ERIC EJ1089104: Building Systems for Successful Implementation of Function-Based Support in Schools

2013·0.31 MB·English

by  ERIC

InternationalJournalofSchool&EducationalPsychology,1,141–153,2013
CopyrightqInternationalSchoolPsychologyAssociation
ISSN2168-3603print/ISSN2168-3611online
DOI:10.1080/21683603.2013.804798
ARTICLES
Building Systems for Successful Implementation
of Function-Based Support in Schools
Cynthia M. Anderson
Department ofPsychology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina,USA
Robert H. Horner
DepartmentofSpecialEducationandClinicalSciences,CollegeofEducation,UniversityofOregon,Eugene,Oregon,USA
Billie Jo Rodriguez
DepartmentofEducationalPsychology,CollegeofEducationandHumanDevelopment,UniversityofTexasatSanAntonio,
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Brianna Stiller
Positive Behavior Support Coordinator, Eugene School District 4J, Eugene, Oregon, USA
Supportingthefullrangeofstudentswithbehavioralchallengesrequiresthatschoolsbuildthe
capacitytoimplementevidence-basedbehavioralinterventions.Fortunately,asubstantivebody
ofresearchdocumentsbehavioralinterventionsareavailabletobothdecreaseproblembehavior
and enhance prosocial skills. To date, however, this intervention technology has not been
implementedwidely.Thisarticlemaintainsthatonereasonforlimitedimplementationisschools
aremissingthesystemsneededtosupporthigh-qualitybehavioralinterventions.Thisarticleboth
summarizeskeyfeaturesoffunction-basedbehavioralinterventionsusedtosupportstudentswith
moreintensebehaviorsupportneedsandidentifiesthesystemsneededfortheseinterventionsto
be implemented with efficiency and sustainability. This article provides a case example to
demonstratethesystemsneededforimplementation.Implicationsareofferedforimprovingthe
large-scaleadoptionoffunction-basedbehavioralsupportsineducation.
Keywords: Behavioralintervention,behavioralmanagement,behavioraloutcomes,positive
behaviorinterventionsupport,responsetointervention,school
Whenprovidedwitheffectivebehavioralintervention,even research to practice gap may be that insufficient attention
students with significant problem behaviors can be has been focused on the administrative and organizational
successfulinschool(Lane,Falk,&Wehby,2006;Reitman systems needed for high fidelity, sustained adoption of
&Hupp,2003).Althougharobustbodyofresearchsupports evidence-based practices including functional behavior
the effectiveness of behavioral interventions in schools, assessment (FBA) andfunction-based interventions.
widespread adoption of these practices has not occurred Linking evidence-based interventions with organiz-
(Conroy, Peck Stichter, & Fox, 2001). One reason for this ational systems is a core theme of School-Wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS; Horner,
Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). This emphasis is of special
SubmittedFebruary1,2013;acceptedMay9,2013.
importance for the complex practices used in intensive,
CorrespondenceshouldbeaddressedtoCynthiaM.Anderson,Department
individualized behavior support(Anderson &Scott, 2009).
of Psychology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA.
E-mail:[email protected] SWPBISconsistsofthreeinterconnectedtiersofintervention.
142 ANDERSONETAL.
TABLE1
SummaryofthePracticesandSystemsofIntensivePositiveBehaviorSupport
OrganizationalSystemsforFunction-Based
Function-BasedSupportPractices DataSystemsforFunction-BasedSupport Support
† Functionalbehaviorassessmentmatched † Universalscreeningandformativeevaluation † Commitmenttosupportforallstudents
tocomplexityofproblem
† Comprehensive,multicomponentinterventions † Progressmonitoringofstudentoutcomes † Personnelpolicies(hiring,evaluation,
andtraining)
† Environmentalredesign † Monitoringimplementationfidelity † Teamprocess(people,time,andprocedures)
† Teachingfunctionallyequivalentbehaviors † Usingdatafordecision-making † Districtbehavioralexpertise
† Consequencestoincreaseappropriate † Coordinationatdistrictandschoolbuilding
behavior
† Consequencestodecreaseinappropriate † Datasystemsforactivedecision-making
behavior
TierIinterventionsaredesignedforallstudents,alllocations functioning of all students in a school (Severson, Walker,
andalltimes.ThegoalofTierIinterventionsistoestablisha Hope-Doolittle,Kratochwill,&Gresham,2007)toidentify
positive,predictable,consistent,andsafesocialculturewhere students who might benefit from additional supports.
behavioral expectations are clearly defined, taught, and Universalscreeningallowsproblemstobeidentifiedearlier
acknowledged.TierIIinterventionsaredesignedforstudents while they are smaller in magnitude, which may increase
at moderate risk for problem behavior and typically involve responsiveness to less intensive interventions. This might
standardized intervention packages that can be implemented include students exhibiting disruptive behavior, as well as
withhighefficiency(Anderson&Borgmeier,2010).TierIII, studentswhoareexhibitingbehaviorsmoreconsistentwith
intensive interventions are for students emitting serious diagnoses of anxiety or depression. Universal screening
behavioral challenges that have not been responsive to less must be both effective for identifying students in need of
intensiveefforts.TierIIIinterventionsareindividualizedand more supports and efficient—teachers must be able to
arederivedfromfunctionalbehaviorassessment(FBA).The complete the evaluation fairly quickly, and school staff
process of FBA and support planning has been described in should be able to assess the results in a timely manner.
