Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Assessment and identification of children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is complex and involves multiple techniques, levels, and participants. While federal law sets the general parameters for identification in school settings, these criteria are vague and may lead to inconsistencies in selection and interpretation of assessment measures. Assessment practice across school settings is greatly influenced by clinical guidelines such as the DSM-IV, which more specifically defines emotional and behavioral disorders and highlights the issue of co-morbidity. Before a student is assessed for special education eligibility under the IDEIA category of emotional disturbance, screening techniques and pre-referral interventions are needed. Positive Behavioral Supports and Response to Intervention models provide empirically supported frameworks for establishing the need for formal psychological assessment. Collaboration among members of the multidisciplinary team, including parents, helps to ensure that identification and intervention efforts have ecological validity. Tests and techniques vary considerably, but developmental histories, interviews, observations across settings, and behavioral checklists and rating scales are recommended, along with cognitive and achievement testing. While problems exist in the reliability and validity of projective techniques, they continue to be used in school-based assessment for EBD. Multitrait, multisetting, and multimethod approaches are essential for culturally fair assessment and reduction of bias in identification and placement.

In addressing positive general education teaching practices for use with students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), the chapter emphasizes teacher behavior change research that has been informed by applied behavior analytic (ABA) principles. Its central theme is that general education teachers can access research informed by ABA in developing prosocial instructional and management practices. Highlighted teaching practices include fostering correct academic responses from students, increasing active student response, and using contingent praise with regularity. The chapter also discusses functional behavioral assessment, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and controversial behavior change issues surrounding seclusion and restraints and medication, topics related to teaching students with or at risk for EBD in general education settings.

The School Behaviours Rating Scale (SBRS) measures observable school behaviour in primary aged students. It provides a tool for teachers and psychologists to use to assess behaviour and determine targets for intervention. The Scale measures strengths and needs, is easy to administer and score and is time efficient. It has been developed in Australia using data from classroom teachers on almost 2,000 students aged 5–12 years of age. The SBRS has sound psychometric qualities with subscale internal consistency scores ranging between .88 and .96, and test–retest reliability coefficients ranging from .86 to .97. The Scale comprises 51 behavioural descriptors which measure observable school behaviour across six domains or subscales comprising: General Classroom Behaviour; General Playground Behaviour; Getting Along with Other Students; Attempting Tasks Presented; Development of Social Skills and Aggressive Behaviours. The SBRS can be used to provide explicit information about a student's behavioural strengths, target areas for intervention, support functional assessment and provide a measure for pre- and post-intervention efficacy.