evaluating the technical adequacy of fbas and bips

Evaluating the Technical Adequacy of FBAs and BIPsRose Iovannone, Ph.D., [email protected]

Objectives

• Participants will:• Describe a minimum of three essential features of

effective Tier 3 (FBA/BIP) behavior processes in schools

• Describe the purpose of the Technical Adequacy evaluation tool

• Apply a scoring rubric to case examples• Discuss further use of the evaluation in their settings

Agenda

• Essential Features of Tier 3 Behavior (FBA/BIPs)• Review of the Technical Adequacy Evaluation

Tool and Rubric• Lunch• Practice scoring• Discussion of how to use the tool in the future• Action Plan

What do you picture when you think of Tier 3 in your district/school/setting?

Or……….

Current Status of FBA/BIP Implementation in Schools (Scott & Kamps, 2007)• Although FBA in special education law since 1997, no systematic policies

adopted at federal level• No guidance on key components (who should do FBAs, what features

must be included, etc.)• Three primary flaws in school-setting use (Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, &

McIntyre, 2005).• Often used as reactive process

• Loses power of prevention in developing interventions addressing minor behaviors before they get serious

• “Expert” model overlooks valuable input gained from persons with whom student consistently interacts

• Rigid, rigorous procedures not feasible in public school settings• In response, schools have “implemented a variety of inexact practices and

procedures that have been loosely labeled as FBA, the majority of which are not tied to any solid evidence base. (Scott, Anderson, & Spaulding, 2008)

Context for FBAs/BIPs• FBA/BIP—substantial evidence base • Behavior ‘gold’ standard for nearly 20 years• Systemic and skill issues impeding implementation• Wealth of literature providing evidence-basis

• BUT, does not address the contextual fit of FBA in school culture (Scott & Kamps, 2007)

• Educators’ willingness and ability to engage in process• Level and intensity of FBA necessary to result in improvements

• Conceptually, FBA seen as tool for use in multi-tiered system of supports rather than separate process• If part of process, may change traditional definition of what and

who is involved in FBA

Examples of the Problem

• Forms vs. skills• “Let’s create new forms” common solution

• Paperwork vs. implementation• General vs. individualized• Training vs. coaching• Expert vs. collaborative team model• Separate silos vs. integrated, consistent process• Legalities vs. problem-solving

The Top Twelve List of Things Needed at Tier 3/Individualized Behavior Supports (Iovannone & Kincaid, in review)

1. Multiple levels of Tier 32. Consistent, fluent process with problem solving-process framework3. Collaborative teaming4. Problem identification5. Data collection, simplified6. Linking hypothesis to the FBA 7. Linking BIP to hypothesis8. Multi-component behavior intervention plan matched to classroom

context9. Task-analyzed strategies10. Teacher and classroom coaching/support11. Array of outcome measures (child-specific, teacher fidelity, social

validity, alliance, fidelity of process, technical adequacy of products)12. Maintenance (beyond “warranty”)

1. Multiple Levels of Tier 3 FBA • Three levels of Tier 3 • Match the level of need to the student

• Level 1: Classroom consultation (Facilitator and teacher)• Brief Prevent Teach Reinforce (PTR)• ERASE (Terry Scott)• Guess and Check (Cindy Anderson)

• Level 2: Comprehensive support (e.g., PTR; team-based process)

• Level 3: Wrap around with person-centered planning• Tier 3 most effective if Tiers 1 and 2 implemented with

fidelity

2. Consistent Tier 3 Process

• Standardized process for ALL students requiring FBAs/BIPs

• Incorporates following features:• Identifying students needing Tier 3• Determining level of FBA support necessary to answer

referral concern• Decision points• Timelines between FBA, BIP, Support, Follow-up• Data tracking system• Coaching and fidelity

2. Consistent Tier 3 Process—Problem Solving Process

DEFINE THE PROBLEMWhat is the behavior of concern? What do we want to see

less of? What do we want the student to do more of?

PROBLEM ANALYSISFunctional Behavior

Assessment Hypothesis

DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PLAN

Behavior strategies linked to hypothesis; coaching/support

EVALUATEIs the plan effective?