detail in numerous books, chapters,and articles and is,thus, Universal screening can be accomplished via periodic
not expanded on here. Interested readers are referred to reviewofofficedisciplinereferralpatternsprovidedschools
Anderson and Scott (2009), Hanley (2011), or O’Neill et al. have established decision rules for their use (Irvin et al.,
(1997)for descriptionsoftheFBAand thesupport-planning 2006). Other extant sources of data might include
process. We, instead, focus on the less often described absenteeismrecords,tardinessdata,andvisitstothenurse’s
organizational structures and systems school and district office.Alternatively,aschoolmightuseanorm-referenced
leadershipteamsshouldconsiderastheyplanforlarge-scale behaviorratingscaleforschool-widescreening.B.Walker,
implementation of function-based practices. These include Cheney, Stage, and Blum (2005) compared results of a
the use of data for decision-making and systems-level norm-referenced and widely used universal screener
organization.Table1providesanoverviewofthesepractices (Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders; H. M.
andsystems. Walker & Severson, 1992) to office referral patterns and
found that, although both were useful for identifying
students exhibiting disruptive behaviors, office referrals
DATA-BASED DECISION-MAKING alone were insufficient for identifying students with or at
risk for anxiety or depression-related difficulties. They
Asignificantcontributionofappliedbehavioranalysisisthe suggest schools use a combined approach—yearly or
emphasisoncollectionanduseofdatafordecision-making. biannual school-wide screening and more frequent review
Thiscontributionstandsoutintheprocessoffunction-based of office referrals to identify students in need of additional
support. The process of effective function-based support supports.
requires use of data in at least four ways: universal
screening,FBA,monitoringfidelityofimplementation,and
FBA
evaluatingintervention effects (i.e.,progress monitoring).
FBA involves the collection of objective data to develop
hypotheses about environment–behavior relations. The
Universal Screening
FBA process (at minimum interviews and direct obser-
Universal screening involves periodic (e.g., quarterly or vations) and the outcomes of the assessment should be
twice per year) assessment of the social behavioral documentedsothatteamscanrefertoassessmentresultsto
FUNCTION-BASEDSUPPORTINSCHOOLS 143
make intervention changes as needed. Although many monitoredeveninclinicalorschool-basedresearchstudies
schoolteamsrelyprimarilyorexclusivelyoninterviewsor (e.g.,McIntyre,Gresham,DiGennaro,&Reed,2007),andit
rating scales to develop hypotheses about behavioral standstoreasonthatthesedataarecollectedevenlessoften
function, best practice in function-based support includes by school-based practitioners overseeing or implementing
thecollectionofobjectivedatadocumentingtheoccurrence interventions. This is unfortunate as research suggests that
of problem behavior and events that reliably precede and even fairly simple self assessment of fidelity has positive
follow the response (Drasgow, Yell, Bradley, & Shriner, effects on the integrity with which an intervention is
1999). The manner in which such data are collected varies implemented (Petscher & Bailey, 2006). It is important to
depending on the severity of the challenging behavior and monitor fidelity of implementation to determine whether
the complexity of the situation. Sometimes brief “ABC” lack of student progress might be due to poor implemen-
observations, which involve simply recording instances tation, rather than toan intervention mismatch.
of challenging behavior and events that precede and
follow challenging behaviors, are sufficient. Alternatively,
a structural analysis may be used. In a structural analysis, THE SYSTEMS NEEDEDTO SUPPORT
contextual variables (e.g., 1:1 instruction) hypothesized to INDIVIDUALIZEDBEHAVIOR SUPPORTS
evokechallengingbehaviorarearrangedandtheoccurrence INSCHOOLS
of problem behavior in the presence and absence of those
contexts are recorded. Data are collected as well on We shift now from emphasis on the practices and data of
consequences—thegoalistogatherfurtherevidenceabout intensive individualized supports to the systems needed to
contextual variables that evoke problem behavior and establish, implement, and sustain effective function-based
consequencesthatfollowandappeardependentonproblem supportpractices.Theimportanceofconsideringtheunique
behavior (e.g., Campbell & Anderson 2011; Martens, context of the system, as well as the overarching goal of
DiGennaro, Reed, Szcech, & Rosenthal, 2008). In some improved student outcomes, cannot be overstated. This is
cases, such as when problem behavior occurs very especiallytrueincontextswherecollaborationwithexperts
frequently across multiple contexts or when other, less outside the system is not easily accessible, for example, in
intensive methods of FBA have not yielded clear findings, ruralsettings. As leadershipadjusts the systems features to
an experimental functional analysis may be warranted. supportstudentoutcomes,collaborativepracticestosupport
students may be enhanced.
