Evaluating the Technical Adequacy of FBAs and BIPs: How are Schools Doing? Rose Iovannone, Ph.D., BCBA-D [email protected] Objectives • Participants will: • Describe the purpose of the Technical Adequacy evaluation tool • Apply a scoring rubric to case examples • Discuss further use of the evaluation in their settings Advance Organizer • • • • Essential Features of Tier 3 Behavior (FBA/BIPs) Review of the Technical Adequacy Evaluation Tool and Rubric Practice scoring Discussion of how to use the tool in the future Context for FBAs/BIPs • • • • FBA/BIP—substantial evidence base Behavior ‘gold’ standard for nearly 20 years Systemic and skill issues impeding implementation Wealth of literature providing evidence-basis • BUT, does not address the contextual fit of FBA in school culture (Scott & Kamps, 2007) • Educators’ willingness and ability to engage in process • Level and intensity of FBA necessary to result in improvements • Conceptually, FBA seen as tool for use in multi-tiered system of supports rather than separate process • If part of process, may change traditional definition of what and who is involved in FBA Examples of the Problem • Forms vs. skills • “Let’s create new forms” common solution • • • • • • Paperwork vs. implementation General vs. individualized Training vs. coaching Expert vs. collaborative team model Separate silos vs. integrated, consistent process Legalities vs. problem-solving The Top Twelve List of Things Needed at Tier 3/Individualized Behavior Supports (Iovannone & Kincaid, in prep.) 1. 2. Multiple levels of Tier 3 Consistent, fluent process with problem solving-process framework 3. Collaborative teaming 4. Problem identification 5. Data collection, simplified 6. Linking hypothesis to the FBA 7. Linking BIP to hypothesis 8. Multi-component behavior intervention plan matched to classroom context 9. Task-analyzed strategies 10. Teacher and classroom coaching/support 11. Array of outcome measures (child-specific, teacher fidelity, social validity, alliance, fidelity of process, technical adequacy of products) 12. Maintenance (beyond “warranty”) 1. Multiple Levels of Tier 3 FBA • Three levels of Tier 3 • Match the level of need to the student • Level 1: Classroom consultation (Facilitator and teacher) • Brief PTR • ERASE (Terry Scott) • Guess and Check (Cindy Anderson) • Level 2: Comprehensive support (e.g., PTR; team-based process) • Level 3: Wrap around with person-centered planning • Tier 3 most effective if Tiers 1 and 2 implemented with fidelity 2. Consistent Tier 3 Process • Standardized process for ALL students requiring FBAs/BIPs • Incorporates following features: • Identifying students needing Tier 3 • Determining level of FBA support necessary to answer referral concern • Decision points • Timelines between FBA, BIP, Support, Follow-up • Data tracking system • Coaching and fidelity • Flowchart 2. Consistent Tier 3 Process— Problem Solving Process DEFINE THE PROBLEM What is the behavior of concern? What do we want to see less of? What do we want the student to do more of? PROBLEM ANALYSIS Functional Behavior Assessment Hypothesis EVALUATE Is the plan effective? What are the next steps? DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PLAN Behavior strategies linked to hypothesis; coaching/support 3. Collaborative Teaming • Discontinue expert model – need proficient facilitator to guide team • Three levels of knowledge represented on teams • Knowledge of student • Knowledge of ABA principles • Knowledge of district/campus context • Consensus process established 4. Problem Identification • Primary problem with many ineffective FBA/BIPs is that the problem is not clearly identified: • • • • Too general Not defined Baseline data confirming problem absent Often, several behaviors listed and unclear which behavior was the focus of the FBA • Not uncommon to see behaviors of concern “change” throughout one FBA/BIP • Need to identify both the replacement behavior to increase as well as problem behavior to decrease—consider broad categories including academic, social, behavior 5. Simplify Data Collection • Progress monitoring must be: • • • • • Feasible Reliable Sensitive to change Flexible to match individual Standardized (comparable across schools/students/districts) • Direct Behavior Ratings (DBRs) offer a solution • Research supports their effectiveness (see Chafouleas, RileyTillman) • LEAP (Phil Strain) • Individualized Behavior Rating Scale (IBRST) used in PTR (Iovannone et al., in press). 