Search results

Many instances of maladaptive behaviors are due at least in part to a lack of social skills. Although there are effective interventions for teaching social skills, generalization of trained social skills remains a challenge. One promising way to enhance generalization may be to use functional behavior assessments to select social skills to teach that can meet individuals’ specific needs. This chapter describes a process for embedding function-based support into social skills interventions that may generalize to untrained settings. The chapter concludes with a case study demonstrating generalization of positive peer interaction from recess to a classroom setting for a grade two student. Results indicated that the student’s behavior during recess and during classroom instruction both changed upon implementation of the recess intervention, and these behaviors maintained over three months after the intervention was withdrawn.

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.

Tier 2 intervention is defined by the application of brief, efficient, and accessible supports for students who are at risk for social-emotional and behavioral concerns. Historically, Tier 2 interventions have been delivered in accordance with a standard protocol, with each student receiving the same general strategy in an undifferentiated manner. Yet, research has suggested the potential value of an adaptive Tier 2 approach, wherein brief assessments are conducted to determine which intervention (or adapted version of one particular intervention) is best suited to a student's individual needs. Within this chapter, we provide an overview of procedures related to adaptive Tier 2 intervention and discuss different approaches one might take to this practice. We conclude with a discussion of directions for future research in this area if adaptive Tier 2 intervention is to be widely adopted, implemented, and sustained within schools.

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.

This chapter reviews recent research regarding behavior interventions for young children. We first consider the implications of allowing maladaptive behavior to remain untreated in young children. The reasons that people may select for inaction are illustrated through a case example of an individual who manifested behavior problems that were allowed to continue through accommodations rather than being addressed through interventions. We then consider several examples of promising behavior interventions for very young children that can be carried out in home and preschool environments. Next, we review promising interventions that are appropriate for school-based settings. We conclude with the observation that while it is absolutely necessary to deal with urgent situations evoked by maladaptive behavior, it is critical to keep sight of the goal that we should always work to promote more mature, self-regulated, and acceptable behaviors across settings.

Functional assessment-based interventions are a tertiary support that have been incorporated in many three-tiered models of prevention to support students who do not respond to more global prevention efforts. Although endorsed by host of reputable organizations (e.g., National Association of School Psychologists) and mandated in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997, 2004), concerns have been raised that this mandate may not be warranted if functional assessment-based interventions do not meet minimum criteria to establish this as an evidence-based practice. One issue contributing to this concern is variability in the functional assessment process. John Umbreit and colleagues (2007) have attempted to address this concern by introducing a systematic approach that includes (a) a Function Matrix to analyze functional assessment data and identify the hypothesized function(s) of the target behavior and (b) a Function-Based Intervention Decision Model to guide intervention planning. In this chapter, we applied the core quality indicators for single-case research developed by Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, and Wolery (2005) to studies conducted using this practice to determine the extent to which this systematic approach to functional assessment-based interventions met the standards for evidence-based practices for use in educational settings across the K-12 continuum for students with or at-risk for high incidence disabilities. If this practice is deemed to meet criteria, then this systematic approach may be particularly useful in meeting the mandate established in IDEA. Results suggest that it may be appropriate to establish this systematic method as a promising practice.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on Patterson and Berry’s paper “Reflections on culture, structure and function of an intensive support service centred on positive behavioural support”.

This paper reviews key ideas presented in Patterson and Berry’s article relative to the recent history of service delivery in the UK and the growing interest being shown in positive behaviour support.

Patterson and Berry’s article adds to a modest literature on specialist support services and should stimulate further descriptions of service models and the concepts underpinning them.

The literature on specialist support service models is limited and this addition should be relevant to a wide range of clinicians, consumers and commissioners.

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.

Tiered systems may hold particular benefit for students with intensive intervention needs, as this continuum of supports is ideally comprised of evidence-based practices. In this chapter, we explore three intensive interventions: functional assessment-based interventions (FABI), First Step to Success, and Read 180 as they feature a range of practices and programs to meet students' academic, behavioral, and social needs. We define and describe each intervention, including information on essential features necessary for drawing valid inferences: treatment integrity, social validity, as well as student performance. We also provide examples of supporting evidence, featuring treatment-outcome studies documenting intervention effectiveness. We close with clarifications and considerations for meeting the multiple needs of students requiring intensive intervention efforts.