本研究使用PND和PEM對106篇單一受試研究進行後設分析，藉以了解實驗處理對於搗亂行為的影響效果。當研究者以原作者對於實驗處理效果的判斷作為效標時，使用PEM進行後設分析的效度是可以被接受的。本研究並分析實驗處理、研究特徵和受試者特徵與處理效果的關係，獲得下列研究結果：1.不同的實驗處理對降低搗亂行為有不同影響效果；2.研究設計、治療者身分、實驗情境、性別、受試者症狀特徵、搗亂行為種類對實驗處理效果有顯著影響。本研究建議學校人員接受有關於矯正搗亂行為的行為改變技術訓練是必要的，教師如能在教室活動中發展合適的課程和教導學生適當的溝通反應將有助於降低搗亂行為。 / A meta-analysis of 106 single-subject studies was conducted utilizing the PND and PEM approaches to investigate treatment effectiveness in reducing disruptive behavior. The validity of the PEM approach was acceptable based on original authors’ judgments of treatment effect. Variables were analyzed for covariation between treatment effectiveness and interventions, study characteristics, and subject characteristics. The following results were obtained: (a) interventions had significant influence on treatment effectiveness; (b) study design, intervenor, setting, sex, diagnosis, and target behaviors showed systematic relation to treatment outcomes. Suggestions are made that it is necessary for staff in schools to receive adequate training in treating disruptive behavior with the use of behavior modification techniques, and it is potentially useful for the reduction of disruptive behavior if teachers develop suitable curriculum and teach appropriate communicative responses in classroom activities.

本研究藉由整合相關之單一受試實驗研究結果來探討行為改變技術對學業行為影響之效果。研究中用來計算效應量的方法有兩種：未重疊資料百分率（Percentage of Nonoverlapping Data, PND）、超過基線中點資料百分率（Percentage of Data Points Exceeding the Median of Preceding Baseline Phase, PEM）。為了檢視超過基線中點資料百分率方法應用在單一受試實驗研究統合分析上之可行性，本研究以各原研究作者之判斷為效標，對超過基線中點資料百分率與未重疊資料百分率之效度進行比較。 一共有98篇單一受試實驗研究納入統合分析。實驗的介入處理共分成：1.電腦輔助教學、2.合作學習、3.精熟學習、4.增強、5.自我控制訓練、6.情境學習、7.社會學習、8.策略教學、9.其他。研究顯示各種介入處理對於受試的學習行為皆產生正向效果。此外，超過基線中點資料百分率方法亦獲得支持適用於單一受試實驗研究之量化統合分析。 / The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of behavioral modification on academic behaviors by aggregating relevant conclusions of primary single-subject researches. Two approaches are used to generate estimations of effect sizes: the PND (Percentage of Nonoverlapping Data) approach, and the PEM (Percentage of Data Points Exceeding the Median of Preceding Baseline Phase). To test the applicability of the PEM approach, the validity of the PEM scores is compared with that of the PND scores by using the judgments of original authors as a validity criterion. A total of 98 studies are reviewed. Treatments include (a) computer assisted instruction; (b) cooperative learning; (c) mastery learning; (d) reinforcement; (e) self-control training; (f) situated learning; (g) social learning; (h) strategy instruction; and (i) others. Results indicate that all kinds of interventions produce positive effects on participants’ academic behaviors. In addition, the PEM approach is shown to be an appropriate method for a quantitative synthesis of single-subject researches.