The Effectiveness of Daily Behavior Report Cards for Children With ADHD: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis examined group-design studies investigating the effectiveness of Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRC) as a school-based intervention to manage the classroom behavior of students with ADHD. Methods: A search of three article databases (PsycINFO, ERIC and Medline) identified seven group design evaluations of DBRC interventions. This meta-analysis included a total of 272 participants, with an average age of 7.9 years old. Three of the studies compared a control group to a treatment group with randomized group assignment, one study compared a control group to three treatment groups, two studies compared pre-and post-treatment scores in the same group, and one study compared pre-and post-treatment results of two intervention groups without random assignment. Dependent measures for these studies were teacher ratings (n = 5) and systematic direct observation of student academic and social behaviour (n = 2). Standardized mean differences ( Hedge’s g) were calculated to obtain a pooled effect size using fixed effects. Results: DBRCs were associated with reductions teacher-rated ADHD symptoms, with a Hedge’s g of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.12-0.60, z=2.93, p ≤ .005) with low heterogeneity (Q-value: 2.40, I 2 = 0.00). This result excluded two studies that used observational coding instead of standardized tests to evaluate the effects of the intervention. A moderator analysis indicated that the effect size for systematic direct observation was large ( Hedge’s G = 1.05[95% CI: 0.66-1.44, z=5.25, p ≤ .00]), with very high heterogeneity (Q-value: 46.34, I 2 : 93.53). A second moderator analysis found differences in the effects of DBRCs for comorbid externalizing symptoms with an overall effect size of 0.34 (95%CI: -0.04-0.72, z=1.76 p =0.08) with high heterogeneity (Q-value: 3.98, I 2 : 74.85). Conclusions: DBRCs effectively reduce the frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms in classroom settings. Additionally, they have a significant effect on co-occuring externalizing behaviors. It appears that systematic direct observation may be a more sensitive measure of treatment effects compared to teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".