Purpose: The systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of self-management interventions on classroom behaviors and academic outcomes. Methods: Review procedures followed Campbell Collaboration guidelines to search, select, and extract data from published and unpublished studies employing an experimental/quasi-experimental comparison group or single-case experimental design assessing the effects of a self-management intervention in schools. Seventy-five single-case design studies (236 participants; 456 effects) and 4 comparison group studies (422 participants; 11 effects) were included. Results: Single-case results indicated self-management interventions positively impacted challenging behaviors (LRRi = 0.69 [0.59, 0.78]) and academic outcomes (LRRi = 0.58 [0.41, 0.76]). A significant main effect for improving challenging behaviors was revealed in group design studies (g = 0.63 [0.08, 1.17]). Discussion: Limitations, including methodological shortcomings in the single-group design studies and the small number of comparison group studies, should be considered when interpreting findings. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2009). Review and analysis of literature on self-management interventions to promote appropriate classroom behaviors (1988–2008). School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016159
3.
BruhnA.McDanielS.KreighC. (2015). Self-monitoring interventions for students with behavior problems: A systematic review of current research. Behavioral Disorders, 40(2), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.17988/BD-13-45.1
4.
MooneyP.RyanJ. B.UhingB. M.ReidR.EpsteinM. H. (2005). A review of self-management interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(3), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-005-6298-1
5.
NelsonR. O.HayesS. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, 5(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544558151001
6.
The Methods Group of the Campbell Collaboration. Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews: Conduct standards Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 3 https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.3
AlgozzineB.BrowderD.KarvonenM.TestD. W.WoodW. M. (2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 219–277. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002219
11.
AyresK. M.GastD. L. (2010). Dependent measures and measurement procedures. In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 129–165). Routledge.
BraunerC. B.StephensC. B. (2006). Estimating the prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorders: Challenges and recommendations. Public Health Reports, 121(3), 303. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100314
14.
BruhnA.GilmourA.RilaA.Van CampA.SheafferA.HancockE., …, & WehbyJ. (2022). Treatment components and participant characteristics associated with outcomes in self-monitoring interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720946651
15.
BushawW. J.LopezS. J. (2010). A time for change: The 42nd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200103
16.
CarrS. C.PunzoR. P. (1993). The effects of self-monitoring of academic accuracy and productivity on the performance of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18(4), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874299301800401
17.
CarterE. W.LaneK. L.CrnoboriM.BruhnA. L.OakesW. P. (2011). Self-determination interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Mapping the knowledge base. Behavioral Disorders, 36(2), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291103600202
18.
ClearyT. J.ZimmermanB. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10177
19.
CohenD. R.LewisC.EddyC. L.HenryL.HodgsonC.HuangF. L.ReinkeW. M.HermanK. C. (2021). In-school and out-of-school suspension: Behavioral and psychological outcomes in a predominately black sample of middle school students. School Psychology Review, 23, 1–14.
CollinsT. A.DrevonD. D.BrownA. M.VillarrealJ. N.NewmanC. L.EndresB. (2020). Say something nice: A meta-analytic review of peer reporting interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 83, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.10.002
22.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271
23.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2011). Self-determination theory. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–433). SAGE Publications.
24.
DiGangiS. A.MaagJ. W.RutherfordR. B.Jr. (1991). Self-graphing of on-task behavior: Enhancing the reactive effects of self-monitoring on on-task behavior and academic performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510851
25.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P.DymnickiA. B.TaylorR. D.SchellingerK. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
26.
FantuzzoJ. W.PoliteK. (1990). School-based, behavioral self-management: A review and analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 5(3), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090612
27.
FantuzzoJ. W.PoliteK.CookD. M.QuinnG. (1988). An evaluation of the effectiveness of teacher- vs. student-management classroom interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 25(2), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807
28.
FieldS.MartinJ.MillerR.WardM.WehmeyerM. (1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determination: ERIC.
29.
GagnéM. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869
30.
GanzJ. B.SigafoosJ. (2005). Self-monitoring: Are young adults with MR and autism able to utilize cognitive strategies independently?Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 24–33.
31.
GraysonJ. L.AlvarezH. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1349–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
32.
HarrisonK. R.LaneK. L.DriscollS. A.GrahamS.WilsonK.SandmelK., …, & SchatschneiderC. (2012). Tier 1, teacher-implemented self-regulated strategy development for students with and without behavioral challenges: A randomized controlled trial. The Elementary School Journal, 113(2), 160–191. https://doi.org/10.1086/667403
33.
HeckmanJ. J.KautzT. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 19, 451–464.
34.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
35.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
36.
HigginsJ. P.AltmanD. G.GøtzscheP. C.JüniP.MoherD.OxmanA. D., …, & SterneJ. A. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928.
37.
IrwinV.ZhangJ.WangX.HeinS.WangK.RobertsA.PurcellS. (2021). Report on the condition of education 2021. NCES 2021-144. National Center for Education Statistics.
38.
JamshidiL.HeyvaertM.DeclercqL.Fernández-CastillaB.FerronJ. M.MoeyaertM.Van den NoortgateW. (2018). Methodological quality of meta-analyses of single-case experimental studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.12.016
39.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
40.
KratochwillT. R.StoiberK. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the procedural and coding manual of division 16 and the society for the study of school psychology task force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(4), 341–389. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.17.4.341.20872
41.
