View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Time-Out for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Time-Out for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review
Language: English
Authors: Jonte' C. Taylor (ORCID 0000-0002-4418-8805), Michele L. Moohr, Salvador Ruiz, Alice Cahill
Source: Behavioral Disorders. 2026 51(3):146-159.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Behavior Disorders, Emotional Disturbances, Timeout, Behavior Modification, Behavioral Science Research, Effect Size, Student Behavior, Students with Disabilities
DOI: 10.1177/01987429251371075
ISSN: 0198-7429
2163-5307
Abstract: Students with challenging behaviors can put a strain on both teachers and other learners in the classroom. While responding to challenging behavior in an effective and educative manner is critical for successfully teaching school-age children, teachers are often under-trained in evidence-based behavior reduction techniques. Timeout (TO) is defined as a behavior reduction strategy that involves removing access to reinforcement and reinforcers. TO procedures have a long history of research regarding its effectiveness and have been used by teachers and other service providers for decades. Furthermore, TO procedures can be categorized into two broad types (exclusionary and non-exclusionary) with a variety of implementation methods for each. This analysis examined published studies on TO and TO procedures for students identified as needing behavioral support. Along with analyzing the published research, we calculated the effect sizes of the TO procedures used for each study using single case research design methodologies (i.e., within-case standard mean difference and between-case standard mean difference) as appropriate and group design methodology (i.e., standard mean difference). We also evaluated publication bias on TO research for students who need behavioral support and analyzed the quality of each included study. Implications for research and practice are discuss.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1502909
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFQmVYTWwFo6RUJq2tKUcQKAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAh8XtFvqXQEz76AwgIBEICBm-mU_TNJJZ4L1G_NcBj4pYpXtOr1l1Q8zW8PWiDIJLsVZWk3ohU5lglIg1h5XBaFx1PI1Tic60OgjMKQb-yoeJ7med7l4W3EMT1ePFql18tsFvDVVp0QKral5GX_Qf_mDvAecTvUCsGl9h7bGDi4udfhLSrRILj2XArviOFQNW7e7Xw_M8T2LClw7s0RyWztclqF7xUpTW4vRe65
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0192953818;bhd01may.26;2026Apr15.01:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192953818-1">Time-Out for Students With Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review </title> <p>Students with challenging behaviors can put a strain on both teachers and other learners in the classroom. While responding to challenging behavior in an effective and educative manner is critical for successfully teaching school-age children, teachers are often under-trained in evidence-based behavior reduction techniques. Timeout (TO) is defined as a behavior reduction strategy that involves removing access to reinforcement and reinforcers. TO procedures have a long history of research regarding its effectiveness and have been used by teachers and other service providers for decades. Furthermore, TO procedures can be categorized into two broad types (exclusionary and non-exclusionary) with a variety of implementation methods for each. This analysis examined published studies on TO and TO procedures for students identified as needing behavioral support. Along with analyzing the published research, we calculated the effect sizes of the TO procedures used for each study using single case research design methodologies (i.e., within-case standard mean difference and between- case standard mean difference) as appropriate and group design methodology (i.e., standard mean difference). We also evaluated publication bias on TO research for students who need behavioral support and analyzed the quality of each included study. Implications for research and practice are discuss.</p> <p>Keywords: behavioral interventions; evidence-based practices; meta-analysis; systematic review; emotional or behavioral disorders/disabilities; assessment</p> <p>Teachers in today's schools are responsible for creating environments that facilitate student learning while maintaining a positive and nurturing school climate that meets the diverse needs of many learners. Throughout the school day, teachers must simultaneously ensure that instruction is effectively and efficiently delivered, students are engaged in and learning academic material, and disruptive behaviors are averted ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref1">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref2">77</reflink>]). Students with challenging behaviors, including those with identified emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), often exhibit a higher frequency of disciplinary issues than their non-disabled peers. As such, they are entitled to Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Since the LRE is most often the general education classroom, the responsibility for providing these entitlements often falls to classroom teachers ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]). This can strain teachers and other classroom learners ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref4">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Trends in behavior management over the past several decades have focused on providing multi-tiered positive, preventative, and restorative policies for addressing disruptive behavior in school settings ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref5">69</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref6">87</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref7">88</reflink>]). Traditionally, however, punitive and exclusionary practices have been implemented to keep the behaviors of one student from negatively impacting others in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref8">81</reflink>]). Over the past several decades, research reflects this shift from punishment oriented to positive practices.</p> <p>There is a paucity of research detailing the more intensive yet efficacious practices for students with EBD who access their education in the general education environment. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>] suggest that inclusion models that insist on general classroom placement may hinder opportunities for academic and social gains due to reduced access to specialized instruction. While responding to challenging behavior in an effective and educative manner is critical for successfully educating school-age children, teachers are often under-trained in function and evidence-based behavior reduction techniques ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref10">78</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref11">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-2">Punishment Principles, Behavior Reduction Strategies, and Time-Out</hd> <p>By definition, punishment procedures are behavior reduction techniques involving the presentation of an aversive or undesired event or stimulus (positive punishment) or removal of a preferred event or stimulus (negative punishment), contingent on exhibition of the target behavior, that decreases the future likelihood of exhibition of that behavior ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]). Simply stated, punishment is a consequence-based contingency designed to quickly reduce, decrease, or lower behavior occurrences of disruptive or otherwise unwanted behavior. One commonly utilized behavior reduction strategy is time-out.</p> <p>Timeout (TO), also referred to as time-out from positive reinforcement, is a negative punishment procedure because it relies on the contingent removal of access to desirable items, activities, or people to affect a decrease in the future frequency of a target behavior ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref14">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref15">74</reflink>]). TO is more aversive than some behavior reduction procedures (e.g., differential reinforcement, extinction) but not as aversive as others (e.g., overcorrection, restitution; [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref16">83</reflink>]). Even so, time-out has a long-established history of being a first-choice disciplinary procedure, possible because it creates a negative reinforcement contingency for the teacher by removing an aversive stimulus from the environment. Because the removal of the students acts as a reinforcer, the teacher will likely continue to remove the student from the environment under the same conditions in the future. Time out procedures may also reduce aggressive acts in other students who observe a peer receiving TO ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref17">85</reflink>]) and, when implemented correctly, is considered an evidence-based practice ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref18">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research has shown that teachers frequently implement TO procedures in inclusive classrooms. In an early study, 70% of pre-school through grade 12 teachers surveyed reported using time-out procedures ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref19">92</reflink>]). Of the 730 teachers surveyed, preschool (88%), early elementary (78%) and intermediate elementary level teachers used time out procedures most frequently, however, middle school (65%) and high school teachers (51%) also reported using TO as a disciplinary procedure. Similarly, in a sample of 20 elementary level teachers surveyed about negative individual behavior management strategies, all reported using a system that included a time out procedure ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref20">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several variations to the TO strategy exist along a continuum of least to most intrusive. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>] identified three types of time out (non-exclusionary, exclusionary, and isolation). More recently, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>] included isolation time out as a type of exclusionary time out, and this work adopts Cooper's description. Both non-exclusionary and exclusionary time out can take multiple forms.