Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) are used in public schools for students with disabilities, replacing target behaviors with socially appropriate behaviors using positive behavior support strategies. However, research suggests that BIPs are often poorly written or fail to be implemented as intended. One reason for the ineffectiveness of BIPs may be that the interventionist (e.g., classroom teacher or other staff member responsible for implementing the plan) and the context of his/her classroom is not considered when plans are written by specialists (e.g., school psychologist, special education teacher, etc.). The purpose of this study was to evaluate BIPs written and used for students in public schools in the intermountain west for their contextual fit, using a researcher-developed measure of contextual fit based on key concepts previously established in research and modeled after the Behavior Support Plan-Quality Evaluation, Second Edition (BSP-QE II). With the coding guide created by our research team, we coded previously collected BIPs for practicality, the skill level and competency required for the interventionist to implement, and the consideration of cultural values for both the interventionist and the student who would receive the intervention. In addition, a previous research study by a graduate student at the same university had previously coded BIPs from the four school districts in Utah for technical adequacy using the BSP-QE II and, using the results from that study, we ran a Pearson correlation to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship between BIP quality and contextual fit. Ultimately, our study found that BIPs often failed to include all elements for contextual fit to reasonably be considered established, particularly in the cultural values of those who would implement or receive the plan. In addition, we found a moderate, positive relationship between BIP technical adequacy and contextual fit. Implications for practitioners and ideas for future research are also discussed, including: ensuring that BIPs are developed in teams that include the interventionist, creating BIP templates that are culturally and contextually appropriate, and the possibility of research that documents actual interventionist participation in BIP team meetings as a comparison to the results of our scoring guide of BIP contextual fit.

Student problem behavior continues to be a major issue in schools for both teachers and students. Teachers often feel they are not provided with enough resources to help them manage this problem behavior. Students who engage in problem behavior tend to struggle socially and academically. When classified with an emotional disturbance, students are especially at risk due to the severity of the problem behavior they exhibit (Brauner & Stephens, 2006). This study examined how function-based interventions can help both teachers and students better manage the effects of problem behavior. There are several factors believed to hinder the effectiveness of function-based interventions, including time available, training, parental involvement, and fidelity of implementation (Ingram et al., 2005). The study used the critical incident technique (CIT) qualitative methodology to identify helping and hindering factors in the implementation of behavior intervention programs (BIP). Participants of the study include BIP implementers, defined as any school personnel who directly participates in the implementation of an effective BIP with a student. Using the CIT qualitative methodology and semi-structured interviews, the research team determined which events are most prevalent in the hindering and helping of BIP implementation. Research concluded that ongoing collaboration with colleagues, in- and out-of-class support, consistent data tracking, reward systems, calming down strategies, and relationships were the most helpful factors reported by teachers. Unexpected events, severity of behaviors, inconsistent reward systems, differing opinions amongst team members, inconsistent communication, and insufficient training were factors that hindered BIP efficacy based on the results of this study. The findings suggest that the implementation of BIPs can be improved with greater consistency in consequences, clear communication among stakeholders, and building meaningful relationships of trust.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) introduced Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) into United States law in 1990, and the reauthorization of IDEIA occurred in 2004. Even though BIPs have been codified into law, school personnel struggle to meet BIP mandates due to poor implementation fidelity. Barriers for BIP implementation are varied, but there is little research regarding whether practitioner competence and confidence through teaching experience is a factor. School psychologists (N = 122) from eight states completed a self-evaluation survey using the tailored design method. Results from the survey compared responses from school psychologists with and without teaching experience on BIP writing, implementation, and staff support. There were no differences in responses noted between the two groups for competence or confidence. However, school psychologists received substantially more training in writing BIPs than implementation or methods to support staff, and experience directly implementing BIPs provided the strongest correlation to confidence. This suggests that additional research surrounding the concept of training to practice for BIP implementation may be beneficial in identifying methods for improving BIP implementation fidelity as well as school psychologists' competence and confidence in BIP creation and implementation support.

The Teaching Tools for Young Children with Challenging Behavior (TTYC) presents a useful tool to disseminate evidence-based practices into the classroom setting for teachers to create lasting behavioral changes in young children. This study aims to further examine the use of TTYC by classroom teachers for students ages 4-6 years old with and without disabilities who had difficulty engaging in classroom routines or activities. A multiple-baseline across participants design was employed to demonstrate the outcomes of the TTYC in increasing appropriate classroom behavior and reducing problem behavior of the target children. The results indicated that the teachers’ fidelity of implementing the behavior intervention plans designed using the TTYC was relatively high with the exception of a few sessions. The teachers’ implementation of the plans resulted in increased appropriate classroom behavior and decreased problem behavior for all three child participants. The data indicated an association between implementation fidelity and changes in child behavior. When the teachers had difficulty implementing the steps for implementing intervention strategies, the children’s problem behavior increased, resulting in decreases in appropriate classroom behavior. Keywords: problem behavior, young children, teaching tools for young children, manualized behavioral intervention, classroom behavior

This research study examined how education service providers conduct functional behavioral assessments and utilize behavior intervention plans to address the social and emotional needs of students with challenging behaviors. The data are based on a 20-item survey administered to educators who identified themselves as working with students diagnosed with emotional and behavioral disorders. The results and implications of the survey are discussed and evaluated to the review of literature conducted prior to the study. Recommendations for future research are also explored.

Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) are intended to guide educators' efforts to help struggling students succeed in school by reducing the frequency of problem behavior and teaching appropriate, pro-social responses. The impact of a BIP, however, depends on the degree to which the plan is implemented with fidelity. In practice, there are many factors that prevent teachers and other practitioners from strictly adhering to the BIP including having multiple plans to follow, inexperience with the specified intervention(s), or particularly challenging behaviors in the classroom. The purpose of the study was to identify the factors that contribute to the treatment integrity of BIPs implemented by general educators. To accomplish this goal, we graded plans already developed and implemented using the Behavior Intervention Plan Quality Evaluator, Second edition. The BIP evaluations were then paired with survey responses from the practitioners charged with creating and completing the BIPs. A multiple regression analysis was used to predict treatment integrity (TI) outcomes based on BIP quality, in terms of development and features of the written plan, and the coaching or training received by the primary implementer and plan developer. The purpose of this study was to determine how the qualifications, training, and coaching of the professionals involved in a plan, as well as the development of the plan, and the quality of the BIP influence treatment integrity. Although coaching ended up being an excluded factor and only BIP quality was found to possess some relation to treatment integrity, the study concluded with interesting findings. Training, BIP Quality, and Treatment Integrity were found to possess predictive qualities for student outcomes. A total of 4 school districts in the state of Utah participated in the study and a total of 51 plans were evaluated and 32 survey responses were submitted. Individual BIP practices were assessed, and with more information on the factors that influence treatment integrity, educators will be better prepared to support these factors in their schools and provide better supports and develop higher quality behavior intervention plans as they are implemented with greater integrity.

Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) are intended to guide educators’ efforts to help struggling students succeed in school by reducing the frequency of problem behavior and teaching appropriate, pro-social responses. The impact of a BIP, however, depends on the degree to which the plan is implemented with fidelity. In practice, there are many factors that prevent teachers and other practitioners from strictly adhering to the BIP including having multiple plans to follow, inexperience with the specified intervention(s), or particularly challenging behaviors in the classroom. The purpose of the study was to identify the factors that contribute to the treatment integrity of BIPs implemented by general educators. To accomplish this goal, we graded plans already developed and implemented using the Behavior Intervention Plan Quality Evaluator, Second edition. The BIP evaluations were then paired with survey responses from the practitioners charged with creating and completing the BIPs. A multiple regression analysis was used to predict treatment integrity (TI) outcomes based on BIP quality, in terms of development and features of the written plan, and the coaching or training received by the primary implementer and plan developer. The purpose of this study was to determine how the qualifications, training, and coaching of the professionals involved in a plan, as well as the development of the plan, and the quality of the BIP influence treatment integrity. Although coaching ended up being an excluded factor and only BIP quality was found to possess some relation to treatment integrity, the study concluded with interesting findings. Training, BIP Quality, and Treatment Integrity were found to possess predictive qualities for student outcomes. A total of 4 school districts in the state of Utah participated in the study and a total of 51 plans were evaluated and 32 survey responses were submitted. Individual BIP practices were assessed, and with more information on the factors that influence treatment integrity, educators will be better prepared to support these factors in their schools and provide better supports and develop higher quality behavior intervention plans as they are implemented with greater integrity.

Function-based assessments and interventions are routinely used in school settings as an effective method to address problem behaviors that impede the learning of the student or others. When function-based interventions are not successful, it is often due to problems with treatment integrity (TI). Using an ABCBC single subject design, this study examined whether function-based teacher supports could improve TI. The results demonstrated that the function-based supports provided to the teacher resulted in higher levels of TI and improvements in student behavioral outcomes. Using function-based intervention concepts to develop teacher intervention support, limitations to the study, and directions for future research are discussed.

This study examined teacher perceptions of an intervention including a daily behavior report (DBRC) with a measure of treatment integrity present (Experimental Group) and without a measure of treatment integrity present (Control Group) The study was conducted in an analog (i.e., vignettes) online format with teacher participants from a southeastern school district. Each participant was presented with a vignette describing a student with problem classroom behaviors, a summary functional behavior assessment, and a sample behavior intervention plan including a DBRC. Only the Experimental Group was then presented with a direct observation measure of treatment integrity correlating to the DBRC. All teacher participants then rated the intervention using the Usage Rating Profile-Intervention (URP-I). On average teachers evaluated both the DBRC intervention with and without a treatment integrity component positively (i.e., means ranged from slightly agree to agree across all measures). A t-test indicated that no statistically significant differences existed between the Experimental and Control Groups’ total scores on the URP-I. This indicated that the measure of treatment integrity did not impact teachers’ ratings of the intervention on the URP-I. A MANOVA procedure found no statistically significant differences in teachers’ ratings of the intervention using each of the four factor scores of the URP-I (i.e., Acceptability, Understanding, Feasibility, and Systems Support). A multiple regression procedure used to examine various raters’ demographic characteristics found no statistically significant predictability for URP-I scores based on race, grades taught, years experience, and teaching setting (special/gifted versus general education). Cautious generalizations should be made due to limitations including the analog nature of the study, limited geographical area and participant characteristics. Additionally, the URP-I, a direct observation treatment integrity checklist, and a behavior intervention plan with an emphasis on a DBRC were all used. Use of other variables such as different interventions, rating scales and treatment integrity measures should be investigated. Suggestions for future research include conducting similar lines of research in naturalistic settings with school teachers and children, continued research in the different ways to collect treatment integrity research, and conducting acceptability and teacher perception research for other behavior interventions, target behaviors, and with other teacher groups.