What are the next steps?

3. Collaborative Teaming

• Discontinue expert model – need proficient facilitator to guide team

• Three levels of knowledge represented on teams• Knowledge of student• Knowledge of ABA principles• Knowledge of district/campus context

• Consensus process established

4. Problem Identification• Primary problem with many ineffective FBA/BIPs is that

the problem is not clearly identified:• Too general• Not defined• Baseline data confirming problem absent• Often, several behaviors listed and unclear which

behavior was the focus of the FBA• Not uncommon to see behaviors of concern “change”

throughout one FBA/BIP • Need to identify both the replacement behavior to

increase as well as problem behavior to decrease—consider broad categories including academic, social, behavior

Defining Behaviors

Nonexamples

• Grabs

• Hits

Examples• Grabs clothing of peers by

pinching and bunching fabric with his fist

• Hits peers and adults on their bodies by slapping with hand (moderate intensity), pinching flesh with fingers (leaves mark), punching by making a fist with hand and making contact with peer/adult bodies

5. Simplify Data Collection• Progress monitoring must be:

• Feasible • Reliable• Sensitive to change• Flexible to match individual • Standardized (comparable across schools/students/districts)

• Direct Behavior Ratings (DBRs) offer a solution• Research supports their effectiveness (see Chafouleas, Riley-

Tillman)• LEAP (Phil Strain)• Individualized Behavior Rating Scale (IBRST) used in PTR

(Iovannone et al., in press).

Case Study- Jeff: Behavior Rating Scale Behavior Scale 1/

161/17

Disruption >20 times15-19 times10-14 times

5-9 times<5 times

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

Task Engagement

85% of day65-84%45-64%25-44%

<25%

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

Independent Work

Completion

>75%60-75%40-59%20-39%

<20%

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

54321

0

1/15

Key: Disruption-tapping pencil, talk-outs, touching peers sitting around him, out of seat, walking around. Rate your perception of the number of times Jeff is performing disruptive behaviors. 5 = Terrible day; 4 = Bad day; 3 = So-so day; 2 = Good day; 1 = Fantastic day; Task Engagement-eyes on teacher, speaker, or work materials; interacting appropriately with work materials; raising hand to speak; letting peers work. Rate your perception of the percent of the day Jeff is engaged during independent work times. 5 = Fantastic day; 4 = Good day; 3 = So-so day; 2 = Bad day; 1 = Terrible day. Independent Work Completion-completing assigned activity during independent work time within timeline. Rate your perception of the percent of the day Jeff is engaged during independent work times. 5 = Fantastic day; 4 = Good day; 3 = So-so day; 2 = Bad day; 1 = Terrible day.

17

BRS Psychometrics (Iovannone, Greenbaum, Wang, Kincaid, & Dunlap, in press)

• Kappa coefficients of:• Problem Behavior 1 (n = 105): .82• Problem Behavior 2 (n = 90) : .77• Appropriate Behavior 1 (n = 103): .65• Appropriate Behavior 2 (n = 56): .76

Other Uses of BRS

• Systemic data tracking method for Tier 3• Sample system created by:

• Cindy Anderson• School district in Florida

6. FBA Results in Hypotheses• Primary reason FBA is conducted• Hypothesis should be multi-component

• When (antecedents) these contextual/environmental events are present…….

• It is highly predicted that the behavior identified as the problem and focus of the FBA happens

• As a result, the student:• Gets out of or away from activities, people, tangibles, sensory input, pain• Gets activities, people, tangibles, sensory input, pain attenuation• Confirmed by the consequences (what others do in response to the

behavior) that typically occur

• Method of organizing information • Competing behavior pathway• PTR Assessment Organization

Step 3: Case Study – JeffAssessment Summary Table of Problem Behavior

Prevention Data Teach Data Reinforce Data

Demands to start non-preferred academic tasks

Independent seat workWritingTasks involving writing, lengthy repetitive work

Given corrective feedback-told work is wrong,

Delay/avoid starting or continuing non-preferred activities tasks

Delay/avoid having to correct work

Change activityGive personal spaceMove to different seatNatural consequence—finish work later (at home; during recess)

Verbal redirectCalming/soothing

Disr

uptio

ns

Step 3: Case Study – JeffFBA related to appropriate behavior; skills to teach; reinforcement

Prevention Data Teach Data (what behaviors could

replace disruption?)

