Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Building Capacity in Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools

390

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
390
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • -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
  • Transcript

    • 1. 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
    • 2. WHY AREN’T WE “AT SCALE?”Limited resources Expertise Time FundsMultiple competing initiativesResearch focus: effective interventions, little work on how to implement
    • 3. 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)
    • 4. 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
    • 5. BUILDING CAPACIT Y IN SCHOOLSProcess 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
    • 6. RTI MODEL  Efficient FBA  School-based staff  Interview/observation  Formal FBA  District/school staff  Parental involvement  +structural analysis  Complex FBA  District staff/consultant  +experimental manipulations 6
    • 7. 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
    • 8. OUTCOMES
    • 9. 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
    • 10. TO WHAT EXTENT CANSCHOOLS IMPLEMENT IPBS? ISSET
    • 11. Tier III Subscales BL T1BL 100.00 T2 80.00 T3% Features Implemented 60.00 T4 40.00 20.00 0.00 Functional T3-Assess. T3-Implement. Implementation T3-Monitor. Progress Behavior Monitoring Assessment
    • 12. 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%
    • 13. EVALUATION12% of support plans had accompanying FBAFBA 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
    • 14. 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
    • 15. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
    • 16. 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
    • 17. EFFECTS ON STUDENT BEHAVIOR
    • 18. 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
    • 19. 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

    ×