Assessing Effects
Organizational Commitment
The most common use of data within behavior support
efforts is to assess outcomes. Measurement of effects of a Afoundationalsystemsvariableisaformalcommitmentto
behaviorsupportplanonstudentbehaviorisattheheartof educating children with problem behavior in their home
all effective support. Both reductions in problem behavior schools. If the basic operating policy and procedure in a
and increases in prosocial behavior should be monitored. school is to identify, refer, and remove students with
Effects can be monitored in a variety of ways including problem behavior, then investment in implementing
teacher-completedratingscalesanddirectobservation—we function-based support practices will remain limited. The
describe efficient methods for monitoring intervention first organizational variable that affects implementation of
effects in the next section. If a plan is effective, then a effective,individualizedbehaviorsupportpracticesis,thus,
decisiontosustainimplementationfollows.Ifdataindicate theextenttowhichadministratorsestablishaclearpolicyof
that the plan is not effective (but is being implemented as supportforchildrenwithproblembehavior.Ifthepolicyis
designed),arevisionofthebehaviorsupportcomponentsis to provide supportlocally, rather than labeling and placing
inorder.Forstudentsreceivingbehaviorsupportsaspartof outsidetheschool,thenallotherintensivesupportpractices
special education services, the behavior support plan and becomemorefeasible.
individualizededucationplan(IEP)goalsshouldbealigned,
and progress monitoring data should be used to determine
PersonnelPractices
theeffectsofthebehaviorsupportplan,aswellasprogress
toward IEPgoals. Selecting, training, and supporting personnel with both
theoretical and practical knowledge related to behavior
support is essential for effective implementation of
Fidelity ofImplementation
function-based behavior support. Four core personnel
An important but oft-overlooked use of data collection in practices for embracing and sustaining individualized
schoolsisthemonitoringoftreatmentintegrity(e.g.,Gable, behavior support practices focus on position announce-
Henderson, & Van Acker, 2001). A number of studies ments,participationinsupportplanning,conductingannual
document that fidelity of implementation is not often orientations,andprovidingaccesstotraining.Leadershipin
144 ANDERSONETAL.
hiring practices and policies is critical here—leaders can Finally, administrators and staff should be provided the
provide guidelines and position descriptions emphasizing opportunity to attend high-quality training on FBA and
the skill sets needed and minimum requirements for supportplanning.Tofacilitateattendanceandparticipation,
positions across schools. In addition, schools that have administratorswillneedto(a)locatetrainerswithexpertise
limited access to support might consider incorporating inschool-basedFBAandteam-basedsupport planning,(b)
technology(e.g.,attendingWeb-basedtrainings,consulting provide a mechanism for attendance such as payment for
using video-conference tools, online orientation materials) attending after school training or securing substitutes, and
tofacilitate communication and collaboration. (c) secure post-training coaching for all attendees to
First, for keypositionsrelatedtobehavior support(e.g., increasethelikelihoodthatskillslearnedintrainingwillbe
school psychologist, behavior specialist, and counselor), transferred into the school setting. Of course, training via
hiring position announcements should state that documen- workshops and didactic instruction alone is unlikely to
tedknowledgeandexpertiseinFBAandsupportplanningis producemeaningfuloutcomes.Thus,schoolsshouldbesure
required. Administrators often are faced with the need to trainers can provide follow-up, on-site coaching and
formindividualbehaviorsupportteamsbutlackindividuals technical assistance to facilitate skill acquisition. The
withthetechnicalexpertiseortimetoimplementfunction- nature of the support may vary greatly depending on the
based support well. A significant challenge for educational context of the school and the proximity to high-quality
administrators who are committed to behavior support is resources (e.g., universities and training centers), and
investmentinthehiringandcoordinationofspecialistswho technology may be used in some cases to provide ongoing
havethetimeandtalenttohelpstudent-focusedteamsbuild supportfor practices incontexts where collaboration is not
andimplementthebehaviorsupportswenowknowcanbe easily available. For example, school personnel could
effective. Leadership teams need to support building participateinonlinediscussionboardsorWeb-basedvideo
administrators in this process by providing guidelines for conferences for follow-up support.
evaluating expertise in function-based support. Skills in
behavior analysis are often not apparent simply based on
Identification ofStudentsin Need
terminal degrees or certification; thus, a thoughtful screen-
ing process, perhaps involving interviews and reviews of For teachers to feel supported when working with students
applicant-guided FBAs and intervention plans, is required. exhibitingbehavioralchallenges,schoolsneedtoprovidea
It also may be helpful to present hypothetical scenarios mechanism by which teachers can request and receive
duringtheinterviewtoallowtheintervieweetodemonstrate assistance in a timely manner. A “request for assistance”
fluency inFBA and support plan development. system includes forms that allow teachers to formally
Second, administration should set the expectation for document a student need, for example, by recording key
teachers and staff to attend and participate in support information such as the behaviors of concern and the
planning for students in their rooms, and this could be routines within which problem behavior does and does not
included in teacher and staff annual evaluations. Although occur (O’Neill et al., 1997). To facilitate rapid assistance,
those most knowledgeable in FBA and support plan someone with behavioral expertise in the school should
development will facilitate the meeting, teachers and staff review forms at least weekly and make preliminary
should be actively involved in the creation of support decisions regarding whether the student might benefit
plans for their students. This active participation is fromparticipatinginanexistingTierIIschoolintervention
likely to increase teacher investment in the process and or if FBA is warranted. In addition, it is important that
contextual fit of plan implementation (Benazzi, Horner, & systems are in place to ensure students who have already
Good, 2006). been placed in Tier II interventions are progressing
Third,leadershipwillneedtoprovideorientationsatthe appropriately. If teachers request additional assistance or
beginning of each school year to orient new staff to the studentdatasuggestachangeiswarranted,teachersshould
culture of the district and school. Separate orientations be included in the decision-making process with regard to
likely will be necessary for different positions such as intervention selection anddevelopment.
