This study evaluated the POINTE Program, a manualized behavioral intervention designed for use by dance instructors to improve student dance performance using behavioral coaching procedures. This study consisted of three phases. Phase 1 was a formative evaluation of the POINTE Program, which assessed the technical adequacy of the manual. Feedback from 3 experts in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and 4 dance instructors were used to improve the manual content in this phase. Overall, the experts and instructors viewed the POINTE Program as providing accurate information on the basic ABA backgrounds and suggesting behavioral coaching procedures appropriate for use in a training context to address the needs of dance students although certain terms and procedures needed clarification, and minimizing ABA terms and creating videos were required based on their feedback before conducting Phase 2 evaluation. In Phase 2, the feasibility of the POINTE Program was examined with 4 instructors and their 4 students using a multiple-baseline design and structured individual interviews. The results indicated the dance instructors could assess their target student’s skills, select and implement a coaching procedure with fidelity, and monitor student progress without much difficulty. They suggested the provision of consultation in the form of performance feedback, addition of session scripts, and clarification over certain aspects of the coaching procedures following their use of the program. In the final phase, the potential efficacy of the refined POINTE Program was examined using a multiple-baseline design with 4 instructors and their 4 students, which demonstrated that dance instructors could successfully implement behavioral coaching procedures with a minimal feedback support through the use of POINTE Program components, demonstrating the feasibility and potential efficacy of the use of the POINTE Program by dance instructors to enhance student dance performance.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the process and outcomes of using the Teaching Tools for Young Children with Challenging Behavior (TTYC) with two kindergarten classroom teachers and two high functioning children with autism spectrum disorders engaging in moderate problem behavior during daily classroom routines. The focus was to evaluate the extent to which the kindergarten teachers could adequately use the TTYC toolkit with minimal behavioral consultation in the assessment and intervention process and to examine its impact on student behavior. A multiple baseline design across routines was used for each child to evaluate the child outcomes. The results indicated that the teachers successfully used the TTYC toolkit to design and implement routine-based intervention plans with fidelity, and their implementation of the intervention plan led to increased replacement behavior and decreased problem behavior across routines for both children. Improved levels of behaviors were maintained at 2-week follow up for one child.

This study evaluated the use of the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce for Secondary (PTR-SEC) model as an individualized Tier 3 intervention within the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) in three high school classrooms. Three teaching staff (two teachers and one instructional aide) and three students with autism spectrum disorders participated in the study. The study examined the degree to which the classroom staff implemented the PTR intervention plan with fidelity and its impact on the students’ behaviors, using a multiple baseline across participants design. The results indicated that the teaching staff implemented the PTR intervention plan with high levels of fidelity, and their implementation of the intervention plan led to decreases in problem behavior and increases in replacement behavior across all three participating students with ASD. The PTR-SEC teams found the PTR-SEC intervention to be acceptable and satisfactory; all three staff expressed interest in continuing to implement the PTR intervention plan after completion of the study.

This study assessed the feasibility of the newly manualized Prevent Teach Reinforce for Families (PTR-F) for use with Hispanic families of young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who have difficulty adjusting to family routine. The study involved three families of children with ASD ages 3 to 6 years old who participated in the 5-step PTR-F process and who implemented the PTR intervention plan during naturally occurring family routines. A multiple-baseline across participants design was employed to examine the preliminary evidence of efficacy of using the PTR-F for children with ASD. The results indicated that Hispanic parents successfully implemented intervention strategies with the help of a facilitator using the PTR-F manual. All children’s alternate desirable behavior increased and problem behavior reduced a significant amount when the PTR-F intervention was implemented by the parents. The parents reported high social validity when implementing the PTR-F intervention.

This study evaluated the implementation of the school-based Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) model within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) for elementary school students engaging in high levels of problem behavior. Three students and their classroom teachers in two public schools participated in the team-based PTR process during which they engaged in teaming and goal setting, functional behavior assessment, intervention, and evaluation. A multiple baseline across participants design was used to evaluate the impact of using the PTR model on student problem and replacement behaviors. Direct and indirect observations of student behaviors were conducted across target and generalization academic time periods. Findings indicate that the PTR intervention effectively reduced problem behavior and increased replacement behavior for all three participating students in both target and generalization academic time periods. Social validity assessments with the participating teachers and students indicated high levels of acceptability of and satisfaction with the PTR intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes. Implications for using the PTR model within MTSS for students who are not responding to Tier 2 interventions are discussed.