1 / 64

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR): An Efficacious Tier 3 behavior intervention

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR): An Efficacious Tier 3 behavior intervention. Presented at the 2010 PBIS Leadership Forum Chicago, IL Rose Iovannone , Ph.D., BCBA-D University of South Florida iovannone@fmhi.usf.edu 813-974-1696 .

nelia
Download Presentation

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR): An Efficacious Tier 3 behavior intervention

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. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR): An Efficacious Tier 3 behavior intervention Presented at the 2010 PBIS Leadership Forum Chicago, IL Rose Iovannone, Ph.D., BCBA-D University of South Florida iovannone@fmhi.usf.edu 813-974-1696 The contents of this training were developed under grant H324P04003 from the Department of Education.

  2. Objectives • Participants will: • Describe the 5-step PTR Tier 3 support model • Identify the critical components that enhance the success of Tier 3 behavior supports • Discuss application at district level

  3. Agenda • Rationale and conceptual foundation • Research method/outcomes • Overview of PTR process • Suggestions for district-wide application

  4. Tier 3 Function-Based Behavior Interventions in Schools • Issues • Absence of uniform policies & practices • Form versus a process • Expert driven versus collaborative effort • Occasionally contextual fit considered • Limited support/follow-up/training for teacher provided • Result--limited impact on student behavior

  5. What is Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR)? • Research project funded by U.S. Department of Education • University of South Florida • University of Colorado, Denver • Evaluate effectiveness of PTR process vs. “business as usual” • Randomized controlled trial • Intervention “Package” • ONE ‘P’revent; ONE ‘T’each; ONE ‘R’einforce • Based on ABA principles and individual Positive Behavior Support

  6. What is Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR)? • Primary Research Questions: • Is the PTR intervention more effective than control conditions (‘business as usual’) in decreasing severe problem behaviors and increasing pro-social and academic skills of students? • Repeated measures—baseline, post-test, follow-up • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)-Problem Behavior and Social Skills subscales • Academic Engaged Time (AET)

  7. Participants • K-8th grade • Behavioral difficulties • Intensity– disruption to the learning environment • Frequency— minimum of 1 time per week • Duration– minimum 6 months • General or Special Education • All cognitive levels • All disabilities • Teachers volunteered & nominated 1-3 students • Top externalizers • Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD)

  8. Process • Standardized Individual Positive Behavior Support approach • Intervention teams provided manual, assignments, homework • Five step process aligned with problem solving facilitated by PTR Consultant • Team Development • Goal Setting • Assessment • Intervention and Coaching • Evaluation

  9. Outcomes of PTR Process

  10. Student Demographics by Primary Disability

  11. Student Description

  12. Cross-Over Treatment Results p <.01 d = .64

  13. Teacher Outcomes • Fidelity • Majority of teachers achieved .80 • Mean # coaching/training sessions = 3.5 • Prevention higher than Teach and Reinforce • Social Validity • Modified Teacher Acceptability Rating Form (TARF; Reimers & Wacker, 1988)—15 items • 5-point Likert Scale • 124 teachers • Overall—4.16 (.52) • Willingness to carry out plan—4.80 (0.42) • Like the procedures—4.46 (0.64)

  14. PTR: The Process

  15. Step 1: teaming • Purpose: • Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of team functioning • Outline roles and responsibilities • Determine a consensus-making process • Members (desired • Person with knowledge of student (e.g., Classroom teacher, instructional assistant, parent) • Someone with expertise in functional assessment, behavioral principles (PTR consultant, school-based consultant) • Someone with knowledge of context (e.g., administrator or designee) • Tools • Work style survey • Teacher and Teacher Assistant • Teaming survey

  16. Step 2: Goal Setting • Purpose: • Identify behaviors of greatest concern to the team and possible replacement behaviors (teach) • Prioritize and operationalize behaviors • Develop teacher friendly baseline data collection system • Targeted Areas: • Problem behaviors • Social skills • Academic behaviors

  17. Social Behavior Academic Broad Decrease Increase Case Study—Step 2: Goal Setting

  18. Step 2: Data Collection System • Behavior Rating Scale • Direct Behavior Rating (DBR)—Hybrid assessment combining features of systematic direct observations and rating scales • Efficient and feasible for teacher use • Provides data for decisions • Prioritized and defined behaviors measured • Requires minimum of 1 appropriate and 1 inappropriate behavior

  19. Case Study - Mike: Operational Definitions • Problem behaviors • Screaming—loud, high pitched noise heard outside the classroom • Hitting—anytime Mike touches peers or adults with an open hand, fist, foot, or object while screaming or protesting • Replacement/Appropriate Behaviors • Express frustration appropriately using Dynamite, pictures, or signs to ask for a break or attention • Transition to non-preferred activities: Moving to non-preferred activity and engaging with appropriate verbal expression

  20. Case Study- Mike: Behavior Rating Scale Date

  21. BRS Psychometrics (Preliminary) • 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

  22. Step 3: PTR Assessment (FBA) • PTR Assessment (FBA) • Each team member independently answers a series of questions related to: • Observed antecedents/triggers of problem behaviors • Functions of the problem behaviors • Consequences ordinarily associated with the problem behaviors • PTR facilitator summarizes input and develops draft hypothesis • Team reaches consensus

  23. Step 3: Case Study – MikeAssessment Summary Table of Problem Behavior Screaming, Hitting

  24. Step 3: Case Study – MikeAssessment of Appropriate Behavior Prosocial

  25. Step 3: Case Study – Mike Hypotheses Inappropriate Appropriate

  26. Step 4: Behavior Intervention Plan • Team selects interventions from each component (P-T-R) • Detailed behavior plan developed • Consultant provides training and on-site assistance with plan implementation • Implementation fidelity evaluated

  27. Step 4: Case Study – Mike’s BIP

  28. Mike’s Intervention Plan

  29. Mike’s Intervention Plan

  30. Step 4: PTR Intervention Coaching/fidelity • Provide training to practice the plan without student (30-90 min.) • PTR Consultant present first day of implementation with student • Provide support in the classroom • Model the plan • Provide feedback • Discuss need for modifications if applicable

  31. Case Study: Sample Coaching Checklist/Fidelity for Mike

  32. Step 5: Evaluation • Is it working? • Daily ratings of behavior • Continuous progress monitoring • BRS • Other data collection forms • Is it being implemented consistently and accurately? • Fidelity ratings • Do we need more data? • Does the plan need to be modified or expanded? • Plan for generalization and maintenance

  33. Step 5: Mike Evaluation

  34. Step 5: Evaluation

  35. Step 5: Evaluation

  36. Step 5: Evaluation

  37. Step 5: Evaluation Mike Outcome Data

  38. Review PTR Process • Five-step team-based process • Teacher/team driven • Support provided to teacher/team to implement interventions • Mean number of days for PTR process = 71

  39. References • Manual • Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., English, C., Kincaid, D., Wilson, K., Christiansen, K., & Strain, P. (2010). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: A 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). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: A standardized model of school-based behavioral intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 9-22 • Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P., Wei, W., Kincaid, D., & Dunlap, G. (in review). Reliability of the Individualized Behavior Rating Scale-Strategy for Teachers (IBRS-ST): A Progress Monitoring Tool.  Manuscript submitted for publication. • Next steps: • Facilitating schools to scale up • Training key school staff and team members to do process

  40. Application of tier 3 district level

  41. Step 1: Assess Current Status

More Related