administrators, teachers, school psychologists, etc. Orien-
tationshouldemphasizepolicywithregardtosupportingall
Behavior Support Team Process
students and should articulate the role individuals in that
position play in ensuring policy is followed. In addition to All tiers of the SWPBIS approach rely on team-based
orienting new staff, leadership should plan to incorporate decision-making.Thebasicassumptionsarethatagroupof
updatesandreviewsforallstaff.TheimportanceofFBAin well-trained professionals provided with the right infor-
guiding intervention development should be emphasized mation, at the right time and with clearly defined policies
to ensure the focus remains on assessment linked to will be more efficient and effective at implementing
intervention,ratherthanassessmentforthesolepurposeof durable change (for the school or a student) than
identification or diagnosisand placement. individuals acting alone. The decisions administrators
FUNCTION-BASEDSUPPORTINSCHOOLS 145
make to establish systems of effective team operation are one team for both academic and social supports—the team
critical. Who is on teams, how they operate, the extent to meets weekly, focusing on academics one week and social
which they have access to accurate information, the extent behaviorthenext.
to which the team has decision-making authority, and the Inourexperience,teamsusuallymeetonalternateweeks
regular involvementofadministration affect the success of for about 1h. Prior to the meeting, the team coordinator
school-based teams (Newton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & develops an agenda for the meeting and prompts members
Algozine, 2012). The implementation of intensive positive to review and summarize data to be reported at the team
behavior support (IPBS) typically involves decisions made meeting. At each meeting, the Tiers II and III intervention
by three teams within a school: a school-wide “leadership coordinators provide a summary of student progress. The
team,” an “intensive behavior supports team,” and a summary includes the total number of students on an
“student-focusedteam.”Theseteamsoperatewithdifferent intervention and the proportion of students meeting preset
names in different schools, but the core functions are goals. For example, the Tier III coordinator might report,
as follows. “Thereare9studentswithfunction-basedsupportplansand
7 are making adequate progress towards goals.” The team
School-wide leadership team. Implementation of thenspendsafewminutesproblemsolvingaroundstudents
comprehensive behavior support practices requires school- whoarenotmakingadequateprogress.Ifasolutioncannot
widecoordinationtoimplementtheuniversaltierofSWPBIS, be developed within that time, the student-focused team
evaluateofficereferralpatternstoguidefurtherrefinementof (described next) is asked to convene. In addition, the
theuniversaltier,embednewprogramsandinitiativeswithin coordination team devotes a portion of each meeting to
the SWPBIS framework, and so on. (Horner et al., 2010; review office discipline referrals. The team determines a
B.Walkeretal.,2005).Membershipontheleadershipteamis course of action for students who receive more than a
not determined by job title but instead is dependent on predetermined number of referrals—for example students
functional roles within a school. A leadership team needs a mightbegin a Tier II intervention.
team coordinator, someone with decision-making authority
(i.e., an administrator), and someone with expertise in Student-focused teams. Implementation of function-
implementingSWPBIS.Further,allstaffandstudentsshould based support is an individualized process that requires
feelrepresentedontheleadershipteam.Leadershipteamsin participation from those who know the student well. Thus,
most schools meet monthly, and meetings are structured thissupportgenerallyisaccomplishedviaasmall,student-
aroundactionplansdevelopedonanannualbasisdelineating focused team. In our experience, most schools have some
goals,delegatingresponsibilityfortasks,andsettingtimelines type of problem solving team; however, such teams are
formeetinggoals. focused on determining eligibility for special education or
makingsuggestionsforinterventionswithoutthebenefitof
IPBSteam.Implementationofqualityinterventionsfor FBA. Sustained and effective implementation of function-
students who are not responsive to universal supports based supports in schools requires teams consisting of
requiresafocusonthepractices,datasources,andsystems someonewithexpertiseinFBAandbehaviorsupportplans
outlined in this article. In many schools, an additional (thispersongenerallyisamemberoftheintensivebehavior
school team conducts this level of coordination, although support team), any teachers and specialists who are
someschoolsfinditeasiesttocombinetheseresponsibilities concerned about the student, an administrator and often
with the responsibilities of the Leadership team, thus the student’s parents. Older students and those without
forming one “coordination team.” Regardless, responsibil- significant cognitive limitations may participate in this
ities include using data to conduct formative evaluations, processaswell.Thus,teammembershipisnotconstantbut
identifying students who may benefit from additional changesforeachstudent.TheFBAisconductedpriortothe
supports(e.g.,viaassessingofficereferralpatterns,teacher- initialmeetingofthestudent-focusedteam;thus,theinitial
completedrequestsforassistance),andmonitoringstudents meeting begins with a review of the hypothesis statement
whoarereceivingTierIIorTierIIIsupports.Asistruewith gleaned from the FBA. Once consensus is reached on the
theleadershipteam,membershiponthisteamisdetermined hypothesis statement, the team works to develop an
byfunctionalrolesand,thus,includesacoordinator,someone intervention. An individual with expertise in behavior
withexpertiseinFBA,anindividualwhocoordinatestargeted support leads intervention development as research has
interventions, a person with decision-making authority, and shownthatplansdevelopedwithoutthisexpertiseoftenare
representativesfromregularandspecialeducation.Different not effective (Benazzi et al., 2006). In addition to
peoplemayfilltheseroles,orinsomecasesonepersonmayfill identifying components of the intervention, the student-
morethanonerole.Forexample,aspecialeducationteacher focused team plans logistics of the intervention such as
might both have knowledge in function-based support and determining who will be trained in the intervention, what
representspecialeducationintheschool.Schoolsimplement- materialsareneededtoimplementtheintervention,andwho
ingresponsetointerventionmodelsforacademicsoftenhave will review the intervention with the student. The team
