1 / 31

PENT Forum 2005

P E N T PENT Forum 2005 Survey Findings Cadre Survey Dec. 2004 Findings 147 Cadre members completed the on-line survey form developed by the PENT Research Committee, supplying data on Cadre activities Skill perception in functional assessment and behavior plan development

Ava
Download Presentation

PENT Forum 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. P E N T PENT Forum 2005 Survey Findings

  2. Cadre Survey Dec. 2004 Findings • 147 Cadre members completed the on-line survey form developed by the PENT Research Committee, supplying data on Cadre activities • Skill perception in functional assessment and behavior plan development • Use of BSP-QE scoring ruberic • Activities across 4 phases of behavior consulting • Prior to BSP team meeting • Plan development • Contact during first week of implementation • Maintenance and Follow-up • Preliminary results follow. Other analyses to be posted at www.pent.ca.gov

  3. Cadre Self-Rating (FBA Skill) N=147

  4. Cadre Self-Rating (BSP Quality) N=147

  5. Cadre Self-Rating of Behavior Analysis Skills • Food for thought • Future area of inquiry: How does this self-report compare to the more objective BSP-QE scores on the Forum 2005 submitted plans? • Future activities: What activities at Forum 2006 would increase actual and perceived competence?

  6. Cadre Self-Rating (Consulting) N=147 Most of us perceive ourselves As competent consultants

  7. Cadre Consulting Skills • Food for Thought • Can we design a random sampling of the consultees we serve to compare our self-report with interview/questionnaire data?

  8. Cadre Time Spent Consulting N=147 33% of CADRE spend more than 50% of their time consulting

  9. Food for Thought • For those CADRE with extensive consultation experience, what tips might we have for those who spend less than 25% of their time consulting? • Do BSPs developed by teams with a consultant who spends more than 50% of his/her time consulting score higher than those with less experience?

  10. Cadre-Developed Trainings N=147 55% of us do an extensive amount of training

  11. Cadre-Developed Trainings • Implications • We have many trainings we can share with others in the Cadre • If you said you were willing to share your trainings, please submit them NOW by uploading to either www.pent.ca.gov, emailing to pent@dcs-cde.ca.gov or mailing a disc to: Diana Browning Wright Diagnostic Center, Southern Calif. 4339 State University Dr. Los Angeles, Ca. 90032

  12. Scoring my Own Plans N=147 49% of us use the BSP-QE scoring ruberic To check quality of BSPs we develop

  13. Scoring Others’ Plans N=147 37% of us score BSPs we did not develop

  14. Four Interconnected Phases of Consultation I. Develop an Environment Conducive to Teacher Growth and Change (Initial Steps Prior to Plan Writing and Ongoing Support Activities) IV. Provide Follow-Up Support (Maintaining Success) II. Jointly Develop the Program (Development of Written Plan in Meeting) III. Implement the Program (Facilitating Initial Implementation Steps After the Plan was Developed)

  15. Phase I N=147

  16. Phase II N=147 CADRE recognizes the need for team-developed BSPs

  17. Reasons for Lack of Teaming • Scheduling 14/147 • 9.5% of responding Cadre have not yet overcome scheduling problems to facilitate the routine procedure of team-developed plans • Other 17/147 • 11% of responding Cadre have other reasons that prevent team developed plans on a regular basis • Not writing plans (other duties) 3/147 • 2% of Cadre are not participating in plan development but have other duties related to behavior Number of CADRE not developing team plans=34/147 23%

  18. Phase II: If you do not develop team-based plans, reasons why

  19. Implications • If scheduling issues can be resolved at the school site, more team developed plans would be possible • Since team-developed plans are REQUIRED for students with IEPs and since team-developed plans are typically of higher quality and are more likely to be implemented with fidelity, CADRE should examine system barriers and gain commitment to this process

  20. Phase III CADRE recognize the need for contact during the first week of implementation N=147

  21. Phase III: Reasons for why you can’t meet N=147

  22. Implications • Cadre member’s schedule more frequently interferes with teaming than consultee’s schedules • Since implementation with fidelity requires consultee support & reinforcement, a full range of methods of contact 2-3 times should be explored (direct observation by consultant, email, phone contact, arrangement for administrator observation and encouragement, notes in faculty box, etc.)

  23. Phase IV N=147

  24. Research Conclusions • PRODUCT-The BSP • We are improving the quality of behavior plans through our CADRE activities • We feel ourselves to be competent in analysis and intervention design • More training in goal writing, environmental changes and effective communication provisions is needed • BSP form format and BSP-QE scoring produces a plan in accordance with the identified 6 key behavior analysis concepts, with internal consistency, allowing us to use an objective measure of plan adequacy

  25. Leadership Commitment • CADRE leadership has developed a strong research-to-practice focus in the era of high accountability for evidence-based practice and RTI (response to intervention). • PENT Research team is very active in data analysis to support our best practice.

  26. OUR CADRE Commitment • CADRE members are beginning to exhibit a strong research-to-practice focus in the era of high accountability for evidence-based practice and RTI (response to intervention) • 56% responded to the 10 minute on-line survey n=147/262 • 100% will have submit behavior goals and BSPs at Forum 2005 or immediately thereafter

  27. OUR CADRE Commitment • Challenge: How can we increase CADRE commitment to providing research data through an annual on-line survey designed by the PENT Research team to the 100% level? This aids development of Forum content!

  28. Research Conclusions • PRODUCT to Outcomes Questions: • We have designed a product that attempts to define treatment variables so that comparisons across plans can be made • Next Research Step: Do plans scoring “Adequate” (treatment) produce better outcomes for students than those that are “Inadequate”?

  29. Research Conclusions • BSP development process: • We recognize the need for 4 phases of consultation steps and feel ourselves to be competent consultants • Next Research Step: Can we further identify best practice in the 4 phases • Next Research Step: Can we identify barriers and solutions that interfer with best practice in the 4 phases?

  30. Research Conclusions • BSP training: • We have strong evidence that field training on BSP-QE scoring produces more “Adequate” subsequent plans than training on key concepts and practice writing plans

  31. Next Research Steps • How do we, as “consumers of research” use this research in designing field activities? • Should we, as consumers of research, use this finding? If we are training others on plan development, can we demonstrate more use of BSP-QE as a training tool than trainings on behavior key concepts by Forum 2006?

More Related