01/15 Case Study- Mike: Behavior Rating Scale Behavior Screaming 9+ times 7-8 times 5-6 times 3-4 times 0-2 times 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Hitting 8+ times 6-7 times 4-5 times 2-3 times 0-1 times 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Expressing Frustration 40%+ 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% 0-10% 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Transition to Non-preferred Whimper or squeal Louder than indoor voice Outdoor play voice Louder than outdoor play Ear penetrating 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 BRS Psychometrics (Iovannone, Greebaum, Wang, Kincaid, & Dunlap, in press) • Kappa coefficients of: • • • • Problem Behavior 1 (n = 105): .82 Problem Behavior 2 (n = 90) : .77 Appropriate Behavior 1 (n = 103): .65 Appropriate Behavior 2 (n = 56): .76 Other Uses of BRS • Systemic data tracking method for Tier 3 • Sample system created by: • Cindy Anderson • School district in Florida 6. Linking the Hypothesis to the FBA • Primary reason FBA is conducted • Hypothesis should be multi-component • When (antecedents) these contextual/environmental events are present……. • It is highly predicted that the behavior identified as the problem and focus of the FBA happens • As a result, the student: • Gets out of or away from activities, people, tangibles, sensory input, pain • Gets activities, people, tangibles, sensory input, pain attenuation • Confirmed by the consequences (what others do in response to the behavior) that typically occur • Method of organizing information • Competing behavior pathway • PTR Assessment Organization Step 3: Case Study – Mike Assessment Summary Table of Problem Behavior Prevention Data Non-preferred task Screaming, Hitting Reading, Math Other students upset/mad Teacher attending to others Transition Teach Data Gain attention Reprimanded adults Calm/soothe Delay Personal space Later must to non-preferred Change in schedule fix something Redirected Peers, Preferred Denied item, told no, or to Reinforce Data complete task Access to items Loss of or delay in reinforcement Step 3: Case Study – Mike Assessment of Appropriate Behavior Prosocial Prevention Data Teach Data Reinforce Data Independent work Peer interaction Treasure box One-on-one Getting attention Movie attention Specials Raising hand Attention Sharing attention Helping teacher Conversation skills Going to media Taking turns center Going outside Walk Food Waiting Self-management Asking for break Expressing emotions Appropriate Inappropriate Mike’s Hypotheses When…. he will As a result… Mike is (a) asked to complete nonpreferred tasks (Reading, Math), stop a preferred activity or transition to a non-preferred activity, or fix an error, or (b) when the teacher is attending to other students, scream and hit. Mike is able to (a) delay the transition or non-preferred activity and (b) get attention from teachers and peers Mike is (a) asked to a complete non-preferred task (Reading, Math), stop a preferred activity or transition to a non-preferred activity, or fix an error, or (b) when the teacher is attending to other students, (a) express his frustration appropriately. Mike is able to (a) delay the transition or non-preferred activity and (b) get attention from teachers and peers (b) Transition from preferred to non-preferred tasks 7. Linking the Hypothesis to the BIP • Other primary purpose of conducting FBA • STOP generating list of general strategies • Each component of hypothesis generates an intervention • Antecedents modified and made irrelevant • Replacement behavior so that problem behavior is ineffective • Functional equivalent reinforcer so the problem behavior is inefficient 8. Multi-Component Interventions Matched to Classroom Context • Multi-component interventions include prevention, teaching and reinforcement strategies • Team/Teacher(s) select strategies that are • feasible • effective • likely be implemented 9. Task Analyzed Strategies • Forgotten art • Can’t just say “give choices”, “reinforce appropriate behavior”, etc., “student will comply” • Breaking down the interventions into sequence of steps • Allows teaching with precision • Allows assessment of teacher capacity • Provides foundation for training and for fidelity Teach Strategies Replacement Behavior Specific Strategy Steps Mike will be taught to use his voice output device to express his need to calm down. Steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mike’s device will be programmed to say “I need to calm down.” Prior to transitioning to a non-preferred activity or at the end of a preferred activity, say “If you start to get mad, you can choose to calm down.” As soon as Mike starts to get upset, prompt him to use his device (hierarchy—hand-over-hand, gesture, verbal). Once Mike communicates “I need to calm down”, present him with the choice board of calming strategies and ask him, “What do you want?” As soon as he is calm, praise him (e.g., “You made a good choice.”. Allow Mike to engage in his choice until he is calm for 1minute. If Mike does not want to leave his choice, then start becoming animated with students in the non-preferred activity. Paris—Step 4: PTR Intervention Prevent Strategies Environmental Support Specific Strategy steps Paris will be provided a visual checklist that will list her tasks needing to be completed during independent work time. Paris will check off (a) completion, and (b) neatness. 1.Before independent work time, the teacher will give Paris a choice of vis-à-vis color pen to write down her tasks 2.The teacher will review “Complete” and “Neat” tasks with Paris and how Paris will self-evaluate. 3.The teacher and Paris will determine the number of checks Paris will need to get her choice reinforcer activity. 