2_ FBA Technical Ade..

Report
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?

similar documents