1 / 43

Research in Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports

Research in Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports. Chris Borgmeier, PhD Portland State University cborgmei@pdx.edu www.sped596pbis.pbworks.com. Reading Review. Gast, 2010 - Ch. 5 Crone & Horner, Ch. 1-2 Babkie & Provost, 2004 Sugai et al., 2000 Implementation Fidelity

chi
Download Presentation

Research in Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports

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. Research in Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports Chris Borgmeier, PhD Portland State University cborgmei@pdx.edu www.sped596pbis.pbworks.com

  2. Reading Review • Gast, 2010 - Ch. 5 • Crone & Horner, Ch. 1-2 • Babkie & Provost, 2004 • Sugai et al., 2000 • Implementation Fidelity • choose 1 - LIT REVIEW

  3. Discussion • What is the existing process or routine at your site for FBA/BSP (or supporting individual students posing significant behavioral challenges)? • Who participates? • What is the meeting routine? • When/how are meetings held?

  4. Beginning w/ Implementation in Mind

  5. Who should attend FBA meetings? (in mainstream school settings) • Behavior Specialist (often School Psych or SpEd) • Principal • Teachers who work with student • Both Gen Ed & SpEd • Other staff who work closely with the student • Parent • Student (if old enough – team decision) An FBA meeting for an IEP student is an IEP meeting, so all required attendees must be present

  6. FBA Team members

  7. Embedding Function-Based Support into School Teams – Leah Benazzi, 2005 • Participants • School-based teams • Behavior specialists with knowledge of behavior theory • Participants developed behavior support plans (BSPs) based on description of students • Teams without a behavior specialist • Behavior specialist without the team • Teams and the behavior specialist together • All BSPs were evaluated for technical adequacy and contextual fit

  8. Results • BSPs developed by behavior specialists alone, rated low on contextual fit • BSPs developed by teams alone, rated low on technical adequacy • Only BSPs developed by the team working with a behavior specialist rated high on both technical adequacy and contextual fit.

  9. Day 1  Next 2 wks Day 14  Next 2 wks Day 28  Ongoing  Initial FBA meeting Team disburses and gathers functional assessment data FBA/BSP meeting - team reconvenes to review assessment information & develop behavior plan Team implements behavior plan & collects data Behavior Plan Review - Team reconvenes to look at data to Review effectiveness and implementation of behavior plan Continue to implement behavior plan or changes as needed Review Meeting - Reconvene as needed depending on success of behavior plan FBA Process -- Meetings

  10. Supports that enable accurate & durable implementation of interventions • Ensure contextual fit • Organize adult responsibilities, tasks, etc. • Embed interventions in IEP • Establish effective, efficient, & relevant school-wide behavior support systems

  11. Support Plan Design • Ensure Contextual Fit • Implementers involved in design of plan • Plan consistent with values of implementers • Plan consistent with skills of implementers • Plan consistent with resources of implementers • Plan consistent with administrative structure • Plan perceived as (a) likely to be effective and (b) in the best interest of the focus individual

  12. Develop preliminary Intervention ideas…. THEN present & discuss w/ implementation team

  13. Finalizing Interventions to Implement • Work w/ team to identify interventions • Change or eliminate interventions that implementers won’t implement • Monitor interventions suggested by implementers to ensure they are consistent with findings from FBA • Finalize interventions to implement & identify supports needed to implement

  14. Implementation • Implementation Plan (Who will do what, when?) • Schedule prep activities (e.g. communication system development) • Schedule teaching times/curriculum • Schedule data system design/use • Schedule on-going times for assessment

  15. Discussion • How does this model match what is happening at your site? • What are barriers to implementing this teaming model? • What are potential supports?

  16. Implementation Plan: Fidelity of Implementation

  17. Preparing Staff for Implementation • Who is implementing each part of the intervention? • How do staff implement it? (Requires specific instruction & modeling) • When should it be implemented? • What if it’s not working (Back-up/crisis plans)? • Why should this work? • When will we meet again to review the plan and implementation?