4.When Paris thinks she is finished, she will take her pen and check whether each task is complete and neat. 5. Paris will make eye contact with the teacher and raise her hand. 6.The teacher will indicate that she has seen her hand (popsicle stick) and either go over immediately or indicate to Paris to ‘wait’. 7.The teacher will provide Paris feedback on her self-evaluations of completeness and neatness, and if the teacher agrees with the feedback, release Paris to a chosen reinforcer activity Teach Strategies Replacement Behavior Specific Strategy Steps Replacement behavior: Raising hand to ask for help or attention Paris will be taught how and when to raise her hand. A. Independent Work Time 1. When Paris requires assistance or attention, she will first make eye contact with her teacher—no sounds/words will come from Paris. 2. After eye contact, she raises her hand—making no noises/sounds. She keeps her hand in the air, straight. 3. The teacher indicates how long it will be before she can get to Paris (no more than 2 minutes should elapse). B. Small Group Instruction 1. When Paris wants is answering a question or wants to make a comment, she will raise her hand straight up in the air. No words will be spoken. 2. Paris will wait until the teacher either (a) calls on her, or (b) indicates her hand raising with a popsicle stick Teach Strategies SelfManagement Specific Strategy Steps Paris will be taught to monitor her hand-raising behaviors. 1. A bar chart will be given to Paris to keep in a folder. 2. As Paris raises her hand and earns popsicle sticks, she will indicate on the graph the number of times she raises her hand each day. 3. A daily goal for hand raising behaviors will be set and reviewed. 5. A verbal/gestural prompt can be provided to remind Paris to graph her hand raising behaviors. Reinforce Strategies Replacement Behavior: Raising Hand Specific Strategy Steps 1. When Paris raises her hand, the teacher will either recognize Paris and have her ask her question, answer a question, or make her comment. 2. If the teacher is teaching a group, she will say, “Wait. Watch the clock second hand go around ___ time, and I’ll get your question.” 3. Each time Paris raises her hand, she will get a popsicle stick and verbal praise or positive gesture from the teacher. 4. The teacher will wear an apron (and Paris’ job will be to remind her to wear the apron). Popsicle sticks will be kept in one pocket. Each time Paris raises her hand and the teacher is unable to get to Paris or have her make a comment, the teacher will move one popsicle stick out of the holding pocket over to another pocket in which the ‘earned’ popsicle sticks will be kept. 5. At the end of instructional blocks, the teacher will have Paris count her popsicle sticks and arrange for Paris to trade them for orange cones (magnets) to be put on the board. Each 5 popsicle sticks will earn Paris a cone. Reinforce Strategies Specific Strategy Steps Group Contingency 1. For each 5 popsicle sticks earned, an orange cone symbol will be placed on the white board visible for the entire class. 2. After 5 cones get on the board (indicating 25 hand raises), the entire class will earn free time at the end of the day. They can go outside, see a movie, go to the library or play games. 3. The class will be prompted to praise Paris for helping them earn free time. Self-Management 1. At the end of the day, Paris will record the number of popsicle sticks she earned for her hand raising behavior. 2. If she meets her goal (25), a good note will go home to her grandmother. Environmental Support (completing task) 1. After Paris raises her hand indicating her work is completed and her checklist is filled in, the teacher will walk over to Paris’ desk. 2. The teacher will praise Paris for completing her checklist. 3. The teacher will provide feedback on Paris’ self-evaluation. 4. If Paris meets her goal, she will be praised and released to her selected reinforcing activity. 5. If Paris did not meet her goal, the teacher will verbally praise her for trying and have Paris say how she could meet her goal the next day. Reinforce Strategies Discontinue Reinforcement of Problem Behavior Specific Strategy Steps If Paris calls out, the teacher will: 1. 2. 3. 4. If Paris is looking at the teacher, the teacher will hold up a popsicle stick as a visual cue to remind her of her hand raising behavior. No verbal redirects will be given. If Paris is not looking at the teacher, the teacher will say “Paris” in a flat affect. When Paris looks at the teacher, the teacher will hold up a popsicle stick as a cue. The popsicle stick being held up moves into the ‘oops I forgot’ apron pocket. Initially, Paris will be allowed 10 oops popsicle sticks before they are subtracted from her total earned. If during the next opportunity, Paris raises her hand unprompted after getting the oops stick, the teacher will move the oops stick into the ‘earned’ popsicle pocket. Case Study Jeff: PTR Intervention Plan Prevent Strategies Description Choice-Making Using a choice matrix, decide upon the choice that will be offered to Jeff each day with his writing assignment. The following choices will be rotated: (a) Within—writing tool to use (pen/pencil), color notebook paper, color of eraser, topic; (b) Who—peer for writing partner; (c) Where—Robin’s room, round table, desk; (d) When— part now, part later, whole task now Steps: 1.Right before giving the writing assignment to Jeff, decide upon the choice to be offered. 