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-3">Non-Exclusionary TO Strategies</hd> <p>Non-exclusionary time-out involves the implementation of TO procedures while the student is within the active reinforcing setting exemplified by the removal of one or more of four elements including (a) reinforcement opportunities, (b) the reinforcer itself, (c) barriers to observing preferred activities but no opportunity to participate, or (d) moving the individual to a different location in the time-in setting ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]). This type of TO includes planned ignoring, contingent observation, termination of specific reinforcer contact, and partition/select space time-out ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref24">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref25">67</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-4">Planned Ignoring</hd> <p> <emph>Planned ignoring</emph> is the deliberate removal of social reinforcers (e.g., attention, interaction, engagement) contingent upon student's exhibiting undesired behavior. When implemented, planned ignoring does not remove the student from the environment or situation ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref26">80</reflink>]). Teachers can use planned ignoring when socially mediated attention maintains the challenging behavior ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]). Furthermore, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref28">90</reflink>] suggested using planned ignoring for behaviors that fell into four categories: (a) is mildly disruptive, (b) is exclusively for teacher attention, (c) is not for peer attention, and (d) is not harmful to people, self, or others. For example, a student yells out a teacher's name and the teacher does not acknowledge the yelling. It is important for the teacher to ignore the undesirable behavior consciously and consistently while richly reinforcing the student's engagement in desired behaviors that serve the same function (e.g., hand raising to get teacher attention).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-5">Contingent Observation</hd> <p> <emph>Contingent observation</emph>, also known as "sit and watch," is a time-out procedure in which access to the sources of reinforcement are removed for a specified time contingent upon the exhibition of desired behavior ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref29">65</reflink>]). During contingent observation, the student remains in the classroom but is moved to an area where they can still observe the class. For contingent observation to have the desired effect, the environment from which the student is removed must be reinforcing. In addition, to increase the reinforcing qualities of the "time in" setting, the teacher must reinforce the expected behaviors of the target student's peers in the presence of the target student ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref30">80</reflink>]). An example of contingent observation includes having a student sit and watch their peers during recess for a short time after exhibiting aggressive play.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-6">Termination of Specific Reinforcer Contact</hd> <p>The <emph>termination of specific reinforcer contact</emph> time-out strategy involves removing a desired object (i.e., positive reinforcers: food, toys, etc.) that is available to the student or in the student's possession for a brief amount of time contingent on engaging in a target problem behavior ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). The reinforcing stimulus is delivered to the student immediately upon display of desired behavior ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]). One specific strategy connected to this time-out procedure is the use of time-out ribbons. During the time-out ribbon procedure, all students are given a ribbon to keep at their desks or wear. The presence of the ribbon acts as a discriminative stimulus signaling that positive reinforcement of desired behaviors is available (e.g., behavior specific praise, non-contingent reinforcement). When any disruptive behavior occurs, the teacher removes the ribbon. Absence of the ribbon conveys the message that reinforcement is not available and will be withheld either for a specified period of time (e.g., 3 minutes) or until the misbehavior stops ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]). Once the student possesses the ribbon, they resume earning reinforcement. A practical example of a TO ribbon procedure would involve a teacher targeting out-of-seat behavior. If the student leaves their seat without permission, the teacher removes the ribbon, signaling the inability to earn reinforcement. Once the students return to their seats, they can have the ribbon back. The teacher would then contingently provide reinforcement for the student's in-seat behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-7">Partition/Select Space Time-Out</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>] describe <emph>partition/select space time-out</emph> as "the student remains within the time-in setting, but his view within the setting is restricted by a panel or cubicle, or a select space is arranged to serve as the time-out area (i.e., a carpet, a corner)" (p. 395). Partition time-out procedures do not include physical removal of the student from the environment. For example, a desk with a study carrel facing away from the class limits the student's view of the time-in environment. Similarly, portable partitions can be arranged in such a way as to create a separate TO space within the classroom, allowing the teacher to continue monitoring student behavior. Partition TO may be most effective when the activity is highly desirable and/or reinforcing for the student.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-8">Exclusionary TO</hd> <p>In contrast to non-exclusionary TO, exclusionary TO involves removal of the student from a reinforcing setting, contingent on exhibition of undesirable behavior, for a specified period ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref36">66</reflink>]). Forms of exclusionary time-out are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>) time-in setting removed from participant and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>) participant removed from time-in setting ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref39">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref40">66</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref41">89</reflink>] defined exclusionary TO as any procedure that includes a student's removal from instructional activities, without any opportunity to participate in those activities. That is, the <emph>individual is removed from the reinforcers or reinforcing setting or condition.</emph> Exclusionary procedures are considered more intrusive than non-inclusionary procedures ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref42">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Exclusionary time-out has been used in hallway time-outs and time-out rooms. A hallway TO involves having the student stand in the hallway, near the time-in environment, for a short period of time ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]). The student can hear what is going on in the classroom (and look in) and the teacher is able to monitor the student's behavior. This type of TO is effective with certain conditions being met including (a) few distractions or reinforcers in the hall, (b) teacher unobstructed observational angles, and (c) escape is not the function of inappropriate behavior. Time-out rooms are considered seclusion or isolation TO and are the most restrictive form of time-out ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]). When students are removed to an isolation time- out room, they are placed in a room for a specified amount of time ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]) and have no interaction with the teacher or peers. According to the Division of Emotional and Behavioral Health (DEBH; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]) of the Council for Exceptional Children, this form of TO requires the user to answer a few questions before implementation, including:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> are there local, state, and federal laws or ordinances that prohibit or guide use?</item> <p></p> <item> has there been consideration of the appropriateness and impact of TO room as a consequence to the target student, peers, personnel, and property?</item> <p></p> <item> is there the appropriate amount of personnel, and are they appropriately trained?</item> </ulist> <p>It is important to note here that the "Keeping All Students Safe Act" was introduced in congress in May [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>]. The bills would ban all seclusion and restraint practices in schools receiving federal funding. The bill was written in response to data from the 2017–18 academic year showing that 78% of all students subjected to seclusion and restraint were students with disabilities who were identified as Black/African American and boys. As of this writing, the bill has not progressed past the introductory phase.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-9">Concerns With Time-Out Procedures</hd> <p>TO is an attractive intervention. It is easy to implement, widely considered as appropriate, reduces unwanted behaviors quickly and can be combined with other interventions. The ultimate goal of classrooms management, however, is to create equitable learning environments for all students, not just those who conform to the existing norms of the prevailing school culture ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref48">84</reflink>]). The actions of students who are perceived as physically, culturally, or cognitively different are at greater risk for having their "actions misperceived and judged unfairly" ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>], p. 352). Subsequently, these students may be more likely to experience disciplinary time-out interventions.</p> <p>Responding to challenging behavior in an effective, ethical, and educative manner is critical; the side-effects related to punishment procedures may decrease their potency. In addition to the concerns regarding culturally responsive practices, functional concerns also exist. For instance, escape-maintained behaviors of students are removed from inaccurately identified reinforcing environments may the inadvertently reinforced ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]). It is also possible that the attention a misbehaving student receives from their teacher or peers is more reinforcing than the TO is punishing ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref52">46</reflink>]). Time away from instruction during TO may lead to decreased learning opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref53">74</reflink>]) for the student, and there has been continuing concerns that exclusionary procedures violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref54">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref55">52</reflink>]) and the right for a FAPE ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref57">94</reflink>]). As mentioned previously, the removal of a disruptive student from the environment also creates a negative reinforcement contingency for the teacher who escapes an aversive condition and, as a result, may continue to exhibit the exclusionary behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-10">Purpose of the Current Study and Research Questions</hd> <p>Current trends in education advocate for using positive and proactive approaches for managing student behavior in schools and classrooms. For SWD, the reauthorization of the IDEA in 1997 further specified the requirement that schools utilize positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address behaviors that impede learning and to prevent behavior from reoccurring through the teaching and reinforcement of functional replacement behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref58">79</reflink>]). Despite this provision, punitive practices such as time-out may still be appropriate for reducing unwanted behaviors. TO has a long history of implementation and success as it relates to behavior reduction techniques for problematic or challenging behaviors. However, there have been surprisingly few syntheses of TO research to ascertain the overall effectiveness of time-out strategies for students with EBD collectively or individually.