instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities through shared story reading. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800303
34.
RobertsonR. E.KokinaA. A.MooreD. W. (2020). Barriers to implementing behavior intervention plans: Results of a statewide survey. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(3), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720908013
35.
SanettiL. M. H.CookB. G.CookL. (2021). Treatment fidelity: What it is and why it matters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12238
36.
SanettiL. M. H.LuhH. J. (2020). Treatment fidelity in school-based intervention. In ReschlyA.PohlA.ChristensonS. (Eds.), Student engagement (pp. 77–87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37285-9_4
37.
SpencerT. D.DetrichR.SlocumT. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice: A framework for making effective decisions. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0013
38.
StahmerA. C.RiethS.LeeE.ReisingerE. M.MandellD. S.ConnellJ. E. (2015). Training teachers to use evidence-based practices for autism: Examining procedural implementation fidelity. Psychology in the Schools, 52(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21815
39.
Sterling-TurnerH. E.WatsonT. S.MooreJ. W. (2002). The effects of direct training and treatment integrity on treatment outcomes in school consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.17.1.47.19906
40.
SuhrheinrichJ.RiethS. R.DicksonK. S.StahmerA. C. (2020). Exploring associations between inner-context factors and implementation outcomes. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919881354
41.
SwainK. D.HagamanJ. L.Leader-JanssenE. M. (2022). Teacher-reported IEP goal data collection methods. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 66(2), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1980849
42.
ValentineJ. C.Tanner-SmithE. E.PustejovskyJ. E.LauT. S. (2016). Between-case standardized mean difference effect sizes for single-case designs: A primer and tutorial using the scdhlm web application. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2016.1
43.
ZhangY.CookC. R.LyonA. R. (2022). A simple matter of time? School-level analysis of the relationship between time allocation, treatment integrity, and student outcome. School Mental Health, 14, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-021-09412-2
44.
ZimmermanK. N.PustejovskyJ. E.LedfordJ. R.BartonE. E.SeveriniK. E.LloydB. P. (2018). Single-case synthesis tools II: Comparing quantitative outcome measures. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.02.001
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.