2.Once the choice is determined, present it to Jeff by saying, “What do you want to use for writing today? The pen or the pencil?” 3.Praise Jeff for making the choice—”Thank you for making a choice.” and honor the choice Jeff—Intervention Plan Prevent Strategies Description Environmental Support Visual Timer: Set a visual timer for the amount of time agreed upon with Jeff to complete the writing assignment. Steps: 1. Discuss the goal for completing the writing assignment. Say, “I think you can complete the assignment in ___ minutes. What do you think?” 2. Set the timer by saying, “Jeff, let’s see if you can beat the timer. Today, you have ___ minutes (time from step 1) to complete the writing. Ready, set, go.” Jeff—Intervention Plan Teach Strategies Description Pro-academic Replacement Behavior— Academic Engagement Jeff will be taught how to remain engaged on a writing assignment. Engagement is defined as: working on a task without disrupting by raising hand to speak, keeping pencil upright, and letting neighbors work. Steps: 1. Divide Jeff’s writing task into 3 major sections—starter, details, conclusion 2. Tell Jeff that for each section completed, he earns a “dot” that he should place in the envelope hanging at the side of his desk. 3. Inform him that he can use the dots later to get out of work and to get special rewards for himself and the rest of the class. 4. Review his self-management checklist/dot total sheet with Jeff. Review each section of the writing assignment (step 1), his goal (time for completion), and academic engaged behaviors. 5. On Monday, a weekly goal should be discussed and set. Jeff—Intervention Plan Reinforce Strategies Description Reinforce Proacademic Replacement Behavior— Academic Engagement Jeff will be reinforced for academic engagement and meeting his daily goal with allowable/earned escape represented by the dots. Jeff can use his dots to get out of doing work/problems during independent work times. Steps: 1. At the end of the writing period or when Jeff completes his writing (whichever event occurs first), review Jeff’s self-management checklist. 2. For each behavior on the checklist, discuss with Jeff whether he performed the activity. If yes, place a check in the box. If no, place an “x” in the box. For each check, Jeff should be given a dot. When reviewing, say, “Jeff, did you write a starter sentence?”… Did you stay on task? Did you meet your goal?” When giving dots, say “Jeff, how many checks do you have today? How many dots do you earn?” 3. Jeff uses dots by sticking it over a problem/question he doesn’t want to do and showing the teacher when he uses a dot. He can escape as long as he has dots in his envelope. 4. If Jeff uses a dot to get out of work, immediately say “You used a dot to get out of ____. You earned it!” 5. If Jeff meets his weekly goal, he can go to his brother’s kindergarten class and read a book to them. Jeff—Intervention Plan Reinforce Strategies Description Group Contingency (Modified) If Jeff meets his daily (time) goal for completing his writing assignment within the time agreed upon, the class earns a bonus letter toward the mystery reinforcer of the week. When Jeff earns the class this letter, the class provides attention to Jeff by thanking him and celebrating (clapping hands, saying “Yeah”. Steps: 1. After reviewing Jeff’s self-management sheet, ask him, “Did you meet your goal today?” 2. If yes, “You did meet your goal. Let’s tell the class they’ve earned a letter for the mystery reinforcer.” 3. Tell the class, “Jeff met his goal today. We get another letter on the board.” 4. Prompt the class to thank Jeff (if they haven’t done so spontaneously). 5. If no, “You worked hard and tried. You’ll do it tomorrow!” 10. Teacher and Classroom Coaching, Support • Do not assume teacher/team knows how to implement plan • Schedule 30 minutes to review plan and go over steps • Problem-solve if teacher has difficulties • Modify plan • Choose different intervention • Teach the student the plan Task Analysis of Intervention Discuss Q&A Verbal Role-play Observe Feedback Case Study: Sample Coaching Checklist for Mike PREVENT – Environmental Support 1. Mini schedule of group & center time available 2. Schedule reviewed prior to task 3. Schedule reviewed & items crossed off TEACH – Replacement Behavior 1. Remind to use Dynamite prior to transition 2. Provided choice board and honored choice REINFORCE –Replacement Behavior 1. Verbally or gesturally acknowledge ASAP 2. Allowed to cool off for 1-minute TOTAL (# Yes/ # Total) Fidelity Score ( .00 – 1.00) Training Review Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 11. Array of outcome measures (child-specific, teacher fidelity, social