Disruptive classroom behavior has led many schools to implement positive behavioral strategies intended to create orderly learning environments. Despite initiation of such a strategy, an elementary school in the mid-Atlantic region still experienced an increase in office referrals and a decline in student achievement. The purpose of this mixed methods case study was to investigate the connections between a blended behavior program and student behavior and academic achievement, as well as staff perceptions about their experience with the program, and the degree to which the practices were implemented with fidelity. Skinner's behavioral theory served as the theoretical basis for the investigation. Office referrals and standardized math scores of 72 students were analyzed across 3 years, including the year before and the 2 years following the implementation of the blended behavior program, to determine whether significant differences existed within-subjects. Interviews were conducted with 9 teachers, representing kindergarten-6th grade, to explore staff perceptions of the blended behavior program. Quantitative results indicated a reduction in referrals after the 1st year of implementing the blended program and an improvement in math achievement after the 2nd year. While a decline in math scores occurred the 1st year of implementation and an increase the 2nd year, the difference in net performance rendered the results inconclusive to determine the influence of the program on achievement. Qualitative results revealed inconsistencies in the way teachers implemented the program initiatives. This study contributes to positive social change by providing stakeholders a deeper understanding of the blended program and increasing staff capacity to manage challenging behaviors.

This study involved families of young children with autism spectrum disorders to examine the feasibility of implementing an adapted version of the school-based Prevent-Teach- Reinforce (PTR) model. This research included two families who developed and implemented the intervention for their children in collaboration with the researcher. The PTR manual was modified for use in a family context. The PTR intervention was tested using a multiple baseline design across routines. Procedural fidelity was assessed during training and coaching, as well as family implementation fidelity and social validity. To examine the potential efficacy of the adapted PTR intervention, the children’s target problem behavior and functionally equivalent alternative behavior were measured using video observation across experimental conditions including a generalization probe. Results indicated that the adapted PTR model is associated with reduction in child problem behavior and increases in alternative behavior. This study expanded the current research on the PTR model and extended its use to a novel setting and population so that a standardized model for positive behavior support implementation can be developed in the family context.

The effects of coaching on teacher and student outcomes were compared to outcomes of classes randomized to professional development only and comparison conditions. Twenty-one teachers, trained to implement a Tier II reading intervention curriculum, were grouped by campus then randomized to one of three conditions: professional development plus coaching support (n=6), professional development only (n=7) and a comparison condition (n=8). Teachers in the coached and professional development only (un-coached) conditions were compared on measures of teacher knowledge and implementation fidelity as an indication of teacher practice. Student achievement scores on word attack, reading fluency and reading comprehension measures were compared for students in each of the three conditions. A multiple-gating procedure was used to help teachers identify the five lowest-performing readers in their first grade classrooms. Students completed a battery of seven reading ability assessments prior to and immediately following teacher-implementation of a seventeen-week reading intervention curriculum. Results of ANCOVA analyses indicated students in classes of teachers who received professional development and coaching support did not demonstrate significantly higher scores than teachers who only received professional development training on a battery of reading measures. Further analysis indicated students in the professional development plus coaching condition did have significantly higher scores than those in comparison conditions on five of the seven outcome measures. Teachers in coached and professional development only conditions completed a teacher knowledge survey to measure their knowledge of evidence-based reading practices. ANCOVA analysis revealed no significant differences between groups at posttest. Changes in teacher practice were measured as a function of intervention implementation fidelity. Intervention teachers were videotaped three times over the course of the intervention and taped classes were scored, rated and compared across conditions. Results of a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance on fidelity scores revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of the teachers who received professional development plus coaching. / text

Abstract Previous research has demonstrated that non-contingent reinforcement (NCR) and differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO) are effective procedures in reducing problem behavior of children both in and out of the classroom. However, few studies have assessed which procedure is most socially acceptable among teachers. In addition, studies have not recorded data on fidelity of implementation among teachers. A non-concurrent multiple baseline across teachers design was used to (a) demonstrate the effect of NCR and DRO on the problem behaviors of school aged children with no identified developmental disability, and (b) assess implementation fidelity of each procedure by the teacher. This study further assessed which procedure was preferred by teachers by the addition of questionnaires and a choice phase in which teachers ultimately chose which procedure to implement. Results showed that both procedures significantly reduced problem behavior across all participants, with the DRO procedure having the greatest effect. The procedure that was preferred most by teachers varied across participants. One of the three participants preferred the NCR procedure, one preferred the DRO procedure and the last participant gave mixed results between the procedure she said she preferred in the surveys and the procedure she chose to implement in the final choice phase.

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.

In education, the field of implementation science is a discipline dedicated to supporting educators’ use of evidence-based practices (EPBs) to improve school and student outcomes. As highlighted in previous columns in this series, school teams must thoughtfully consider how EBPs align with the school/district core values and fit the local context (Kittelman et al., 2020), how school teaming can enhance implementation of EBPs (Kittelman et al., 2021), and what activities are needed to support implementation of EBPs at different stages (Ward et al., 2021). In this column, we describe how school teams and educators can use implementation drivers to implement EBPs with high implementation fidelity (as they are designed to be implemented; Caroll et al., 2007; Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019). We wish to draw attention to the important work of researchers and practitioners from the National Technical Assistance Center on the State Implementation and Scale-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (SISEP; https://sisep.fpg.unc.edu) within the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN; https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu) and the National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI; https://ncsi.wested.org).

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.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.