The document describes several tiered interventions for addressing disruptive student behavior, including point cards. It discusses check-in/check-out (CICO), an evidence-based Tier II intervention where students check-in with an adult in the morning and check-out in the afternoon. CICO has been shown to decrease disruptive behavior and increase academic engagement. The document also describes adapting CICO and related point card interventions to target academic avoidance behaviors, such as the Academic-Behavior CICO and Breaks are Better interventions. Case examples are provided to illustrate the implementation and effects of these interventions.

1. Addressing
Disruptive Behavior
in School Using
Point Card
Interventions: New
Directions
Cynthia M. Anderson, R.
Justin Boyd, & Jessica Turtura
University of Oregon

2. Point Card Interventions in Schools
 Core components
 Target responses operationally defined
 Numerical scale for evaluating student behavior
 Student behavior assessed at set times
 Contingencies for target behavior
 Home component
 Robust research base (e.g., Chafoulas et al., 2002,
2005; Dougherty & Dougherty, 1977; Fabiano et al., 2010;
Schumaker et al., 1977)

3. Limitations if Scaling is Goal
 Reliance on home contingencies
 Selection process inconsistent
 Individualized
o Target responses
 Affect fidelity?
o Evaluation metric and schedule
 Increase response effort
 contingencies

4. Multi-Tiered Intervention Models
 Rationale
 Emphasize prevention
 Match intensity of intervention to need
 Components
 Evidence-based intervention
 Data-based decision-making
 Emphasis on school and district
systems/capacity building
 Point cards
 Tier I
 Tier II
 Tier III
4

5. Check-in/Check-Out:
Tier II Behavior Report Cards
• Manualized intervention (Crone et al.,
2010)

6. Student Recommended for CICO
CICO is Implemented
CICO Coordinator
Morning summarizes data
check-in for decision making
Parent Regular teacher Bi-weekly coordination
feedback feedback Meeting to assess student
progress
Afternoon
check-out

7. Empirical Support
 10 studies to date
 Decrease disruptive behavior & enhance
academic engagement (e.g.,Campbell &
Anderson, in press; Fairbanks et al., 2007; Hawken &
Horner, 2003; Simonsen et al., 2010; Todd et al.,2008)

8. BL CICO BL CICO Two One
100
80
60
40
Kyle
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
BL CICO BL CICO Two One Zero One
100
80
60
Percentage of 5-s Intervals
40
20 Mike
with Problem Behavior
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
BL CICO BL CICO Two One Zero One
100
80
60
40
Nick
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
BL CICO BL CICO Two One Zero One
100
80
60 Campbell & Anderson (in press)
40
Check-in/check-out: A Systematic
Evaluation and Component Analysis.
20 Paul
JABA.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

9. Empirical Support
 10 studies to date
 Elementary school (7) & middle school (3)
 Decrease disruptive behavior & enhance
academic engagement (e.g.,Campbell &
Anderson, in press; Fairbanks et al., 2007; Hawken &
Horner, 2003; Simonsen et al., 2010; Todd et al.,2008)
 CICO most effective for students emitting
attention-maintained problem behavior
(Campbell & Anderson, 2008; March & Horner, 2007;
McIntosh et al., 2009)

10. Tier II Point Card Interventions
for Academic Avoidance
 Interventions build off CICO
 CICO used in many schools
 Easily alterable
 Target responses
 Schedule for earning points
 Reinforcers
 Point card for easy progress monitoring
 Interventions
 Academic-behavior CICO
 Breaks are Better

11. ABC
J. Turtura

13. Participants and Setting
 Participants
 Tom: 8th grade, white male
 Low academic engagement, disruptive
behavior
 Below state standards in reading
 Kendra: 7th grade white female
 Low academic engagement, disruptive
 Met state standards
 Stan: 6th grade white male
 Low academic engagement
 Met state standards

14. % 10-s Intervals Scored with Off-Task Behavior 100 Baseline ABC Intervention Baseline ABC Intervention
80 Off-task
60
Disruption
40 Spring Break
20
Alex
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
100 Baseline ABC Baseline ABC Intervention
80
60
40
Marshall
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Follow Up
100 Baseline ABC Intervention Baseline ABC Intervention
80
60
40
Stan
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

15. Breaks are Better
Justin Boyd

16. Breaks are Better Card

18. Participants and Setting
 Participants
 Alex: 3rd grade, white male
 Edmund: 5th grade Hispanic male
 James: 5th grade white male

19. % 10-s Intervals Scored with Off-Task Behavior
100%
Baseline BrB Baseline BrB
80%
60%
40%
20% Alex
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
100% Baseline BrB Baseline BrB
80%
60% Spring Break
40%
James
20%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
100% Baseline BrB Baseline BrB
80%
60%
40%
20% Edmond
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

20. Summary & Future Directions
 “Packaging” point card interventions may
increase scalability
 Needs to be addressed
 System for school-wide screening
 Efficient mechanism to identify likely
responders to various interventions
 Tier II interventions to address “internalizing”
problems

21. Summary & Future Directions
 Empirical needs
 Mechanism by which interventions are
effective?
 Wide-scale efficacy/effectiveness trial