validity, alliance, fidelity of process, technical adequacy of products) • Individualized Behavior Rating Scale • Fidelity scores • Social validity- Did teacher like the process, are they likely to use strategies, would they do it again, etc.? • Alliance—Did they like you? Did they feel like you respected their input? Did you do a competent job as a consultant? PTR Plan Self-Assessment Example for Mike Intervention Type Environmental Support 1. Mini schedule present and available 2. Mini schedule reviewed prior to activity 3. Mike prompted to cross off items as completed Replacement Behavior—Functional 1. Voice output device present and available 2. Prompted Mike to use voice output device to request, “I need to calm down” 3. Prompted Mike to choose his calm down activity Reinforce Replacement Behavior—Functional 1. Teacher responded to Mike’s request for “I need to calm down” with verbal praise (flat affect) 2. Teacher granted Mike his choice and provided verbal praise (flat affect) Fidelity Impact 1 = none; 5 = great 12345 Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA 12345 Y/N/NA Y/N/NA Y/N/NA 12345 Y/N/NA Y/N/NA 12. Maintenance (beyond warranty) • Dynamic process-not static • Decision making process based on data • Determine levels of support needed, fading, shaping, generalizing, extending, etc. Steps for Evaluating Outcomes • Make sure you have both fidelity measures (self and/or observation scores) AND student outcomes (Behavior Rating Scale measures) • Decision rules • What constitutes adequate fidelity? 80%, 70%, something else? • What constitutes adequate student progress? (e.g., 3 or more consecutive ratings at or above goal line?) Primary Decisions • If Fidelity scores are inadequate, determine the reasons (intervention too difficult, not feasible, not described adequately….) • Retrain/coach the teacher/implementer • Modify the interventions so that they are feasible, simpler • Select different interventions that match the hypothesis • Student outcomes (decision contingent upon outcome trend) • • • • • Maintain intervention Intensify intervention Modify intervention Fade intervention components Shape behavior outcomes to become closer approximations of desired behavior • Expand the intervention (additional people, additional settings or routines) • Conduct another FBA if hypothesis is suspect, team has new data, or context has changed POSITIVE BEHAVIOR CHANGE •BRS data indicate positive trends toward desired goals •Good fidelity implementation scores Next Steps Extension Extend the scope of the BIP Generalization Settings •Additional routines •Multiple classes •Across entire day Shaping Increase desired goal responses Generalization Interventionists •School staff •Multiple service providers •Family Fading Reinforcers Reduce type and/or amount of reinforcement provided Delayed Gratification Increase time intervals within reinforcement schedule Self-Management Shift control for behavior monitoring from teacher to student Intermittent Schedule Provide reinforcers at irregular intervals Increase in Problem Behavior BRS data indicate a trend/movement away from desired goals Low Fidelity Variables •Strategies implemented as designed? •Strategies implemented daily? •All setting events addressed? •Reinforcers provided as designated? Training and Technical Assistance •Additional training outside classroom •Modeling of strategies with student •Increase technical assistance in classroom (observation/feedback) BIP Variables: •Interventions difficult to implement? •Insufficient planning/prep time? •Insufficient time to implement? •Lack of resources? BIP Strategies •Modify current interventions •Select alternative strategies •Determine appropriate reinforcers •Reinforcers readily available FBA Variables •Appropriate function determined? •Interventions match function? •Appropriate replacement behavior determined and skills taught? EVALUATING THE TECHNICAL ADEQUACY OF FBAS AND BIPS Current Status of FBA/BIP Implementation in Schools (Scott & Kamps, 2007) • Although FBA in special education law since 1997, no systematic policies adopted at federal level • No guidance on key components (who should do FBAs, what features must be included, etc.) • Three primary flaws in school-setting use (Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005). • Often used as reactive process • Loses power of prevention in developing interventions addressing minor behaviors before they get serious • “Expert” model overlooks valuable input gained from persons with whom student consistently interacts • Rigid, rigorous procedures not feasible in public school settings • In response, schools have “implemented a variety of inexact practices and procedures that have been loosely labeled as FBA, the majority of which are not tied to any solid evidence base. (Scott, Anderson, & Spaulding, 2008) Technical Adequacy Research • Recent studies conducted exploring technical adequacy of FBAs • Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 67-80. • Evaluated FBAs/BIPs of 43 students in self-contained classrooms for EBD (K-12) in one school district in western US • Reviewed