Reinforce Data (what else may be

reinforcing for new behavior?)

Preferred activities (recess, lunch, free time)Teachers in close proximity

Work independentlyTask engagementGet attention appropriatelyAsk for a breakWorking with a peer, conversational skillsIgnore peers

Social interaction time with adults/peersPlaying a gameGoing outsideExtra PE and free timeComputerHelping the teacherLine leader

Pros

ocia

l

Jeff’s HypothesesWhen…. he will As a result…

Jeff is (a) presented with a demand to start a non-preferred academic task, specifically independent work tasks requiring writing, repetition, seat work, and (b) when given feedback to correct work that is wrong

Perform disruptive behavior (tap his pencil, touch the peers around his desk, get out of his seat and walk around)

He gets to (a) avoid/delay working on a non-preferred task(b) avoid/delay correcting a non-preferred task.

Jeff is (a) presented with a demand to start a non-preferred academic task, specifically independent work tasks requiring writing, repetition, seat work, and (b) when given feedback to correct work that is wrong,

(a) Be academically engaged and independently complete his task

He gets to (a) avoid/delay working on a non-preferred task(b) avoid/delay correcting a non-preferred task.

Inap

prop

riate

App

ropr

iate

7. Linking the Hypothesis to the BIP

• Other primary purpose of conducting FBA• STOP generating list of general strategies• Each component of hypothesis generates an

intervention• Antecedents modified and made irrelevant• Replacement behavior so that problem behavior is

ineffective• Functional equivalent reinforcer so the problem

behavior is inefficient

Setting Events

NONE

Prevention Triggering

Antecedents

Request to do a non-preferred task = writing

MaintainingConsequences

Reinforce

ESCAPE!!!

ProblemBehavior

Disruptive

Jeff-matching hypothesis to interventions

Replacement Behavior

(equivalent or incompatible)

Engage in Task

Modify triggerChoicesEnvironmental support

8. Multi-Component Interventions Matched to Classroom Context

• Multi-component interventions include prevention, teaching and reinforcement strategies

• Team/Teacher(s) select strategies that are • feasible• effective• likely be implemented

9. Task Analyzed Strategies

• Forgotten art• Can’t just say “give choices”, “reinforce

appropriate behavior”, etc., “student will comply”

• Breaking down the interventions into sequence of steps • Allows teaching with precision• Allows assessment of teacher capacity• Provides foundation for training and for fidelity

Which One Will More Likely be Consistently Implemented?

BIP-Prevention Strategies

• Provide choices of where to sit

BIP-Prevention Strategies• Provide Choices: The teacher will

provide Don with a choice prior to assigning him independent work in class. Choice options are: (a) materials to use for assignment; choice of leadership activities; (b) where to sit; (c) who to do the assignment with

• Steps:1. Immediately after giving the class

the independent math assignment, go over to Don and present him with a choice option.

2. When presenting him with a choice, say “Don, where do you want to sit? X or X?”

3. After Don makes his choice, say, “Thanks for making a great choice” and release him to his choice.

OR

Which One Will More Likely Be Consistently Implemented?

BIP-TEACH Strategy

• Teach Don to ask for a break from work or ask for help when he views the work as being too hard using the card system instead of refusing to do his work and disrupting the class.

BIP-TEACH StrategyTeach Don to ask for a break by using a break card during non-preferred activities. Don will be reminded to use his break cards immediately after giving the assignment for non-preferred activities and when precursor behaviors (putting pencil down, looking around the room, starting to talk to peers) observed.Steps for initial instruction:Step 1: Divide Don’s day into AM/PM.Step 2: Give Don 10 break cards at the beginning of the day during homeroom and again right after lunch.