LancioniG. E.O’ReillyM. F. (2001). Self-management of instruction cues for occupation: Review of studies with people with severe and profound developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(00)00063-9
42.
LaneK. L.MenziesH. M.BruhnA. L.CrnoboriM. (2010). Managing challenging behaviors in schools: Research-based strategies that work. Guilford Press.
43.
LedfordJ. R.PustejovskyJ. E. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of stay-play-talk interventions for improving social behaviors of young children. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 25(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720983521
44.
MagginD. M.BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2013). An application of the what works clearinghouse standards for evaluating single-subject research synthesis of the self-management literature base. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511435176
45.
Methods Group of the Campbell Collaboration. (2019). Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews: Conduct standards Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 3. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.3.
46.
MillerM.MillerS. R.WheelerJ.SelingerJ. (1989). Can a single-classroom treatment approach change academic performance and behavioral characteristics in severely behaviorally disordered adolescents: An experimental inquiry. Behavioral Disorders, 14(4), 215–225.
47.
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
48.
NelsonJ. R.BennerG. J.LaneK.SmithB. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407100104
49.
NiemiecC. P.RyanR. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
50.
OhakamnuG. N. (2010). The effects of partner-check self-recording of on-task behavior on academic productivity in children with behavior problems [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Walden University.
51.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
52.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Measurement-comparable effect sizes for single-case studies of free-operant behavior. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 342–359. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000019
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
55.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2019). Procedural sensitivities of effect sizes for single-case designs with directly observed behavioral outcome measures. Psychological Methods, 24(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000179
PustejovskyJ. E.TiptonE. (2018). Small-sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 36(4), 672–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2016.1247004
58.
ReichowB.BartonE. E.MagginD. M. (2018). Development and applications of the single-case design risk of bias tool for evaluating single-case design research study reports. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.008
RothbartM. K.RuedaM. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. In Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167–188). American Psychological Association.
61.
RutherfordR. B.JrQuinnM. M.MathurS. R. (2004). Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders. Guilford Press.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206
64.
SerpellZ.HaylingC. C.StevensonH.KernL. (2009). Cultural considerations in the development of school-based interventions for African American adolescent boys with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Negro Education, 78, 321–332.
65.
ShadishW. R.RindskopfD. M.HedgesL. V. (2008). The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489530802581603
66.
ShapiroE.DurnanS.PostE.Skibitsky-LevinsonT. (2002). Self-monitoring procedures for children and adolescents. In Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 433–454). National Association of School Psychologists.
ShapiroE. S.ColeC. L. (1994). Behavior change in the classroom: Self-management interventions. Guilford Press.
69.
SheridanS. M.SmithT. E.KimE. M.BeretvasS. N.ParkS. (2019). A meta-analysis of family-school interventions and children’s social-emotional functioning: Child and community influences and components of efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 89, 296–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318825437
70.
SmithT. E.HolmesS. R.SheridanS. M.CooperJ.BloomfieldB.PreastJ. (2021). Effects of consultation-based family-school engagement interventions on student and parent outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 31(3), 278–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2020.1749062
71.
SmithT. E.SheridanS. M.KimE. M.ParkS.BeretvasS. M. (2020). The effects of family-school partnership interventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: A meta-analysis exploring what works for whom. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 511–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09509-w
72.
SmithT. E.ThompsonA. M.MaynardB. R. (2022). Self-management interventions for reducing challenging behaviors among school-age students: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(1), e1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1223
73.
StormontM. A.ThompsonA. M.ElmoreR. (2020). The effect of STARS for students with high incidence disabilities: a randomized pilot study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1811625
74.
Tanner-SmithE. E.TiptonE. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1091
75.
TarlowK. R. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-case designs: Baseline corrected tau. Behavior Modification, 41(4), 427–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516676750
76.
ThompsonA. M. (2012). A randomized trial of the Self-management Training And Regulation Strategy (STARS): A selective intervention for students with disruptive classroom behaviors. Proquest Publishers.
77.
ThompsonA. M.RuhrL. R.MaynardB. R.PeltsM. D.BowenN. K. (2013). Protocol for a systematic review: Self-management interventions for reducing challenging behaviors among school-age students: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.99
78.
ThompsonA. M.WebberK. C. (2010). Realigning student and teacher perceptions of school rules: A behavior management strategy for students with challenging behaviors. Children & Schools, 32(2), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/32.2.71
79.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099
Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2008). A multilevel meta-analysis of single-subject experimental design studies. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489530802505362
83.
VaughnS.BosC. S.SchummJ. S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom. Pearson.
84.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
85.
WahmanC. L.PustejovskyJ. E.OstroskyM. M.SantosR. M. (2022). Examining the effects of Social Stories™ on challenging behavior and prosocial skills in young children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(4), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419855692
86.
WalkerH. M.RamseyE.GreshamF. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
87.
WentzelK. R.FilisettiL.LooneyL. (2007). Adolescent prosocial behavior: The role of self-processes and contextual cues. Child Development, 78(3), 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01039.x
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.RoeserR.SchiefeleU. (2008). Development of achievement motivation. Child and Adolescent Development: An Advanced Course, 26, 406–434.
91.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.SchiefeleU.RoeserR. W.Davis-KeanP. (2007). Development of achievement motivation. Wiley Online Library.