</p> <p>The purpose of the present review and analysis is to review the research literature collectively focused on time-out procedures for students with EBD and conduct an analysis of published empirical studies, dissertations, and theses of the use of time-out for students with EBD in educational settings. To date, only one literature review ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref59">90</reflink>]) and one meta-analysis ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref60">83</reflink>]) have been conducted specifically in relation to TO procedures and both focused on typically developing students. Given that students with EBD are disproportionately subjected to exclusionary disciplinary practices, it is crucial that data informing the virtue of time out as an evidence-based practice be explored and disseminated.</p> <p>The current review and analysis will focus on the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the characteristics of research studies examining the use of time-out procedures for students identified with an EBD in educational settings?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the effect sizes of research studies examining the use of time-out procedures for students with EBD in educational settings?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the quality of research studies examining the use of time-out procedures for students with EBD in educational settings based on appropriate quality indicators?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the extent of publication bias within research literature examining the use of time-out procedures for students with EBD in educational settings?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0192953818-11">Method</hd> <p>For the purposes of the current special series, the authors proceeded through multiple stages and disclosures. First, the authors pre-registered the review and analysis methodology for peer-review prior to continuing the study. The disclosure includes providing data to support validity and reliability in our search procedures, inclusion criteria, study selection, data extraction, analysis of data, and interrater reliability. Second, we provided all relevant materials used in the study including coding, websites, calculators, and rubrics used for analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-12">Literature Search and Study Selection</hd> <p>A systematic search of the relevant literature was performed consistent with the PRISMA methodology to identify the extant research aligned to the focus of the review and analysis ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref61">42</reflink>]). In an effort to gather all available research on time-out for students with EBD, the authors reviewed databases that house published and gray literature (i.e., thesis, dissertations, pre-printed and pre-registered studies). Studies in this review were gleaned from systematic searches of the following databases: <emph>Academic Search Complete</emph> and <emph>Premiere</emph>, Psychological and Behavioral Sciences Collection (i.e., <emph>PSYCArticles</emph> and <emph>PsychINFO), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, EdArXiv</emph>, and <emph>PsyArXiv</emph>.</p> <p>The following Boolean phrase were used in each database search related to population of interest within the full text of the manuscript ("emotion* OR/AND behave* disorders" OR/AND "emotion* disturb*" OR/AND "EBD" OR/AND "conduct disoder") AND intervention of interest ("time-out" OR "timeout" OR "exclusion*" OR "non-exclusion*"OR "seclusion*" OR "non-seclusion*" OR "ribbon" OR "timeout room" OR "contingent observation" OR "planned ignoring"). We did not include limiters during the search for potential studies. That is, date of publication or availability was not included as a factor during the search. Duplicate articles were removed.</p> <p>As per the requirements of this special series, the authors conducted forward, backward, hand, and ancestral/first author searchers. Forward searches included all studies that met criteria that are from primary sources. Backward searches were conducted on studies cited in the primary studies. We conducted a hand search of journals that focus on students with EBD (e.g., <emph>Behavior Disorders; Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders</emph>) and journals that have a history of publishing time-out studies as evidenced from our search (e.g., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis) with no date limiters. A hand search of journals that target EBD populations was selected as the participants in those journals are the primary participants sought out for the present review. Lastly, the authors conducted Ancestral/First Author searches that focus on locating publications referenced in primary sources by first or corresponding authors.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-13">Inclusion Criteria</hd> <p>Studies included in this review and analysis must include the following: (a) be written in English, (b) include students identified as ED or EBD as defined by the <emph>DSM</emph>-5-TR (c) occur in a PreK-12 educational settings (i.e., early education center, public school, private school, alternative school), (d) explicitly state the use of time-out strategies or procedures (e.g., time-out rooms, contingent observation, time-out ribbons), (d) use a quantitative experimental design (i.e., single-case or group design methodology), and students must be school age (i.e., 3 years of age to 21 years of age; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]). Students with ED/EBD in group design studies must be disaggregated as a group to allow for analysis. For single-case research studies, at least one student must be identified with ED/EBD based on design (e.g., multiple baseline or multiple probe designs).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-14">Exclusion Criteria</hd> <p>Studies were excluded from the current review that were: (a) written in a language other than English, (b) not quantitative empirical studies (e.g., qualitative studies, practitioner articles), (c) not strategies or procedures that can be considered as time-out, (d) not focused on students with ED or EBD; (e) not implemented educational settings (e.g., home). See Figure 1 for the search and inclusion process.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. PRISMA Manuscript Search and Inclusion Process.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-15">Data Extraction and Coding</hd> <p>Data was extracted from the included studies and coded for student-specific and study-specific variables. Student-specific variables included: (a) per participant gender (i.e., female; male), (b) setting (i.e., early education center, public school, private school, alternative school), (c) school grade level (i.e., pre-k; elementary; middle; high), and (d) participant race/ethnicity (i.e., Black; White; Hispanic; Asian; not specified). Study-specific variables included the following variables: (a) research design (i.e., group design; single case), (b) specific within-design features (e.g., quasi-experimental; multiple baseline design), and (c) publication type (e.g., research manuscript; dissertation). Variables specific to TO as the intervention of choice were coded as follows: (a) category of time-out (i.e., exclusionary; non-exclusionary), (b) specific type of time-out (e.g., ribbon; partition; room), (c) dependent variable, (d) implementation rationale (e.g., disruptive behavior, hitting, screaming), (e) TO implementer (e.g., teacher, para, other), (f) function of behavior (e.g., escape), and (g) behaviors occurring during TO, (h) length TO lasted (e.g., 2 min or less), and (i) adverse effects of TO reported (e.g., yes or no).</p> <p>Quantitative data extraction was based on the type of design methodology used per study. The study results of group design studies were reviewed by the authors. Each study was examined for means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for treatment and comparison groups at pre- and post-test intervals. If this information was not reported, extracted data included any reported statistical outcomes (e.g., chi-square statistics, F-scores, T-scores). The <emph>WebPlotDigitizer</emph> (Version 4.5; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref63">62</reflink>]) was used to extract precision data points for single case design studies. <emph>WebPlotDigitizer</emph> is a web-based software application that extracts XY axis coordinates form single case design graphic images. Once the single case data is extracted, it was compiled per case on an Excel spreadsheet.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-16">Effect Size Data Analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis for both single case and group design studies consisted of calculating for Cohen's <emph>d</emph> statistic using standard mean difference. Analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of TO based on individual study results per participant, omnibus study results across all studies, and based on participant, study, and TO variables from data extraction.