BIP-TEACH Strategy


BIP-TEACH Strategy (cont.)Step 3: The first couple of days, review with Don how to use his break cards by saying, “Don, you will get to use break cards to take a short break from work. You can use these anytime you are doing seatwork. When you are working and think that you need to stop for 2 minutes, pick up a break card and put it on the corner of your desk. Raise your hand and wait quietly for me to see your break card. (model each step of this procedure). I’ll come over and collect it. You can then take a 2 minute break from work. Show me how you’ll use the break card.” Allow Don to practice/role play and give feedback. If he does it correctly, say “Great! You are doing it right.” If he does not do it correctly, say, “Almost. Watch me again. Now, your turn.”


BIP-TEACH Strategy


BIP-TEACH Strategy (continued)Step 4: Explain how Don will be prompted to use his break cards. Say, “Don, this week you will get 10 break cards in the morning and 10 again after lunch. You can take breaks as long as you have a break card. I’ll remind you at first. If I see you starting to talk to peers or doing something other than your work, I’ll come over, point to your break card to remind you to use it. (model this step). I’ll also remind you about your break cards right after I give the assignment..Step 5: Explain to Don how bonuses are earned by saying, “Here’s the best part. If you have at least one break card left over at the end of the morning, you get a bonus: A free “get out of a task” card. You can use this to get out of doing one problem or question on your paper during reading or social studies later that day or any day. If you have 2 break cards left, you get 2 “get out of a task” cards.”


BIP-TEACH Strategy


BIP-TEACH Strategy (continued)Step 6: Explain to Don that he will get a bonus if he returns to his task before the timer goes off. “One more thing. If you go back to work before the timer goes off and stay at work for at least 3 minutes, you will earn a bonus break card for the afternoon/morning.” Step 7: Summarize the plan by asking Don questions. Tell him that this will start the next day.


BIP-TEACH Strategy


BIP-TEACH Strategy (continued)During Implementation (steps)

Step 1. Each morning and each afternoon, give Don the number of break cards (start with 10) for each time period.Step 2. Briefly review with Don how to use break cards, take breaks, and get bonuses. “Remember how you use the break cards? Show me. Show me how you’ll take a break. What happens if you have break cards left?” (This step may be irrelevant after the first week.)


BIP-TEACH Strategy


BIP-TEACH Strategy (continued)During Implementation (steps)

Step 3: Right after giving an independent assignment, go by Don’s desk (the first few days) and quietly remind him about his break cards. “Remember you can use a break card if you need to stop work for a couple of minutes.”Step 4: If Don shows a precursor, off-task behavior (puts pencil down, looks around the room, starts talking to a peer), go over to Don, point to a break card and say, “It looks like you need a break. Show me how you take a break.”


BIP-REINFORCE Strategy

• Don will earn breaks and tokens when he shows appropriate behaviors. He will get positive praise for appropriate behaviors.


Release to a breakStep 1: Each time Don puts a break card at the corner of his desk and raises his hand, immediately go over to Don and say, “You asked for a break. Thanks for letting me know. Take 2.”Step 2: Set the timer for 2 minutes.job in taking breaks the right way. I bet this afternoon/tomorrow morning, you might earn a bonus!”




BIP-REINFORCE Strategy (cont.)

Bonus break cardStep 1: Each time Don returns to work before the timer goes off and stays engaged for 5 minutes, provide him with a bonus break card for the next time section (either am or pm). Step 2: Show Don the extra break card by holding it up and then putting it in a holder on your desk. Give him a thumbs-up and a smile each time he earns an extra break card.




BIP-REINFORCE Strategy (cont.)

Get out of work cardsStep 1: At the end of each AM/PM segment, go over to Don and count the number of break cards he has left. Step 2: Provide him with a Get out of work card for each break card he has left and say “Fantastic work today. You earned X bonuses. You’re a rock star.”Step 3: If he did not earn any Get out of work cards (because he has no break cards left, say, “You didn’t earn a bonus today, but you did a fantastic


BIP-Responding to problem behavior Strategy

• If Don is disruptive, he will not earn tokens or he will have tokens taken away.