146 ANDERSONETAL.
determines as well the desired behavioral outcomes (goal) school-wide patterns of problem behavior, and (d) about
and develops asystem for progress monitoring. individual student problem behavior patterns that allows
sufficientdetailtodefine(1)whatastudentdoes,(2)where
sheorheengagesintheproblembehaviors,(3)whensheor
Access toBehavioral Expertise
he is most likely to engage in the problem behaviors, (4)
The discussion of team membership and team process with whom problem behaviors are performed, and (5) the
emphasizestheimportanceofselectingteammemberswho maintaining reinforcer.
havetheskillsandtimetocompleteassessments,including Theuseofdatafordecision-makingisa“practice”thatis
family and community input, developing comprehensive acoreelementoffunction-basedsupport.Thedevelopment
support, implementing that support with fidelity, and of a data collection system that provides the right
monitoring student progress with sufficient precision to information to the right people at the right time is a
allow ongoing adaptation. This is a daunting list. All too “systems”featurethatalltoooftenislacking.Inadditionto
oftenbehaviorsupportfailsduetoadministrativedecisions collecting school-level data to support decision making,
thatdonotallow ateam access toadequateexpertise,time intervention teams should ensure student behavior support
or support. Educators often spend a significant amount of plansaredevelopedtodocumentfidelityofimplementation
time conducting pre-intervention assessments. This invest- and to assess the individual social and academic outcomes
ment will pay off only if the team has access to leadership addressed by the support plan. It is essential that the data
from an individual with the expertise to determine collection system is not overly complex and is feasible for
appropriate assessments anduseassessment informationin thesettinginwhichitisintendedtobeused.Forexample,a
the construction of appropriate and effective plans of data collection system to be used by a general education
support. The expectation is that the support plan for a teacherteachingalargeclassofsecond-gradestudentswill
student will be technically consistent with the assessment likelylookdifferentthanasystemimplementedbyaspecial
information and provide the “contextual fit” that facilitates educator with specialized training and a low student to
implementation of the plan in the specific social and teacherratio.Anexampleofsuchadatacollectionsystemis
academic context (Albin, Lucyshyn, Horner, & Flannery, providedin the Case Study next.
1996; Benazzi et al., 2006).
CASE STUDY
Data Systems for Decision-Making
Function-based behavior support involves adjusting edu- Thefollowingcasestudyisprovidedtoillustratetheprocess
cational, social and community resources to meet the of developing capacity at Tier III in an elementary school.
unique,individualneedsofastudent.Toachievethisgoal, This case study also illustrates an efficient method for
school teams need information. They need information to monitoring effects of the intervention and fidelity of
identify students in need of supports and information to implementation. The district in which the school was
guide the design of appropriate, efficient, and effective locatedcollaboratedwithCynthiaM.AndersonandRobert
supports.Theyneedinformationtoassessifthesupportplan H.HornertoenhancebuildingcapacityinTiersIIandIIIof
is being implemented, and they need regular and accurate SWPBIS,andBroadviewElementaryelectedtotakepartin
information about the impact of supports on the social and this process, which the district called IPBS. All data
academicprogressofthestudent(Deno,2005;Ysseldyke& reported here were collected by educators in the school as
Algozine, 2006). We described earlier how use of data for part of their IPBS process.
decision-makingisacorefeatureoffunction-basedsupport. Broadview Elementary School, located in the Pacific
The “systems”implicationsofthe reliance on data are that Northwest region of the United States, served 465 public
administration has the obligation to (a) provide adminis- school students in kindergarten through fifth grade. The
trators,teams,teachers,andspecialistswiththeinformation schoolhadbeenimplementingTierIofSWPBISfor3years
theyneedfordecision-makinginaformtheycanuseandat with high fidelity as documented via the School-wide
a time that fits the decision-making process in schools and EvaluationTool(Horneretal.,2004).Toenhancecapacity
(b) build the staff development opportunities, meeting in function-based support, the school’s counselor attended
schedules, and coordination opportunities that will allow a series of three half-day workshops on function-based
professionals inschools touse informationeffectively. supportduringthefirstyearofimplementation.Thedistrict
Often data systems are designed for decision-making at behavior specialist (Brianna Stiller) and Cynthia
the district or state level and do not meet the core M. Anderson provided the workshops. The first workshop
information requirements of local school decision-makers. focused on the principles underlying FBA and on
For an information system to provide the data needed at completion of FBA interviews and observations. Sub-
the local level it should provide information (a) that is no sequent workshops focused on intervention development,
more than 48h old, (b) that is valid and reliable, (c) about implementation,andmonitoring.Thecounselorwaspaired
FUNCTION-BASEDSUPPORTINSCHOOLS 147
withanindividualwithexpertiseinfunction-basedsupport WiththeexceptionoftheISSET(implementedbyCynthia
(Brianna Stiller) and, working in tandem with the expert, M.Andersoninherroleasconsultanttothedistrict),alldata
conductedthreeFBAsandbuiltsupportplansinherschool. werecollected by school staff.
