Search results

In this chapter, we review four methods for identifying function and addressing function in intervention. These include functional analysis, the Functional-Assessment-Based Intervention (FABI) Model, the Competing Pathways Model, and the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Model. For each, we describe the methods and procedures used to identify function and design intervention support, briefly review supporting evidence, and identify the advantages and limitations associated with each approach.

This study examined early childhood special education preservice teachers' perceived knowledge and confidence, as well as actual knowledge of functional assessment-based interventions pre- and postuniversity course participation. A quasi-experimental two-group pre- and posttest design was applied to examine (1) initial differences between two groups (by assigned instructor) in preservice teachers' perceived knowledge, perceived confidence, and actual knowledge, (2) growth over time on these three measures, and (3) their concluding performance following course completion. Results indicated mean score differences between groups at the start of the functional assessment-based intervention course instruction. Large magnitude effects were found for both groups when comparing pre- to posttest scores of preservice teachers' ratings of their perceived knowledge and confidence, as well as a measure of actual content knowledge. Posttest scores showed preservice teachers ended the experience with similar levels of actual knowledge, regardless of group membership. Findings indicate preservice teachers may benefit from a preparation course with applied practice to develop knowledge and confidence for using functional assessment-based interventions, a promising practice (What Works Clearinghouse, 2016), to support students with challenging behaviors. Limitations and future directions are presented.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of children diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically, especially over the past decade. Most recently, the CDC estimates that an average of one in 88 children have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In terms of numbers, this translates into approximately 730,000 people between the ages of 0 and 21 who have ASD. While the primary cause(s) of increases in the identification of autistic students continue to generate debate school officials across the nation need to be prepared for the changing legal landscape associated with children diagnosed with ASD. The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed legal/policy update of the leading legal considerations and concerns involving K-12 students with autism. The chapter will discuss four specific legal topics involving the identification and eligibility of K-12 students with autism. These four legal topics include: Changes in the New DSM-5 Diagnostic Manuel and its Impact on Legal Definitions of Autism; Insurance Reform and Autism Coverage: A Comparison of the States; Developing Legally Compliant Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) for High-Functioning Students with Autism, and; Recent Legal Developments in Case Law Involving K-12 students who are autistic. The chapter will conclude with a detailed discussion of how today’s school officials can become more legally literate and better serve the legal needs of students with autism in their schools.

Single subject research has long been employed to evaluate intervention effectiveness with students with learning or behavioral disabilities. Typically, the results of single subject research are presented on graphic displays and analyzed by a method of visual inspection, in which analysts simultaneously consider such data elements as level change, slope change, and variability in baseline and treatment data. However, over the years several concerns regarding visual inspection have emerged, including relatively low inter-rater reliabilities. This chapter reviews the arguments in favor of visual inspection as an analytic tool, and also summarizes the arguments favoring statistical analysis of single case data. The use of randomization tests is recommended, and an example is provided of its use in research with students with learning and behavioral disorders.

Repetitive and restrictive behaviors are one of the core components of diagnosing a child with an autism spectrum disorder. These behaviors may take the form of repetitive motor movements or vocalizations, often referred to as stereotypical behaviors. These behaviors can impede the child’s educational and social opportunities, and have thus become a target for intervention. A variety of interventions have been used to reduce stereotypical behaviors with varied success. One of the most oft-used interventions is deep pressure therapy (e.g., weighted vests), a practice that enjoys substantial anecdotal but little empirical support. Conversely, interventions based on functional behavior assessment (FBA) have been shown to reduce these behaviors, but may not be used frequently within schools. Therefore, this chapter will provide a brief overview of stereotypical behaviors and compare these two intervention approaches, with a clear preference for FBA-based interventions due to their stronger empirical support.

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight issues related to the current policy, practice, and research in the area of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) for students with (or at risk for) emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD). Although a substantial research base exists validating the effectiveness of FBA and function-based interventions for students with developmental disabilities, we believe that these same FBA practices are less valid when employed for students with EBD in classroom settings. Following a review of the current research and a discussion of the practical issues that are encountered when implementing FBA in classroom settings serving students with EB, we outline a more responsive FBA model for students with EBD with an emphasis on future policy, research, and practice applications for the field to consider.

The 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ushered in a new paradigm for addressing challenging behavior in students with disabilities with the advent of PBS. However, the groundwork for the PBS movement initiated with a paper published by Horner and colleagues (1990) that described the need for nonaversive behavioral interventions in working with persons with severe disabilities. Although some have seen PBS as an outgrowth of applied behavior analysis (ABA) (Anderson & Freeman, 2000), others within the field of behavior analysis have been critical of PBS as being spawned more out of an ideological bent rather than as a research-based model (Johnston, Foxx, Jacobson, Green, & Mulick, 2006).

In the field of behavioral disabilities, systematic direct observation (SDO) has been an integral tool for describing and explaining relationships between student and teacher behavior in authentic classroom settings. However, this method of measurement can be resource-intensive and presents a series of complex decisions for investigators. The purpose of this chapter is to review a series of critical decisions investigators must make when developing SDO protocols to address their research questions. After describing each decision point and its relevance to the measurement system, we identify trends and special considerations in the field of behavioral disabilities with respect to each decision. We organize content according to deciding what to measure, deciding how to measure it, and critical steps to prevent system breakdowns. Finally, we identify avenues for research to further the impact of SDO in the field of behavioral disabilities.