BIP-Responding to problem behavior Strategy

Step 1. If Don begins to show the first sign of disengaged behavior (putting his pencil down), the teacher will immediately go over to Don, point to his break card, and say, “Need a break? Show me how to take a break.”Step 2. As soon as Don uses a break card, release him to his break (as described in the reinforce strategy).Step 3. If Don does not pick up his break card and put it at the corner of his desk, model it and say, “This is how you take a break. Take 2.”

Fun Quiz: Can you identify the replacement behavior being taught in this plan?

• Hypothesis: When Don is given a demand to do a non-preferred task that is lengthy, he is disruptive. As a result, he gets to avoid/delay the assignment and gets peer attention.

• BIP-Replacement Behavior (verbatim replacement behavior plan from authentic FBA/BIP from an unnamed state—NOT PA )

• Teach Don how to complete work first and then engage in other activities he enjoys through increased structure using the first-then format• “First finish your (non-preferred activity)

assignment, then feel free to get out your book and read.”

• Use this during study skills and during class when he has work to complete.

• If Don begins to engage in disruptive behaviors, restate the “first-then” statement in a soft empathetic voice.

Select the best response related to the previous BIP strategy

The student is being taught the replacement skill of:1. Compliance2. Academic engagement3. Completing tasks4. Heck if I know5. The plan says the student is

being taught to complete tasks but the plan as described is teaching the student how to respond to a First Then auditory prompt.

Jeff Intervention Plan: Prevent-modifying the antecedents so that behavior does not happen

Prevent Strategies

Description

Choice-Making

Using a choice matrix, decide upon the choice that will be offered to Jeff each day with his writing assignment. The following choices will be rotated: (a) Within—writing tool to use (pen/pencil), color notebook paper, color of eraser, topic; (b) Who—peer for writing partner; (c) Where—Robin’s room, round table, desk; (d) When—part now, part later, whole task nowSteps:1. Right before giving the writing assignment to Jeff, decide

upon the choice to be offered. 2. Once the choice is determined, present it to Jeff by saying,

“What do you want to use for writing today? The pen or the pencil?”

3. Praise Jeff for making the choice—”Thank you for making a choice.” and honor the choice

Jeff Intervention Plan: Prevent-modifying the antecedents so that behavior does not happen

Prevent Strategies

Description

Environmental Support

Visual Timer: Set a visual timer for the amount of time agreed upon with Jeff to complete the writing assignment.

Steps:1. Discuss the goal for completing the writing assignment. Say, “I

think you can complete the assignment in ___ minutes. What do you think?”

2. Set the timer by saying, “Jeff, let’s see if you can beat the timer. Today, you have ___ minutes (time from step 1) to complete the writing. Ready, set, go.”

Jeff Intervention Plan-Teach a replacement behavior that will get the same outcome of the problem behavior

Teach Strategies

Description

Pro-academic Replacement Behavior—Academic Engagement

Jeff will be taught how to remain engaged on a writing assignment. Engagement is defined as: working on a task without disrupting by raising hand to speak, keeping pencil upright, and letting neighbors work.

Steps:1. Divide Jeff’s writing task into 3 major sections—starter, details,

conclusion2. Tell Jeff that for each section completed, he earns a “dot” that

he should place in the envelope hanging at the side of his desk.3. Inform him that he can use the dots later to get out of work and

to get special rewards for himself and the rest of the class.4. Review his self-management checklist/dot total sheet with Jeff.

Review each section of the writing assignment (step 1), his goal (time for completion), and academic engaged behaviors.

5. On Monday, a weekly goal should be discussed and set.

Jeff Intervention Plan-Reinforce the replacement behavior with the same function/outcome

Reinforce Strategies

Description

Reinforce Pro-academic Replacement Behavior—Academic Engagement

Jeff will be reinforced for academic engagement and meeting his daily goal with allowable/earned escape represented by the dots. Jeff can use his dots to get out of doing work/problems during independent work times.