FBAs/BIPs for inclusion of essential components (listed in article) • Interviewed 6 EBD teachers about use of FBA/BIPs in planning and developing programs (e.g., “what is included on the plan?”, “How is plan implemented?” “How do you show progress?” • Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R. A., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are we on the right course? Lessons learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35-56. • 71 completed FBA/BIPs submitted for review from school districts across midwest state • Rating scale developed for analysis (see article for scale) Some Results of Technical Adequacy Research • Teaming issues: • Teacher and other input not included • Identifying behaviors • Target behaviors were missing or inadequately defined • Match of FBA to Hypothesis • Attempt to assign one function/hypothesis to group of target behaviors (e.g., treated all behaviors as one behavior—collected data and developed interventions) • Hypothesis statements missing or inadequate • Behavior intervention plan development • Behavior strategies not linked with hypothesis statement(s) • Predominant type of BIP “hierarchical stock list of possible positive and negative consequences” that follow any problem behavior. • Replacement behaviors not included • Van Acker—46% FBA/BIPs reviewed only included aversive strategies Some Results of Technical Adequacy Research • Follow-up • Lack of follow-up support for monitoring and evaluating plan including fidelity • No follow-through on next steps (promote and check maintenance and generalization of behavior change) • Blood interviews with teachers • None was able to identify behavior goals nor describe behavior intervention • Did not use FBA/BIPs in development of behavior interventions Purpose of Our Tool • Determine the technical adequacy of FBA/BIPs and establish baseline • District • Campus/School • Individual • Second step in requesting Tier 3 technical assistance from Florida PBS/RTI:B Project (Interview of Tier 3 process first step) • Report generated to guide action planning Development of Tool • Review of literature to identify essential components for adequate FBA/BIPs • Original measure included 24 items (FBA/BIP) • Edited to 20 items • Sent out to three national experts (Terry Scott, Cindy Anderson, Glen Dunlap) to review • Is the item essential? • Is the item worded clearly? • Final tool contains 18 items (9 FBA/9 BIP) • Scores range from 0-2 for each item. SAMPLE GRAPHS/TABLES GENERATED BY TOOL Sample Graphs— Baseline/post FBA Sample Graphs BIP Baseline/Post Sample Graph: Total FBA/BIP Baseline/Post Sample Tables Baseline/Post Sample Tables: Baseline/Post comparison PRACTICE TIME Before practicing…. • Review of tool items • Evaluation • Scoring guide Practice Time • Team up with others • Try scoring the sample completed FBA/BIP given to you with the evaluation tool • Come to consensus on the scores • Debrief • • • • • What did you like? What did you dislike? What was easy? What was difficult? What questions do you still have? Evaluating Your District’s FBA/BIPs • Within your district team, evaluate the technical adequacy of your district’s FBA/BIPs brought to the training • Be ready to debrief • You do NOT need to tell anyone your scores • Discuss anything you learned or didn’t learn in evaluating technical adequacy • Use outcomes to start developing strategic action plan steps to achieve district goals. Next Steps • Action Planning • What will you be doing in your district to improve your FBA/BIPs? PTR Publications • PTR Manual • Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Kincaid, D., Wilson, K., Christiansen, K., Strain, P., & English, C., 2010. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: The School-Based Model of Individualized Positive Behavior Support. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. • Journal Articles • Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P., Wei, W., Kincaid, D., Dunlap, G., & Strain, P. (2009). Randomized controlled trial of a tertiary behavior intervention for students with problem behaviors: Preliminary outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 213-225. • Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Wilson, K., Strain, P., & Kincaid, D. (2010). PreventTeach-Reinforce: A standardized model of school-based behavioral intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 9-22 • Strain, P. S., Wilson, K., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: Addressing problem behaviors of students with autism in general education classroom. Behavior Disorders, 36, 160-171. • Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P., Wei, W., Kincaid, D., & Dunlap, G. (in press). Reliability of the Individualized Behavior Rating Scale-Strategy for Teachers (IBRSST): A Progress Monitoring Tool. Assessment for Effective Intervention. • Sears, K. M., Blair, K. S. C., Iovannone, R. & Crosland, K., (in press). Using the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce model with families of young children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities. Questions?