During the second and third years of implementation, the To examine the school’s capacity at Tier III we
counselor again attended FBA training but brought administered the ISSET in the spring of each year. The
additional school-based educators with her to increase the ISSET is completed by evaluators who are not involved
capacity of the building in conducting function-based with the school and involves interviewing the school’s
support. Working with the district behavior specialist and principal and Tier II and III coordinators, as well as an
Cynthia M. Anderson and Billie Jo Rodriguez, the school extensive review of permanent products including team
developedabehaviorsupportteam(IPBSteam)inYear2to meeting records and completed FBAs and support plans.
monitor the progress of students receiving Tiers II and III The ISSET consists of three subscales, a Foundations
supports. The IPBS team met weekly, focusing on subscaledesignedtoassessaschool’sreadinessforTiersII
monitoring the progress of students receiving academic and III supports, a Tier II subscale assessing the quality of
supports one week and behavior supports the next. implementation of Tier II supports, and a Tier III subscale
Broadview Elementary School’s principal, counselor, and assessing thequalityofTier IIIsupports (thefocus for this
academic supports specialist participated in IPBS team case). To complete the subscale, the external evaluators
meetings, as did a special education teacher and a regular examine three randomly selected FBAs and accompanying
educationteacher.Theteamalsoreviewedofficereferralsand supportplans(ifaschoolhad, 3,thenalowerscorewould
teacher-completed requests for assistance to identify and result). The Tier III subscale consists of three parts,
match students to appropriate Tier II interventions or to Assessment, Implementation, and Evaluation and Monitor-
function-based support. The district behavior specialist, ing. The three items in Assessment focus on the quality of
Cynthia M. Anderson, or Billie Jo Rodriguez attended all the FBAs, assessing whether target responses were
IPBS team meetings for the first year of implementation to operationally defined and used to develop a hypothesis
coach the team in using data for decision-making. The abouteventsthatevokedandmaintainedproblembehavior.
implementation of the IPBS team process required a AfinalitemfocusedontheindividualscompletingtheFBA,
significant shift for the school personnel. Previous to the assessing whether individualsare knowledgeable about the
IPBSteam,theschoolutilizedastudentsupportteamprocess student, the context in which problem behavior most often
that was not necessarily data based, and instead focused on occurred, and function-based planning participation. The
responding to the referrals in the order in which they were implementation section consists of six items assessing the
received by scheduling individual meetings with each support plans themselves. These items evaluate whether
referringteacher.Althoughtheschoolagreedthenewteaming plans included components to alter the context to prevent
processwasmoreefficientandeffective,challengesrelatedto problem, to teach and reinforce desired behavior, and to
trainingteachersandimplementingthenewteamingstructure decrease reinforcement for problem behavior. Finally, the
had to be overcome in Year 2. For example, some teachers two items in Evaluation and Monitoring assessed whether
initiallywereconcernedthattheir“voice”wouldnotbeheard the plan included a process for monitoring outcomes and
or that progress monitoring would be too time consuming. fidelity ofimplementation.
To assist in addressing concerns and to facilitate ongoing As can be seen in the top panel of Figure 1, Broadview
training, the school’s counselor (the support team leader) Elementary School’s capacity for implementing Tier III
attendedmonthlydistrict-teammeetingsfocusedondevelop- supports improved following training and implementation
ingsolutionsforbuilding-levelconcerns,enhancingsystems of capacity building. The school increased capacity in
for progress monitoring, and data-based decision-making. both assessment and implementation in Year 1, making
Thesemeetingswereledbythedistrictbehaviorspecialistand subsequent gains in the following years. Broadview
attendedbyCynthiaM.Anderson. Elementary did not show improvements in monitoring and
evaluation until Year 3, and this remained a challenge for
theschool.Thisfindingissimilartowhatwehaveobserved
School Outcomes
in other schools; training and consultation results in
Schools implementing IPBS use data to guide decision- increased capacity in conducting FBAs and in developing
makingandwepresentherethedatacollectedbytheschool technicallyadequatesupportplans,butschoolsareslowerto
in this regard. Schools implementing IPBS in this district begin to monitor progress of interventions or monitor
assessed implementation of IPBS using the Individual fidelity. In this school, progress monitoring was observed
StudentSystem’sEvaluationTool(ISSET;Andersonetal., for about one-third of interventions evaluated in baseline
2011).Theyexaminedeffectsofimplementationonstudent and the first 2 years of implementation, but the school did
behavior across the school via office discipline referral not begin monitoring fidelity until Year 3 and, even then,
patterns. Finally, they assessed outcomes of students fidelity was monitored for only one-third of all plans
participating on IPBS via progress monitoring over time. assessed.
148 ANDERSONETAL.
100
Baseline
80
Year 1
d
nte Year 2
e
em 60 Year 3
pl
m
s I
e
ur 40
at
e
F
%
20
0
Assessment Implementation Monitoring
ISSET subscale
0.1
Baseline
s 0.09 Year 1
eferral 0.08 YYeeaarr 23
R
e
Offic 0.07
g
n 0.06
vi
ei
c
e 0.05
R
s
nt
e 0.04
d
u
St
of 0.03
n
o
orti 0.02
p
o
Pr 0.01
0
3 Office Referrals 4 Office Referrals 5 Office Referrals 6+ Office Referrals
Number of Referrals
FIGURE1 OutcomesdocumentedforBroadviewElementarySchool.ThetoppaneldepictsscoresontheIndividualStudentSystem’sEvaluationTool
(ISSET),andthebottompaneldepictstheproportionofstudentsreceiving3,4,5,or6ormoreofficereferralsoverthecourseoftheacademicyear.