Steps:1. At the end of the writing period or when Jeff completes his writing

(whichever event occurs first), review Jeff’s self-management checklist.

2. For each behavior on the checklist, discuss with Jeff whether he performed the activity. If yes, place a check in the box. If no, place an “x” in the box. For each check, Jeff should be given a dot. When reviewing, say, “Jeff, did you write a starter sentence?”… Did you stay on task? Did you meet your goal?” When giving dots, say “Jeff, how many checks do you have today? How many dots do you earn?”

3. Jeff uses dots by sticking it over a problem/question he doesn’t want to do and showing the teacher when he uses a dot. He can escape as long as he has dots in his envelope.

4. If Jeff uses a dot to get out of work, immediately say “You used a dot to get out of ____. You earned it!”

5. If Jeff meets his weekly goal, he can go to his brother’s kindergarten class and read a book to them.

Jeff—Intervention PlanReinforce Strategies

Description

Group Contingency (Modified)

If Jeff meets his daily (time) goal for completing his writing assignment within the time agreed upon, the class earns a bonus letter toward the mystery reinforcer of the week. When Jeff earns the class this letter, the class provides attention to Jeff by thanking him and celebrating (clapping hands, saying “Yeah”.

Steps:1. After reviewing Jeff’s self-management sheet, ask him, “Did you

meet your goal today?”2. If yes, “You did meet your goal. Let’s tell the class they’ve

earned a letter for the mystery reinforcer.” 3. Tell the class, “Jeff met his goal today. We get another letter on

the board.”4. Prompt the class to thank Jeff (if they haven’t done so

spontaneously).5. If no, “You worked hard and tried. You’ll do it tomorrow!”

10. Teacher and Classroom Coaching and Support

• Do not assume teacher/team knows how to implement plan

• Schedule 30 minutes to review plan and go over steps• Overview/discussion• Model• Role Play

• Problem-solve if teacher has difficulties• Modify plan• Choose different intervention

• Make a plan to teach the student

Jeff Coaching/Fidelity Plan

11. Array of 0utcome Measures

• Individualized Behavior Rating Scale • Teacher fidelity scores• Social validity- Did teacher like the process, are

they likely to use strategies, would they do it again, etc.?

• Alliance—Did they like you? Did they feel like you respected their input? Did you do a competent job as a consultant?

• Fidelity of Tier 3 process –compliance?• Technical Adequacy of Products

JEFF’S OUTCOME DATA

Fidelity Scores 1/5 100% 1/9 100% 1/28 100% 2/8 100%

Jeff BRS Data

Jeff’s Team Social Validity Ratings (1 = no or minimal social validity; 5 = very great social validity)

Item Baseline Post-intervention

Acceptability of plan 4 4

Willingness to carry out plan 4 5

Disadvantages in following plan 3 4

Time needed to do plan 1 5

Disruptiveness in carrying out plan 1 5

Like the procedures 2 5

Willingness of other staff members to do plan 4 4

Student discomfort experienced 3 4

Willingness to change routines to do plan 4 4

Fit into existing routine 4 5

Confident of effectiveness of the plan 3 5

Likelihood of permanent improvements in student behavior 3 4

Likely that plan will teach the student an appropriate behavior 3 5

Fit with team’s goals to improve the student’s behavior 3 5

Alliance Scale (1 = Never; 5 = Always)

Item Rating

1. Consultant and I agree on important goals for intervention 5

2. I feel confident of consultant’s ability to help the situation. 5

3. The consultant communicates effectively 5

4. The consultant and I trust one another 5

5. The consultant and I are working together collaboratively. 5

6. I feel satisfied with the utility and practicality of the suggestions. 5

7. The consultant followed through with commitments. 5

8. Overall, the consultant has shown a sincere desire to improve the situation.

5

9. The consultant is approachable. 5

10. The time spent working with the consultant was effective and productive.

5

12. Maintenance (beyond warranty)

• Dynamic process-not static• Decision making process based on

data• Determine levels of support needed,

fading, shaping, generalizing, extending, etc.

