-The empirical and conceptual basis of functional assessment is VERY strong. -Multiple methods of FBA exist (with greater or lesser support however key is skill of implementer)Question: Why do we not see (a) wide-spread use of “good” FBA and (b) effective implementation of support plans--in most schools in the country, with all students needing intensive intervention?
Scaling work now ongoing in IL, MS, MD, and FL
Focus here on the function-based support portion--How we attempted to build capacity--how effective were we?=what did we learn?
Progress monitoring—really hard to move schools away from “admire the problem” to data-based decision makingRequires on-going coaching for about the first 4-6 months
Why match?a. Review of school-wide discipline and academic data suggests that approximately 20% of students require more than Tier 1Elementary school with 400 students==80 students; middle school with 750 students—that is 150 students. Way too many for individualized assessment and intervention. Alternative: package intervention and embed within a multi-tiered prevention system (Gresham, 2004)a) Intensity of intervention is matched to severity of problem; in multi-tiered models prevention is an outcome. Tier I: Prevent, Tier II: Reverse harm, Tier III: reduce harm (e.g., Walker et al., 1996)Point cards are great way to progress monitor at Tier III
Number of schools thus limited by ability to provide follow-up (grant allowed us to have doctoral students help with this)
Completed by outside observers trained in tool; interviews but primarily a review of permanent products (e.g., meeting minutes, copies of support plans)
ISSET—ask coordinator for FBA/BSP—score between 1 and 4 (a lot of them were done by district people or in Eugene, my students!)FBAOperational definitionABC relationTeam have right peopleImplementationIntervention components (multicomponent & linked to hypothesis statement)—missed most; consequence for problem behaviorProgress MonitoringIs there a plan for assessing fidelity and outcomes?
Caveat—small change; talking about 1-3% of populationLooking at proportion
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
SCHOOL-BASED Cynthia M. Ander son, R. FUNCTIONAL Justin Boyd, Nadia Sampson, & Anna Mar shall ASSESSMENT: CAPACITY Univer sity of Oregon DEVELOPMENT & SCALINGFunded in part byOSEP
WHY AREN’T WE “AT SCALE?”Limited resources Expertise Time FundsMultiple competing initiativesResearch focus: effective interventions, little work on how to implement
INTENSIVE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT Goals Build district and school capacity at Tiers II and III Identify factors affecting implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability Participants Model districts 2 districts in OR; 8 schools (4 elementary & 4 middle) Scaling districts 5 districts in OR (28 schools)
IPBS Systems Technical assistance (district) Team-based decision-making Interventions Tier II Function-based support Data/Progress monitoring Student outcomes Intervention effectiveness overall Fidelity of implementation
BUILDING CAPACIT Y IN SCHOOLSProcess Year 1 Progress monitoring team formed CICO implemented Year 2 Build capacity of 1-2 individuals in FBA/BSP Years 3 &4 Train the trainer model of capacity building in schools
YEAR 2 FBA TRAINING Attendees selected by district coach FTE available to conduct FBA/BSP Access to coaching FBA Training varied by district (1/2 day to 2 -day) 1 Typical workshop FBA interview ABC observations Emphasis on ABC relations within routines Follow-up coaching
SAMPLE Schools in Pacific NW 20 elementary schools 16 middle schools All schools implementing Tier I of SWPBS with fidelity Participants selected by district Interested in scaling up District personnel with FTE for coaching/TA
TO WHAT EXTENT CANSCHOOLS IMPLEMENT IPBS? ISSET
EVALUATION OF FBA/BSPS Participants School district in Pacific NW Implementing IPBS for 4 years at scale Sampling Requested copies of all FBAs and support plans 26 FBA/BSP* Most schools had only support plans “we just talked about the support plan” Scoring 2 doctoral students IOA on 24%
EVALUATION12% of support plans had accompanying FBAFBA summary statements (competing behavior pathway) 100% identified ABC relation 60% operationally defined problem behavior Antecedents 94% technically accurate “setting event” or none 94% observable & environmental S+ Consequences 98% observable & environmental variables 90% identified more than one reinforcer
SUPPORT PLAN EVALUATION Components 75% logical antecedent strategy 50% strategy for minimizing reinforcement of target response 89% reinforcement for desired/alternative response 99% contained no contra-indicated strategies…….When EVERYTHING is a reinforcer anyinterventions almost any strategieswill be a match
SUMMARY Documentation of FBA is a problem May not be accurately identifying function Support plans Antecedent & differential reinforcement strong Contingencies for problem behavior missing Implementation planning rarely occurs
PROPORTION OF POPULATION WITH REFERRALS 80% 60%Mean % Change Between Baseline and Year 4 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% Implementing -60% Not Implementing -80% -100% 3 4 5 6+ ODRs ODRs ODRs ODRs
LESSONS LEARNED1. District involvement is key 1. District level expertise in function-based support crucial 1.0 FTE for every 4 schools Evidence-based practice Data-based decision-making Building & maintaining capacity2. Capacity Tier I and Tier II is feasible Tier III?3. Behavior analysis needed in training programs