An important goal of function-based support is to multiple referrals are most likely to require function-based
enhance outcomes for students; however, the provision of support, we focused on patterns for students who received
adequate interventions should reduce the frequency with three or more referrals over the school year. IPBS was
which studentsreceiveofficereferralsorotherdisciplinary correlated with reductions in the proportion of students
actions. We examined office referral patterns to determine receiving multiple office referrals. Between baseline and
whether the process of building capacity at Tiers II and III Year 3, a 39%, 9%, 76%, and 45% reduction in the
affectedthefrequencywithwhichstudentsgeneratedoffice proportionofstudentsreceivingthree,four,five,andsixor
referrals.BroadviewElementarySchoolusedaWeb-based more referrals, respectively, was noted. These reductions
information system (Schoolwide Information System; May likely occurred because the school was able to intervene
etal.,2003) tomonitorofficereferralpatterns, haddefined effectively morerapidlywith students.
problembehaviorsinoperationalterms,andtrainedstaffin
identifying behaviors that should and should not result in
officereferrals,thusincreasingthereliabilityoftheiroffice Outcomes for an Exemplar Student
referral system (Irivin et al., 2006). Referral patterns from
Tony was a typically developing first-grade student for
Broadview Elementary School data are depicted in the
whomEnglishwasasecondlanguage.Tonywasingeneral
bottom panel of Figure 1. Because students receiving
educationbutreceivedTitleIreadingsupports.Atthetime
FUNCTION-BASEDSUPPORTINSCHOOLS 149
ofintervention,hewasreadingwellbelowgradelevel.The and noncompliance that were maintained by adult
school counselor requested assistance in conducting FBA attention. Tony’s teachers agreed with the hypothesis.
after the Tier II intervention check-in/check-out was The hypothesis derived from the FBA was used to
unsuccessful in addressing Tony’s behavioral concerns. develop a comprehensive intervention. Intervention devel-
The district provided ongoing assistance to all schools in opment occurred in a team meeting guided by Cynthia
implementationofcomprehensivesupports,andthecounselor M.Andersonandattendedbytheschoolcounselor,Tony’s
attendedtwoFBAandsupport-planningworkshops.Shewas teachers, his mother, and the school principal. The
paired with Cynthia M. Anderson for coaching in FBA and interventionconsistedofenvironmentalredesign,reinforce-
supportplanning.TheFBAandsupportplanweredeveloped mentoffunctionallyequivalentresponses,andcontingency
duringYear2ofimplementation. manipulations.First,theteamagreedtopresentindependent
readingactivitiesonlyatTony’scurrentinstructionallevel.
FBAandinterventiondevelopment.Acomprehensive When reading occurred in his classroom (at grade level),
FBA was conducted that included the FBA interview of Tonywasexpectedtolistenbutwouldnolongerbeaskedto
Tony’s teacher and Title I instructor and five direct participateineitherchoralreadingorindividualresponding.
observations. The FBA revealed problem behavior When independent reading occurred, Tony was provided
included disruption and noncompliance in classroom withabookathisinstructionallevel.Theteamalsoagreed
settings. Tony most often exhibited disruptive behavior in to implement “demand fading” by reducing the amount of
an escalating sequence. Tony typically implemented workTonywasexpectedtoincreaseandthensystematically
“mild” disruptive behaviors, such as tapping his pencil increasing requirements. The FBA indicated that Tony
repeatedly or sighing loudly, and escalated to very typicallywouldworkonindependentworksheetsorremain
disruptive behaviors, including banging his fist on his seatedduringlarge-groupinstructions foronly about2min
desk, hanging out of his chair, moving around the room, before engaging in disruptive behavior. Thus, the team
yelling,andgrabbingitemsthatbelongedtootherstudents. agreedtosetaninitialgoalfor2minofwork.Duringlarge-
Tonyalsoreportedlyrefusedtofollowteacherrequestsand group instruction, if Tony remained seated and following
ignored class expectations, for example by remaining instructions for 2min, his teacher or the classroom aide
seated on the floor when the expectation was to be at his praised Tony briefly and continued with instruction. Tony
desk.Whenmilderinstancesofdisruptionoccurred,Tony’s wasgiventwo“jumpup”cardshecoulduseifhewantedto
teacher generally ignored them (e.g., if Tony was turned leavethegroupforupto2minatatime(interestingly,Tony
around in his chair or sitting under a desk, his teacher never chose to use the cards). During independent work,
generally continued instruction). If Tony engaged in Tonywastoldhehadtocompletetwoworksheetproblems
behavior that disrupted the learning of others, his teacher of his choice. He circled the problems he wanted to
usually provided an instruction specifying what Tony complete and raised his hand (functionally equivalent
should be doing (e.g., “Please sit in your chair”); although response) to ask the teacher for help or to check his work.