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-17">Single Case Designs</hd> <p>The authors used within-case ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref64">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref65">28</reflink>]) and between case ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]) standardized mean difference (WC-SMD and BC-SMD respectively) to determine effect size outcomes for the effects of TO (independent variable) on the identified dependent variable. All effect sizes were calculated using a 95% confidence interval. The online Single Case Effect Size Calculator was used to calculate the WC-SMD effect sizes ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref68">57</reflink>]) with BC-SMD calculated using the Between-Case Standardized Mean Difference Estimator online calculator ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]). WC-SMD provides Cohen's d statistic, however, due to the nature of the analysis it can only be used to determine significance of effect size as each study acts as its own control. Thus, WC-SMD cannot be used for cross design comparisons. BC-SMD allows for comparable Cohen's <emph>d</emph> effect size estimates as with between-case experimental designs ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref70">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref71">71</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref72">35</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref73">59</reflink>] described the use of BC-SMD specifically for effect size analysis of multiple baseline designs and reversal designs. This statistic for single case design methodology is familiar to researchers of quantitative group design studies ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref74">72</reflink>]). WC-SMD effect size interpretations include as small effect as 0 to 1, a medium effect as 1 to 2.5, and a large effect as greater than 2.5 ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref75">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref76">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref77">93</reflink>]). BC-SMD effect size interpretations are a small effect as 0 to 0.2, a medium effect as 0.3 to 0.7, and a large effect as above 0.8 ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref78">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-18">Group Designs</hd> <p>Cohen's <emph>d</emph> effect size statistics were gleaned from standard mean differences from group design studies. Following suggestions from [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref79">33</reflink>], we reported unbiased standardized mean differences using means, standard deviations, and group sizes obtained at post-test from treatment and comparison groups or other relevant statistical results (e.g., <emph>t</emph>-scores; <emph>F</emph>-scores). The authors used the Campbell Collaboration effect size calculator to garner the Cohen's <emph>d</emph> statistic ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref80">86</reflink>].).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-19">Publication Bias</hd> <p>The authors of the current study analyzed the effect sizes from the literature to determine publication bias. Publication bias analysis was conducted via Egger's test method ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref81">20</reflink>]) and a funnel plot of effect size results and use of a funnel plot of effect size results for visual analysis. As suggested by [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref82">20</reflink>] the Egger's test method uses a weighted regression analysis to examine the relationship between effect size estimates and their precision measures. A significant intercept (<emph>p</emph> <.05) indicates publication bias. A funnel plot based on the effect sizes was produced of the included studies and their variance ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref83">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref85">55</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-20">Quality Indicator Analysis</hd> <p>The current study's authors used the guidelines introduced by ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]) to determine the quality of each single case design and group design study. Based on eight quality indicators ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref87">13</reflink>]) and the quality indicator matrix ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref88">64</reflink>]), we assessed the merit of each indicator for each study (i.e., 1 = met indicator; 0 = indicator not met). [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref89">64</reflink>] suggest using weighted criteria to determine if a study is methodologically viable (i.e., 80% = sound methodologically). Each study will be graded on the soundness of their methodology as suggested by [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref90">64</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-21">Interrater Reliability</hd> <p>Two raters were used to compare (a) search results, (b) included studies, (c) extracted data, and (d) quality indicators. Coders were trained for interrater reliability using sample studies of time-out that did not include students with ED/EBD. Once coders reached 90% agreement in practice, evaluation of included studies began. Disagreements were resolved through discussion to increase agreement between the two raters. Separate spreadsheets for each evaluation (data extraction and quality indicators) were used for each of the raters (2 x 2). The primary coder reviewed 100% of the included studies, and the secondary coder randomly reviewed 40%. Each study was independently coded with the goal of 90% agreement between the two raters across all evaluation metrics.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-22">Results</hd> <p>The initial search generated 3919 results. After duplicates and misidentified studies were removed, 319 remained. After screening titles and abstracts, two authors agreed on 37 potential studies to consider for inclusion. A hand search for any recent publications yielded zero results, as did an ancestral search following the same procedures. Following a discussion, the raters reached 100% agreement that 13 studies met the criteria for inclusion. All included studies were manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals. As a preregistered study, access to the extracted data from the included studies along with the coding metrics are available via the Open Science Framework (OSF) website (<ulink href="http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9D3JN">http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9D3JN</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-23">Descriptive Results</hd> <p>Within the 13 selected studies, there were a total of 182 participants. Descriptions of participants, study-specific variables, time-out-specific variables, behaviors consequenced with time out, and length of time out are documented in Table 1. Ages of participants ranged from three to eighteen years old, and the majority (81%) were male Only three studies reported student grade levels, however, based on reported ages and settings, it can be determined that students were educated in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 classes. The most common settings for the intervention was a special education school (<emph>n</emph> = 4) or a general education (inclusion) classroom (n = 4), followed by a special education classroom housed within a neighborhood (public) school (n = 3), a resource room setting (n = 1) and a free play setting (recess; n = 1). The time-out intervention utilized in each study was coded according to criteria described by [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref91">14</reflink>], with exclusionary time-out (e.g., time out room or removal to another location; <emph>n</emph> = 5) and non-exclusionary time-out (e.g., time out ribbon, contingent observation; n = 5). The remaining studies (n = 3) used a combination of non-exclusionary and exclusionary time-out assigned on a least to most restrictive continuum. The dependent variable for most studies (n = 7) was to decrease the number or rate of specific inappropriate or unwanted behaviors (e.g., cursing, hitting, spitting, self-stimulating behaviors). The remainder of the studies were concerned with rates of student compliance with teacher instructions (n = 3) and patterns of staff implementation of time-out procedures (n = 3).</p> <p>Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Article/type of time out</th><th align="center">Dependent variable</th><th align="center">Research design</th><th align="center">Age/grade</th><th align="center">Number & gender</th><th align="center">Setting</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">Costenbader and Reading-Brown (1995)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>number of inappropriate behaviors</td><td>GD; <italic>M</italic>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>5–18 yo</td><td>12 Fe; 88 Ma</td><td>SS</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">Donaldson et al. (2013)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">b</xref></td><td>1. rate of problem behavior outside2. percentage complied with time-out demand3. average time-out duration for each condition</td><td>SCRD: ABAB reversal</td><td>3–5 yo.</td><td>6 Ma</td><td>PK-K</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">Earles and Myles (1994)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">c</xref></td><td>number of profanity words used daily</td><td>SCRD; alternating treatment</td><td>9 yo.</td><td>1 Fe</td><td>SS</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">Freeman and Leibowitz (1974)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">d</xref></td><td>conditioned suppression paradigm response</td><td>SCRD; AB</td><td>10–12 yo.</td><td>3 NR</td><td>S-C</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">Grskovic et al. (2004)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">c</xref></td><td>Number of disciplinary action</td><td>SCRD; multiple baseline</td><td>7–10 yo.</td><td>1 Fe; 11 Ma</td><td>S-C</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">Kee et al. (1999)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>cursing, hitting and spitting</td><td>SCRD; ABC</td><td>10 yo.</td><td>1 Fe</td><td>SS</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">Pease and Tyler (1979)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>incidents of misbehavior</td><td>GD; <italic>M</italic>(<italic>SD</italic>), <italic>t</italic>, and <italic>F</italic> score</td><td>7–14 yo</td><td>4 Fe; 11 Ma</td><td>DE</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">Ramp et al. (1971)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>number of disruptive behaviors</td><td>SCRD: ABCA reversal</td><td>9 yo.</td><td>1 Ma</td><td>GE</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">Sachs (1973)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td>1. frequency of "inappropriate" behaviors2. frequency of self-stimulating behaviors 3. rate of refusal/ uncooperative behaviors</td><td>SCRD: multiple baseline</td><td>1. 10 yo. 2. 13 yo. 3. 5 yo.</td><td>3 Ma</td><td>SS</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">Salend and Gordon (1987)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">b</xref></td><td>calling out and non-compliance</td><td>SCRD; reversal</td><td>6–10 yo.</td><td>1 Fe; 7 Ma</td><td>RR</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">Stage (1997)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">c</xref></td><td>compliance</td><td>GD: <italic>M</italic>(<italic>SD</italic>)</td><td>12–17 yo.</td><td>11 Fe; 11Ma</td><td>SS</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">Twyman et al. (1994)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">c</xref></td><td>disruptive behavior</td><td>SCRD; reversal</td><td>4th–6th gr.</td><td>1 Fe; 8 Ma</td><td>S-C</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">Yeager and McLaughlin (1995)</xref><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">d</xref></td><td>increase compliance</td><td>SCRD: ABACBC replication</td><td>4 yo.