  18. BSP Review Meeting • Make sure to review each step on implementation plan at Follow-up BSP meeting • Problem Solve around treatment fidelity • If we’re not implementing the plan with fidelity, we cannot evaluate if the plan is successful or not

  19. Research: Actively Planning to Support Implementation Noell et al, 1997 Jones et al, 1997 Codding et al, 2005

  20. Noell et al. (1997) • 3 Elementary School teachers in public schools • Ms. Wynn – 3rd grade – referred female student for mathematics • Ms. Milton – taught talented & gifted – referred 3rd grade male for mathematics • Ms. Gill – 3rd grade male – assistance w/ reading • all expressed concerns with inconsistent work and intermittent noncompliance w/ teacher instructions

  21. Treatment Integrity - Measures • # of treatment steps teachers implemented • permanent product data collected to reduce reactivity to observation • intervention designed so completion of each treatment step would produce a permanent product

  22. Phases of Implementation Support • Consultation Only • explained individual child assessment results to teacher -w/ rationale, how to implement intervention, provided data collection forms & explained an assistant would collect all materials related to intervention each day • no further contact w/ consultant • Daily Performance Feedback • consultant met with teacher each morning before school for 3 to 5 minutes • presented student performance data & teacher intervention implementation data to the teacher on a graph • consultant id’d specific treatment steps missed & discussed importance of steps. discussed how to improve implementation & praised treatment steps completed accurately • Maintenance • told consultant would not be returning for morning feedback meetings, but data collection would continue & teacher asked to continue using intervention

  23. Results & Discussion • All 3 teachers initially exhibited high levels of treatment integrity over first 2-4 days w/ decelerating trend to follow • Introduction of performance feedback = increased treatment integrity • Moderate to high levels of treatment integrity were only maintained when performance feedback was provided to teachers regarding intervention implementation and student outcomes

  24. Jones, Wickstrom,& Friman (1997). • School-based behavioral consultation is “a good talk spoiled” • Typical interaction: • consultant and teacher discussing a student’s inappropriate behavior, which can be very rewarding • Often, however, the student problem behavior is attributed to the “inappropriate” behavior of the teacher, and the consultant recommends a “new” response instead. • Often this new response requires greater effort than ignoring the consultant’s suggestions.

  25. Students & Teachers • Joan (12) white female in Lang. Arts class • Ms D 9 yrs. teaching • Behaviors: excessive off task behavior related to touching objects, pulling her own hair, & biting nails • Bob (11)African American male in Reading class • Ms W (1 yr. teaching) • Behaviors: problem following instructions, aggression and throwing objects • Joe (11) white male in summer reading class • Ms. Bean ( 20 yrs. teaching) • Behaviors: spent great deal of time arguing w/ peers, getting out of his seat, playing w/ objects & making irrelevant comments • all 3 student reside in specialized Treatment Program at Boys Town for youth w/ severe behavioral difficulties

  26. Intervention • Provide more frequent positive attention to students for expected behavior • Provide praise, approval statements & a mark on child’s daily note card • Provide positive feedback to student at least once every two minutes for on-task behavior & ignore students “passive” off-task behavior

  27. Mean Levels of Treatment Integrity(% of 2 min. intervals w/ pos. consequence issued by teacher, contingent on student on-task behavior)

  28. Results/ Discussion • Simply asking a teacher to implement consequences may result in inadequate level of integrity • Even w/ daily performance feedback – overall mean of treatement integrity did not exceed 83% for any of the teachers • Study makes salient the difficult nature of assisting teachers in the delivery of treatments w/ a high level of integrity

  29. Implementing Behavior Support Plans Performance FeedbackCodding, et al. (2005) • Private school for students w/ brain injury 10-19 years old • Data collected on 5 teacher-student dyads • Percentage of antecedent & consequences components of the intervention implemented as written • All teachers received formal training in implementing behavior support plan

  30. Phases of Implementation Support • Baseline – Observer completed integrity data sheet w/o knowledge of observation • Intervention – performance feedback was implemented after stable or decreasing performance in baseline was demonstrated • on same day as each observation, experimenter spent an average of 12 minutes w/ target teacher outside of classroom • Feedback included – praise for components followed as written & constructive feedback for components not followed consistently (reviewed components & explained how component should have been implemented)

  31. Findings • Results of performance feedback were maintained for up to 15 weeks • Treatment integrity was assessed using direct observation • Performance feedback was provided every other week rather than daily or weekly and on the same day that the observation occurred • Performance feedback resulted in greater percentages of both antecedent & consequence components correctly implementing for 4 of 5 teachers

  32. Codding et al. (2005) • “We suspect that periodic collection of treatment integrity data and subsequent performance feedback are necessary for high rates of intervention integrity to persist.”

  33. Beyond Talking -- Feedback • Make sure to train staff how to implement • Modeling/Role Playing the intervention is best method of instruction • People won’t implement it if they don’t understand how to do it, or if it’s not working because they doing the intervention incorrectly • Frequent follow-up & check-in • Linking w/ permanent product to turn in can be helpful • Example – point sheet w/ regular interval ratings (way of tracking teacher feedback to student) • Example – daily Intervention checklist for teacher to self check implementation of plan • Email check-ins/reminders paired with periodic visits/observations are good

  34. Discussion • Based on the presentation & readings: • What strategies would you recommend to support implementation? • What are implications for the research project design and procedures?

More Related