Tonybrieflycompliedwithsuchrequests,healmostalways After completing the problems, he could either circle two
began toemitdisruptivebehavioragainwithin , 1min.If additionalproblemsortakea2-minbreak,andthenreturnto
the teacher did not respond to Tony’s disruptive behavior, the worksheet.
he generally began to exhibit more intense behaviors, Tony’s team also agreed on a systematic response for
continuing until asked to stop. If Tony’s behavior undesired behavior. If Tony engaged in disruption or
continued to escalate, his teacher often had him sit in a noncompliance, his teacher provided a prompt specifying
chair in the back of the room (the “refocus chair”) until whatTonywastodo(e.g.,“Pleasekeepyoureyesonme”).
Tonyindicatedhewaswillingtowork.Thisoccurredthree If Tony followed the instruction, his teacher provided
timesduringourobservations.AlthoughTonywillinglysat praise. If disruption or noncompliance continued, the
in the refocus chair, he never stated that he was willing to prompt was repeated twice and, if he did not comply, was
work. After varying amounts of time—4 to 8min—Tony followed by a 2-min sit in the refocus chair. After 2min,
stood and began engaging in disruptive behavior again. Tonywasgiventhechoicetorejointhegrouporremainin
When this occurred, his teacher either again prompted him therefocuschairfor2minmore(healwayschosetorejoin
tositinthechairorsenthimtotheoffice.Duringtheprior the group). If Tony engaged in disruptive behavior in the
month,Tonyhadreceived20officedisciplinereferralsand refocus chair or engaged in disruptive behavior within
been sent home from school early 12 times. Results of 30min after sitting in the refocus chair, he was referred to
observations in the classroom and in Title I (small group) the office. The principal kept several instructional tasks in
reading revealed both disruption and noncompliance the office that Tony was required to complete before
occurred most often in large-group instruction or when returning to class. More important, the team agreed that
readingtaskswerechallengingforTony.FromtheFBAwe discussions with Tony about his behavior would no
formed the following hypothesis: Difficult reading tasks or longer occur following problem behavior; instead he
lack of frequent adult attention evoked disruptive behavior would simply be instructed in desired behavior and then
150 ANDERSONETAL.
given the choice of whether to comply. The school completed the point card based on Tony’s behavior in the
counselorandCynthiaM.Andersonprovidedcoachingand classroom. After the intervention was introduced, Tony’s
problemsolvingtoTony’steacher.Duringthefirst2weeks, behavior quickly and dramatically improved. Further, the
this consisted of classroom observations and follow-up team was able to increase the criterion for reinforcement
conversations two to three times per week. Observations after 6 weeks, and Tony continued to meet the set goals.
were reduced to weekly and then monthly after initial Overtheremainderoftheschoolyear,histeachergradually
implementation. increased her expectations until Tony was participating in
large-group instruction for the duration of the activity and
was completing the same level of independent work as his
Results peers. Tony’s teacher also indicated the intervention was
implemented with a high degree of fidelity throughout the
TheteammonitoredTony’sprogressusingthedatasheetin
remainder of the school year.
Figure2.TheteacherestimatedthepercentageoftimeTony
exhibited quiet voice and quiet body at the end of each
instructionalactivity(fiveactivitiesinthemorningandfive
Lessons Learned
activitiesintheafternoon).Shealsoratedfidelityofimple-
mentationusingthetableinthebottompanelofFigure2.If Itisimportanttoplaceanysystemschangeworkwithinthe
Tony received a rating of 50% or higher for quiet voice/ context it occurred. This particular school had a solid
bodyinthemorningorafternoon,thenhewaspermittedto foundation for which to implement additional intensive
gototheofficetotellthereceptionistandprincipalabouthis supportsinthattheyhadbeenimplementingSWPBISwith
day.Ifhereceivedaratingof50%orhigherforquietvoice/ fidelity for over 5 years. Further, administration (school
body for an entire day, the principal called his mother and and district level) was highly committed to both the
told her about Tony’s day with Tony standing next to the SWPBIS and IPBS processes. Most schools in the district
phone.AsTony’sbehaviorimproved,expectationsforwork were implementing SWPBIS, and the district had a PBIS
weregraduallyincreaseduntilhewascompletingthesame coordinator. The district also had developed a plan to
amount of work as his peers. Further, criterion for introduce IPBS in a few schools—including this school—
reinforcement was increasedfrom ratingsof 50%to 80%. andgraduallybuildcapacityacrossthedistrict.Thus,there
Tony’sresultsareshowninFigure3.Asisshowninthe was both building-level and district-wide support for
top panel, for the week prior to intervention his teacher school staff. During the first year of implementation,
Day/Date: M T W TH F Date: ___/____/_____
Circle one: 1st Grade Title
Expectations % of Time Expectations Were Met
Morning Afternoon
Quiet Voice
>5% >20 >50 >80 >100 >5% >20 >50 >80 >100
Quiet Body
>5% >20 >50 >80 >100 >5% >20 >50 >80 >100
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Time in Refocus: _________ Did he go to office? Y N
Did I implement the Plan as designed?
Completely Not At All
Morning
3 2 1 0
Afternoon
3 2 1 0
FIGURE2 Tony’steachersusedthisdatasheettorecordratingsofTony’sbehaviorduringinstruction.Inthetopportion,histeachersratedthepercentageof
time Tony used a quiet voice and had a quiet body across given instructional activities in the morning and the afternoon. Teachers rated fidelity of
implementationusinga4-pointscalewiththetableinthebottompanelofthefigure.