</td><td>1 Ma</td><td>PK</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> GD = group design, SCRD = single case research design, NR = not reported, yo. = years old, gr = grade, Fe = female, Ma = male. SS = special school, PK = pre-kindergarten, K = kindergarten, S-C = self-contained classroom, GE = general education classroom, RR = resource room.</p> <p>2 timeout room. <sups>b</sups>contingent observation. <sups>c</sups>combined types. <sups>d</sups>removal of opportunities for reinforcement.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-24">Effect Size Results</hd> <p>WC-SMD was calculated for each subject-level analysis in all single case design studies. Across 10 studies that used single case design, 26 cases were analyzed for effect size. The omnibus effect size was strong (WC-SMD = 2.55, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.72 - 3.68) based on the interpretations recommended by [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]. Individual study effect sizes per case ranged from weak effect (WC-SMD = 0.20, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.38, 95%CI = −0.54 to 0.95; [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref93">82</reflink>]) to strong (WC-SMD = 8.78, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.41, 95%CI = 6.02 - 11.55; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref94">38</reflink>]). See Table 2 for the effect size analysis on a per case level.</p> <p>Table 2. Case by Case Effect Size Results per Single Case Deign Study.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Study</th><th align="center">Case</th><th align="center">Effect size</th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">Donaldson et al. (2013)</xref></td><td>Stevie</td><td>2.66</td><td>0.042</td><td>[1.83, 3.49]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Austin</td><td>2.21</td><td>0.5</td><td>[1.22, 3.20]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Ricky</td><td>2.38</td><td>0.5</td><td>[1.40, 3.35]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Adam</td><td>3.09</td><td>0.47</td><td>[2.17, 4.01]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">Earles and Myles (1994)</xref></td><td>KW</td><td>2.98</td><td>0.46</td><td>[2.07, 3.89]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">Freeman and Leibowitz (1974)</xref></td><td>E</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.067</td><td>[−0.12, 2.51]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">Grskovic et al. (2004)</xref></td><td>Social Studies (AB)</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.52</td><td>[1.33, 3.37]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Social Studies (AC)</td><td>2.22</td><td>0.51</td><td>[1.22, 3.22]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Math (AB)</td><td>1.64</td><td>0.52</td><td>[0.62, 2.66]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Math (AC)</td><td>1.69</td><td>0.52</td><td>[0.67, 2.72]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Reading (AB)</td><td>1.22</td><td>0.45</td><td>[0.33, 2.11]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Reading (AC)</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.29, 2.06]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">Kee et al. (1999)</xref></td><td>Cursing</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.6</td><td>[−0.39, 1.98]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Hitting</td><td>8.78</td><td>1.41</td><td>[6.02, 11.55]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Shouting</td><td>6.13</td><td>1.04</td><td>[4.08, 8.17]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">Ramp et al. (1971)</xref></td><td>Talk outs</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.29</td><td>[0.64, 1.78]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">Sachs (1973)</xref></td><td>Mark 1</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.33</td><td>[−0.02, 1.27]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Ricky</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.35</td><td>[0.89, 2.26]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Mark 2</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.38</td><td>[1.05, 2.56]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Mark B</td><td>4.82</td><td>1.37</td><td>[2.14, 7.49]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">Salend and Gordon (1987)</xref></td><td>Group A</td><td>3.72</td><td>0.57</td><td>[2.60, 4.85]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Group B</td><td>6.49</td><td>0.86</td><td>[4.80, 8.18]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">Twyman et al. (1994)</xref></td><td>Group Average</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.38</td><td>[−0.54, 0.95]</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">Yeager and McLaughlin (1995)</xref></td><td>Kid (AB)</td><td>2.24</td><td>0.55</td><td>[1.15, 3.33]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Kid (AC)</td><td>2.58</td><td>0.47</td><td>[1.66, 3.49]</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Kid (BC)</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.32</td><td>[−0.08, 1.18]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>BC-SMD effect size analysis was conducted on each study that contained at least three baseline to intervention comparisons (<emph>n</emph> = 4). The omnibus effect size was extremely large (BC-SMD = 1.24, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.53, 95%CI = −0.06 to 1.58). Two studies, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref95">18</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref96">68</reflink>], resulted in strong effects with study effect sizes of BC-SMD = 1.45 and BC-SMD = 2.205 respectively. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref97">29</reflink>] had a moderate effect of BC-SMD = 0.85. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>] had an overall modest effect with a BC-SMD = 0.46.</p> <p>Cohen's <emph>d</emph> effect size analysis was conducted on the three group design studies across 53 reported comparisons. Effect size analyses were calculated per study and as an omnibus measure across all three studies. The omnibus effect size for the studies that used a group design was <emph>d</emph> = 0.50 (95%CI = −0.68 to 1.19), indicating a modest effect. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref99">54</reflink>] had an overall effect size of d = 0.98 (95%CI = −0.20 to 1.92), indicating a moderate effect. Both [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref100">15</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref101">75</reflink>] had modest effects, resulting in <emph>d</emph> = 0.45 (95%CI = 0.14 - 0.76) and <emph>d</emph> = 0.48 (95%CI = −0.62 to 0.88) respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-25">Publication Bias</hd> <p>The effect size statistic (Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) and the variance was used to conduct the publication bias analyses. Results of the Egger's Test (intercept = 2.69; <emph>p</emph> =.00) suggests publication bias may be present. However, results from the funnel plot was not significantly asymmetrical. Consequently, results of publication bias show mixed results. That is, the intercept test (Egger's Test) showed the possibility of bias while the funnel plot indicated little bias. See Figure 2 for a visual depiction of the funnel plot.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Funnel Plot Visualization of Publication Bias. Note. Funnel plot of Column 1 (i.e., effect sizes) vs. variance. The dotted line represents the mean effect size. The dashed line represents the 95% pseudo-confidence interval of the funnel, after [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref102">76</reflink>]. The very light gray zone represents the area where effect sizes would have a probability of less than 1%, the gray zone a probability between 1% and 5%, and the dark gray zone a probability between 5% and 10%, after [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref103">55</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-26">Quality of Included Studies</hd> <p>Of the 13 studies included in this meta-analysis, four met all of CEC's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref104">16</reflink>]) evidence-based standards using the absolute coding criteria while three met the 80% weighted coding criteria threshold ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref105">41</reflink>]). Each study is deemed methodologically sound if all eight QIs (absolute coding) or 80% of all eight QIs are met (weighted coding; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref106">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref107">64</reflink>]). Four studies met seven indicators, two met six indicators, two met five indicators, and one met four indicators The following indicators were met by all studies (1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 4.2, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.3). Commonly missed were descriptions of implementation fidelity related to dosage or exposure to direct reliable measures (5.2 = 64.29% met), clear descriptions of assignment to groups in group studies (6.4 = 66.67%), and evidence of adequate internal, inter-observer, test-retest, or parallel form reliability (7.5 = 64.29%). Also frequently omitted were descriptions of specific training or qualifications required to implement the intervention (3.2 = 71.43%), and reports of implementation fidelity related to adherence using direct reliable measures (5.1 = 71.43%).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-27">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the characteristics, effect sizes, study quality and publication bias of time-out interventions for students identified with EBD. Overall, examining the effects of TO based on design type (i.e., single case research design vs. group design) and unit of analysis (i.e., case vs. study). When omnibus effects are reviewed by cases (within-case) and across studies (between-case) the interpretation of results were large or extremely large ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref108">10</reflink>]). However, the overall effects of TO for group design studies was moderate ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref109">10</reflink>]). In determining quality indicators absolutely and weighted, few studies in the current meta-analysis met the CEC indicators. Results are discussed in relation to the research questions followed by limitations and implications.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-28">Study Characteristics</hd> <p>There are several important things to note within this body of literature. To begin, previous literature on TO supports varied implementation and based on types of TO ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref110">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref111">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref112">50</reflink>]). While TO as a behavior change procedure has a long history of implementation, the use of TO has been decreasing over the decades.