Steps for Evaluating Outcomes

• Make sure you have both fidelity measures (self and/or observation scores) AND student outcomes (Behavior Rating Scale measures)

• Decision rules• What constitutes adequate fidelity? 80%, 70%,

something else?• What constitutes adequate student progress? (e.g., 3

or more consecutive ratings at or above goal line?)

Primary Decisions

• If Fidelity scores are inadequate, determine the reasons (intervention too difficult, not feasible, not described adequately….)• Retrain/coach the teacher/implementer• Modify the interventions so that they are feasible, simpler• Select different interventions that match the hypothesis

• If fidelity is adequate, view student outcomes (decision contingent upon outcome trend)• Maintain intervention• Intensify intervention• Modify intervention• Fade intervention components• Shape behavior outcomes to become closer approximations of desired

behavior• Expand the intervention (additional people, additional settings or

routines)• Conduct another FBA if hypothesis is suspect, team has new data, or

context has changed

POSITIVE BEHAVIOR CHANGEBRS data indicate positive trends toward desired goals

Good fidelity implementation scores Next Steps

ExtensionExtend the scope of the

BIP

Generalizati

onSettin

gsAddition

al routinesMultiple classesAcross entire day

Shaping

Increase desired goal responses

Fading Reinforcers Reduce type and/or

amount of reinforcement provided

Self-ManagementShift control for behavior monitoring from teacher

to student

Increase in Problem BehaviorBRS data indicate a trend/movement away from desired goals

Low Fidelity VariablesStrategies implemented as designed?

Strategies implemented daily?All setting events addressed?

Reinforcers provided as designated?

Training and Technical AssistanceAdditional training outside classroomModeling of strategies with student

Increase technical assistance in classroom (observation/feedback)

FBA VariablesAppropriate function determined?

Interventions match function?Appropriate replacement behavior determined and skills taught?

Scenario—Please vote• Fidelity outcomes are adequate• Student outcomes show behavior goals are not moving toward

desired directions (e.g., problem behavior is at same or increased level, replacement behavior has not improved)

• Decisions?1. Address fidelity2. Maintain intervention3. Intensify intervention4. Modify intervention5. Fade intervention components6. Shape behavior outcomes to become closer approximations of

desired behavior7. Expand the intervention (additional people, additional settings or

routines)

Fidelity Scores: Self Assessments—10/9 = 100%, 10/12 = 90% , 10/17 = 94%, 10/19= 89%Fidelity Observations—10/3 = 92%; 10/15 = 93%

Baseline Intervention

Scenario• Same student outcomes• Fidelity outcomes inadequate• Decisions? Please Vote:

1. Address fidelity2. Maintain intervention3. Intensify intervention4. Modify intervention5. Fade intervention components6. Shape behavior outcomes to become closer approximations of

desired behavior7. Expand the intervention (additional people, additional settings

or routines)


Baseline Intervention

Scenario• Fidelity outcomes are adequate• Student outcomes show problem and appropriate behavior

are worsening compared to baseline• Decisions? Please vote:



or routines)

Fidelity Scores:Self Assessments—10/9 = 100%, 10/12 = 90% , 10/17 = 94%, 10/19= 89%Fidelity Observations—10/3 = 92%; 10/15 = 93%

Scenario• Same student outcomes• Fidelity outcomes inadequate• Decisions? Please vote:



or routines)

PTR Publications• PTR Manual

• Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Kincaid, D., Wilson, K., Christiansen, K., Strain, P., & English, C., 2010. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: The School-Based Model of Individualized Positive Behavior Support. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

• Journal Articles• Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P., Wei, W., Kincaid, D., Dunlap, G., & Strain, P. (2009).

Randomized controlled trial of a tertiary behavior intervention for students with problem behaviors: Preliminary outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 213-225.

• Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Wilson, K., Strain, P., & Kincaid, D. (2010). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: A standardized model of school-based behavioral intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 9-22

• Strain, P. S., Wilson, K., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: Addressing problem behaviors of students with autism in general education classroom. Behavior Disorders, 36, 160-171.

• Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P., Wei, W., Kincaid, D., & Dunlap, G. (in press). Reliability of the Individualized Behavior Rating Scale-Strategy for Teachers (IBRS-ST): A Progress Monitoring Tool. Assessment for Effective Intervention.

• Sears, K. M., Blair, K. S. C., Iovannone, R. & Crosland, K., (in press). Using the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce model with families of young children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities.

TECHNICAL ADEQUACY

Technical Adequacy Research• Recent studies conducted exploring technical adequacy of FBAs

• Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 67-80.

• Evaluated FBAs/BIPs of 43 students in self-contained classrooms for EBD (K-12) in one school district in western US

• Reviewed FBAs/BIPs for inclusion of essential components (listed in article)• Interviewed 6 EBD teachers about use of FBA/BIPs in planning and

developing programs (e.g., “what is included on the plan?”, “How is plan implemented?” “How do you show progress?”

• Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R. A., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are we on the right course? Lessons learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35-56.

• 71 completed FBA/BIPs submitted for review from school districts across midwest state

• Rating scale developed for analysis (see article for scale)

Some Results of Technical Adequacy Research• Teaming issues:

• Teacher and other input not included• Identifying behaviors

• Target behaviors were missing or inadequately defined• Match of FBA to Hypothesis

• Attempt to assign one function/hypothesis to group of target behaviors (e.g., treated all behaviors as one behavior—collected data and developed interventions)

• Hypothesis statements missing or inadequate• Behavior intervention plan development

• Behavior strategies not linked with hypothesis statement(s)• Predominant type of BIP “hierarchical stock list of possible positive and

negative consequences” that follow any problem behavior.• Replacement behaviors not included• Van Acker—46% FBA/BIPs reviewed only included aversive strategies

Some Results of Technical Adequacy Research• Follow-up

• Lack of follow-up support for monitoring and evaluating plan including fidelity

• No follow-through on next steps (promote and check maintenance and generalization of behavior change)

• Blood interviews with teachers• None was able to identify behavior goals nor describe behavior

intervention• Did not use FBA/BIPs in development of behavior interventions

Purpose/Uses of Our Tool• Determine the technical adequacy of FBA/BIPs and establish

baseline• District • Campus/School• Individual

• Second step in requesting Tier 3 technical assistance from Florida PBS/RTI:B Project (Interview of Tier 3 process first step)

• Report generated to guide action planning• Evaluate for indicator support (e.g., restraint/seclusion)

Development of Tool• Review of literature to identify essential components for

adequate FBA/BIPs• Original measure included 24 items (FBA/BIP)• Edited to 20 items• Sent out to three national experts (Terry Scott, Cindy

Anderson, Glen Dunlap) to review• Is the item essential?• Is the item worded clearly?

• Final tool contains 18 items (9 FBA/9 BIP)• Scores range from 0-2 for each item.

SAMPLE GRAPHS/TABLES GENERATED BY TOOL

Sample Graphs—Baseline/post FBA

Sample Graphs BIP Baseline/Post

Sample Graph: Total FBA/BIP Baseline/Post

Sample Tables Baseline/Post

Sample Tables: Baseline/Post comparison

Sample Products• Report• Action plan

PRACTICE TIME

Before practicing….• Review of tool items

• Evaluation• Scoring guide

Practice Time• Team up with others• Try scoring the sample completed FBA/BIP given to you with the

evaluation tool• Come to consensus on the scores• Debrief

• What did you like?• What did you dislike?• What was easy?• What was difficult?• What questions do you still have?

Evaluating Your District’s FBA/BIPs• Within your district team, evaluate the technical adequacy of

your district’s FBA/BIPs brought to the training• Be ready to debrief

• You do NOT need to tell anyone your scores• Discuss anything you learned or didn’t learn in evaluating

technical adequacy• Use outcomes to start developing strategic action plan steps

to achieve district goals.

Next Steps• Action Planning

• What will you be doing in your district to improve your FBA/BIPs?

Questions?

evaluating the technical adequacy of fbas and bips

Documents