</p> <p>There have only been two TO research studies focused on students with EBD published since 2000 ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref113">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref114">29</reflink>]). This decline in the use of TO may be related to the changing zeitgeist in education. TO as an intervention procedure has been questioned due to ethical and legal concerns regarding implementation ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref115">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref116">95</reflink>]). Eleven of the thirteen studies used exclusionary (e.g., TO room) or non-exclusionary (e.g., TO ribbon) as the means of implementation. Two studies ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref117">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref118">29</reflink>]) used a combination of the two. The majority of the TO procedures used were done so to combat inappropriate or problem behaviors (e.g., non-compliance; cursing), however, one study ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref119">68</reflink>]) implemented TO for decreasing self-stimulating behaviors. The focus on problem behaviors is typical of the use of TO regardless of who is implementing TO ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref120">21</reflink>]) or disability status ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref121">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref122">67</reflink>]). Surprisingly, only 4 of the 13 studies ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref123">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref124">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref125">68</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref126">75</reflink>]) had participants that were teenagers (i.e., 13+ years old). The majority of the study focused on students in the preK and elementary grades. This would suggest that TO is most effective for younger students who need behavioral support. Lastly, a consistent reality of students who receive services that are identified as EBD is that the majority of them are male. This is consistent with the included TO studies. Males were the participants in the TO studies at a rate that was almost 5x of females (e.g., 147 males vs 32 females).</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-29">Effects of TO and Publication Bias</hd> <p>The effect size results of the studies included in this analysis were overwhelmingly positive and ranged from medium to extremely large. These findings are typical for meta-analytic works that are often connected to publication bias. Previous researchers have cautioned about the conclusions that should be drawn from meta-analytic studies as they are generally compiled from published studies that are most often positive in their results ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref127">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref128">63</reflink>]). In addition, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref129">63</reflink>] explains that the studies used identified for meta-analyses, tend to show large or extremely large effects thus further compromising the conclusions and implications of the intervention being examined. The publication of each of the studies included in this analysis were found to have positive results based on the metrics used at the time of original publication. Based on current effect size analysis metrics, some of which did not exist at the time of the original publication, the results were tilted toward medium to large effects with the exception of [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref130">82</reflink>] which had a small effect.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-30">Quality Indicators of Studies</hd> <p>With the establishment of the CEC ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref131">16</reflink>]) quality indicators, standards have been applied to evaluating research studies for elements that should exist in research. Since every study included in this analysis was published before the quality indicators were released, it is unsurprising that none of the studies met all of the indicators. This can be attributed to the fact that prior to quality assessments, researchers were mostly bound to the publication requirements of the journal they were submitting to and not to an industry or field-wide criteria. Thus, studies included any number of combinations of elements that did not lead to uniformity.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-31">Study Limitations</hd> <p>There are a number of limitations to the current meta-analysis that should be considered when reading. First, when analyzing cases, we did not analyze specific TO procedures as an intervention and only focused on the broad categorizations of TO (e.g., exclusionary vs. non-exclusionary TO). Therefore, the effect specific TO interventions had on target behaviors is unclear. Second, while we believe our search methods were extensive and thorough, it is possible we may have missed articles investigating TO for students with EBD in the search process. Relatedly, based on the nature of coding articles (an identified subjective process; see [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref132">45</reflink>]), it is possible that researchers replicating our process may get similar but slightly different results in their search. Finally, we were not able to examine the studies based on race/ethnicity as this information was not available for most of the studies.</p> <hd id="AN0192953818-32">Conclusion and Implications</hd> <p>The use of TO has been under a microscope for the past few decades. In fact, the ethical and legal ramifications of using TO has been questioned since the 1970s ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref133">27</reflink>]). As behavior interventions have increasingly focused on positive behaviors alongside a decrease on punishment-based interventions. When paired, the questions regarding the appropriateness of TO as an intervention and the focus on positive interventions and supports has resulted in fewer uses of TO. This is evidenced in the lack of research on TO use for students with EBD since 2000. This is particularly evident in the recommendations from the Division for Emotional and Behavioral Health (DEBH; formerly the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders) that suggest the elimination of seclusion-based interventions in schools (i.e., exclusionary TO; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref134">25</reflink>]). While the elimination of exclusionary TO may be warranted, this meta-analysis provides evidence to suggest that non-exclusionary TO can be effective for students with EBD. With that in mind, other authors have provided detailed guidance for using TO procedures ethically and within the legal parameters of students receiving special education services ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref135">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref136">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>The effectiveness of TO has been ignored since the early 2000s. The authors of the current analysis view this as positive and negative. Positively, the abusive implementation of TO has been theorized and written about for years ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref137">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref138">73</reflink>]). Critiquing TO and its usage is a good thing. Better understanding the when, where, how, and who to use TO with is important to consider when protecting children from harm and trauma (i.e., exclusionary TO). However, the complete elimination of an established, researched, and effective intervention (i.e., non-exclusionary TO) is foolhardy and is strongly discouraged ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref139">60</reflink>]). Ultimately, there is a need for new research on the use of TO for students with EBD that reflect our updated knowledge of both TO as an intervention procedure and research methodology based on quality indicators.</p> <ref id="AN0192953818-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alberto P., Heflin L. J., Andrews D. (2002). Use of the timeout ribbon procedure during community-based instruction. Behavior Modification, 26, 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0145445502026002008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref38" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref50" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arthur I. (2008). Time-out, seclusion, and restraint in Indiana schools literature review. Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berkeley S., Scanlon D., Bailey T. R., Sutton J. C., Sacco D. M. (2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org./10.1177/0022219420915867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bon S. C., Zirkel P. A. (2014). Time-out and seclusion litigation: Liability nightmare. University of Toledo Law Review, 45(3), 505–526. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/utol45&i=527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref23" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brantner J. P., Doherty M. A. (1983). A review of timeout: A conceptual and methodological analysis. In Axelrod S., Apsche J. (Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 87–132). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brigham F. J., Ahn S. Y., Stride A. N., McKenna J. W. (2016). FAPE-Accompli: Misapplication of the principles of inclusion and students with EBD. In General and special education inclusion in an age of change: Impact on students with disabilities. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref64" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Busk P. L., Serlin R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In Kratochwill T. R., Levin J. R. (Eds.), Single case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cartledge G., Kourea L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K. (2017). Statistical significance, effect size and statistical power. In Research methods in education. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connelly J. F. (2017). Seclusion of students with disabilities: An analysis of due process hearings. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917725710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook B., Buysse V., Klingner J., Landrum T., McWilliam R., Tankersley M., Test D. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper J. O., Heron T. E., Heward W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Costenbader R., Reading-Brown M. (1995). Isolation timeout used with students with emotional disturbance. Exceptional Children, 61(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506100404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Exceptional Children: Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education. (2014). Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donaldson J. M., Vollmer T. R. (2011). An evaluation and comparison of time-out procedures with and without release contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Donaldson J. M., Vollmer T. R., Yakich T. M., VanCamp C. (2013). Effects of a reduced time-out interval on compliance with the time-out instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 269–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.40Dutton</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Earles T. L., Myles B. S. (1994). Using behavioral interventions to decrease coprolalia in a student with Tourette's Syndrome and Autism: A case study. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 8(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769400800601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egger M., Smith G. D., Schneider M., Minder C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everett G. E., Hupp S. D., Olmi D. J. (2010). Time-out with parents: A descriptive analysis of 30 years of research. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(2), 235–259. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabiano G. A., Pelham W. E. Jr. Manos M. J., Gnagy E. M., Chronis A. M., Onyango A. N...Swain S. (2004). An evaluation of three time-out procedures for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Behavior Therapy, 35(3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80027-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foxx R. M., Shapiro S. T. (1978). The timeout ribbon: A non-exclusionary timeout procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Freeman B. J., Leibowitz J. M. (1974). Response facilitation as a function of short pre-timeout stimuli in a conditioned suppression paradigm with humans. Psychological Reports, 35(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.35.1.67</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman J., Peterson R., Kern L., Mathur S. R., Barber B., Power M., Perea M. (2023). CCBD's position on eliminating the use of seclusion in educational settings. Behavioral Disorders, 48(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429211033548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage N. A., Cook B. G., Reichow B. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gast D. L., Nelson C. M. (1977). Legal and ethical considerations for the use of timeout in special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 11(4), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246697701100408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gingerich W. J. (1984). Meta-analysis of applied time-series data. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638402000113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Grskovic J. A., Hall A. M., Montgomery D. J., Vargas A. U., Zentall S. S., Belfiore P. J. (2004). Reducing time-out assignments for students with emotional/behavioral disorders in a self-contained classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBE.0000011258.06561.82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall R. V., Axelrod S., Foundopoulos M., Shellman J., Campbell R. A., Cranston S. S. (1971). The effective use if punishment to modify behavior in the classroom. Educational Technology, 11(4), 24–26. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/44417181">http://www.jstor.org/stable/44417181</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrington M., Vellicer W. F. (2014). Comparing visual and statistical analysis in single-case studies using published studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(2), 162–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.973989</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris K. R. (1985). Definitional, parametric, and procedural considerations in timeout interventions and research. Exceptional Children, 51, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440298405100403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges L. 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%2F10769986006002107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges L. V., Pustejovsky J. E., Shadish W. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges L. V., Pustejovsky J. E., Shadish W. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4(4), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones N. L., Feder J. (2009). The use of seclusion and restraint in public schools: The legal issues (Congressional Research Service, 7-5700 R40522).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin A. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings (6th ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kee M., Hill S. M., Weist M. D. (1999). School-based behavior management of cursing, hitting, and spitting in a girl with profound retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(2), 171–178. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42899562">www.jstor.org/stable/42899562</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keeping All Students Safe Act, H.R. 374, 117th Congress. (2021). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1858?overview=closed">www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1858?overview=closed</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kossmeier M., Tran U. S., Voracek M. (2020). Charting the landscape of graphical displays for meta-analysis and systematic reviews: A comprehensive review, taxonomy, and feature analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(6), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0911-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane K. L., Bruhn A. L., Crnobori M. L., Sewell A. L. (2009). Designing functional assessment-based intervention using a systematic approach: A promising practice for supporting challenging CEC QI matrix walk-through guide. In Scruggs T. E., Mastropieri M. A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Policy and practice (Vol. 22, pp. 341–370). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X(2009)0000022016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P...Moher D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W–65. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieneman C. C., McNeil C. B. (2023). Time-out in child behavior management. Hogrefe Publishing GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1027/00509-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light R. J., Pillemer D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losinski M. L., Ennis R. P., Sanders S. A., Nelson J. A. (2019). A meta-analysis examining the evidence-base of mathematical interventions for students with emotional disturbances. The Journal of Special Education, 52(4), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918796200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maag J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in schools. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin S. (2004). Finding balance: Impact of classroom management conceptions on developing teacher practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayerson A. B. (2003). Should we eliminate time-out rooms? Educate children, don't imprison them. American Teacher, 87, 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenna J. W., Garwood J., Parenti M. (2021). Inclusive instruction for students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Service in the absence of intervention research. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(5), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220963084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miltenberger R. G. (2016). Behavior modifications: Principles and procedures. Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver R. M., Reschly D. J. (2017). Special education teacher preparation in classroom management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 35(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291003500301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne A. (2001). Discipline of special-education students under the individuals with disabilities education act. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(2), 513–538. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/frdurb29&i=529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payne L. D., Mancil G. R., Landers E. (2005). Consequence-based behavioral interventions for classroom teachers. Beyond Behavior, 15(1), 13–20. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol29/iss2/3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Pease G. A., Tyler V. O. (1979). Self-regulation of timeout duration in the modification of disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in Schools, 16(1), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197901)16:1101::AID-PITS23101601183.0.CO;2-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters J. L., Sutton A. J., Jones D. R., Abrams K. R., Rushton L. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(10), 991–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky J. 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky J. E., Chen M., Grekov P., Swan D. M. (2024). Single-case effect size calculator (Version 0.7.3) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/SCD-effect-sizes/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky J. E., Chen M., Hamilton B., Grekov P. (2023). scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version 0.7.2) Webapplication. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky J. E., Hedges L. V., Shadish W. 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quetsch L. B., Wallace N. M., Herschell A. D., McNeil C. B. (2015). Weighing in on the time-out controversy: An empirical perspective. The Clinical Psychologist, 68(2), 4–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ramp E., Ulrich R., Dulaney S. (1971). Delayed timeout as a procedure for reducing disruptive behavior: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4(3), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1971.4-235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohatgi A. (2015). WebPlotDigitizer (Version 4.5) [Computer software]. <ulink href="http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer">http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ropovik I., Adamkovic M., Greger D. (2021). Neglect of publication bias compromises meta-analyses of educational research. PLOS ONE, 16(6), Article e0252415. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royer D. J., Lane K. L., Common E. A. (2017). Group comparison and single-case research design quality indicator matrix using Council for Exception Children 2014 standards. Ci3t: Comprehensive, Integrated Three-Tiered Model of Prevention. <ulink href="http://www.ci3t.org/practice">http://www.ci3t.org/practice</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutherford B., Nelson C. (1982). Analysis of the response-contingent timeout literature with behaviorally disordered students in classroom settings. In Rutherford R. (Ed.), Severe behavior disorders of children and youth. Council for Exceptional Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan J. B., Peterson R. I., Tetreault G., van der Hagen E. (2007). Reducing seclusion timeout and restraint procedures with at- risk youth. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 13(1), 7–12. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ853384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan J. B., Sanders S., Katsiyannis A., Yell M. L. (2007). Using time-out effectively in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(4), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sachs D. A. (1973). The efficacy of time-out procedures in a variety of behavior problems. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 4(3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(73)90080-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sailor W. (2015). Advances in schoolwide inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 36(2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932514555021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Salend S. J., Gordon B. D. (1987). A group-oriented timeout ribbon procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 12(2), 131–137. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23882312">www.jstor.org/stable/23882312</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadish W. R., Hedges L. V., Pustejovsky J. 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, 123–147. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadish W. R., Hedges L. V., Pustejovsky J. E., Boyajian J. G., Sullivan K. J., Andrade A., Barrientos J. L. (2013). A d-statistic for single-case designs that is equivalent to the usual between-groups d-statistic. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: An International Journal, 24, 528–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.819021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegel D. J., Bryson T. P. (2014, September 23). "Time-outs" are hurting your child. Time. <ulink href="http://time.com/3404701/discipline-time-out-is-not-good/">http://time.com/3404701/discipline-time-out-is-not-good/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simonsen B., Fairbanks S., Briesch A., Myers D., Sugai G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(13), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Stage S. A. (1997). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between in-school suspension and the disruptive classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 23(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874299702300105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sterne J. A. C., Egger M. (2001). Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(10), 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutherland K. S., Lewis-Palmer -T., Stichter J., Morgan P. L. (2008). Examining the influence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for student with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022466907310372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tillery A., Varjas K., Meyers J., Collins A. S. (2010). General education teachers' perceptions of behavior management and intervention strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1098300708330879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turnbull H. R., Wolcox B. L., Stowe M., Turnbull A. P. (2001). IDEA requirements for use of PBS: Guidelines for responsible agencies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070100300103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner H. S., Watson T. S. (1999). Consultant's guide for the use of time-out in the preschool and elementary classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199903)36:2%3C135::AID-PITS6%3E3.0.CO;2-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Twardawski M., Hilbig B. E., Thielmann I. (2020). Punishment goals: An attributional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Twyman J. S., Johnson H., Buie J. D., Nelson C. M. (1994). The use of a warning procedure to signal a more intrusive timeout contingency. Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 243–253. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23887525">www.jstor.org/stable/23887525</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vegas K. C., Jenson W. R., Kircher J. C. (2007). A single-subject meta-analysis of the effectiveness of time-out in reducing disruptive classroom behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290703200204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinstein C. S., Tomlinson-Clark S., Curran M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103259812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson C. C., Robertson S. J., Herlong L. H., Haynes S. N. (1979). Vicarious effects of time-out in the modification of aggression in the classroom. Behavior Modification, 3(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544557931006op</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson D. B. (n.d.). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator [Online calculator]. https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/effect-size-calculator.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson D. B., Gottfredson D. C., Najaka S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:111050217296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson S. J., Lipsey M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolery M., Gast D. L., Kirk K., Schuster J. (1988). Fading extra stimulus prompts with autistic children using time delay. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(1), 29–44. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42899048">www.jstor.org/stable/42899048</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf T. L., McLaughlin T. F., Williams R. L. (2006). Time-out interventions and strategies: A brief review and recommendations. International Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22–29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ843616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yeager C., McLaughlin T. F. (1995). The use of a time-out ribbon and precision requests to improve child compliance in the classroom: A case study. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 17(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v17n04_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabel M. (1986). Timeout use with behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874298601200110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman K. N., Pustejovsky J. E., Ledford J. R., Barton E. E., Severini K. E., Lloyd B. 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zirkel P. A. (2013). Is it time for elevating the standard for FAPE under IDEA? Exceptional Children, 79(4), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zirkel P. A. (2016). The use of time-out and seclusion with students with disabilities: An update of the case law. Communique, 45(1), 12–15. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1200678</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0192953818-34"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> That study data, code, and materials are available to reviewers and editors upon request.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonte' C. Taylor</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4418-8805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jonte' C. Taylor; Michele L. Moohr; Salvador Ruiz and Alice Cahill</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref139"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1502909
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Time-Out for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jonte'+C%2E+Taylor%22">Jonte' C. Taylor</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4418-8805">0000-0002-4418-8805</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michele+L%2E+Moohr%22">Michele L. Moohr</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salvador+Ruiz%22">Salvador Ruiz</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alice+Cahill%22">Alice Cahill</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Behavioral+Disorders%22"><i>Behavioral Disorders</i></searchLink>. 2026 51(3):146-159.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Disorders%22">Behavior Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Disturbances%22">Emotional Disturbances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Timeout%22">Timeout</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Modification%22">Behavior Modification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavioral+Science+Research%22">Behavioral Science Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Effect+Size%22">Effect Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/01987429251371075
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0198-7429<br />2163-5307
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Students with challenging behaviors can put a strain on both teachers and other learners in the classroom. While responding to challenging behavior in an effective and educative manner is critical for successfully teaching school-age children, teachers are often under-trained in evidence-based behavior reduction techniques. Timeout (TO) is defined as a behavior reduction strategy that involves removing access to reinforcement and reinforcers. TO procedures have a long history of research regarding its effectiveness and have been used by teachers and other service providers for decades. Furthermore, TO procedures can be categorized into two broad types (exclusionary and non-exclusionary) with a variety of implementation methods for each. This analysis examined published studies on TO and TO procedures for students identified as needing behavioral support. Along with analyzing the published research, we calculated the effect sizes of the TO procedures used for each study using single case research design methodologies (i.e., within-case standard mean difference and between-case standard mean difference) as appropriate and group design methodology (i.e., standard mean difference). We also evaluated publication bias on TO research for students who need behavioral support and analyzed the quality of each included study. Implications for research and practice are discuss.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1502909
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502909
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/01987429251371075
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 146
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Disturbances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Timeout
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Modification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavioral Science Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Effect Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Time-Out for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jonte' C. Taylor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michele L. Moohr
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salvador Ruiz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alice Cahill
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0198-7429
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5307
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Behavioral Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1