Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Function-Based Planning for Young Children at Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Nahgahgwon, Kari N.; Umbreit, John; Liaupsin, Carl J.; Turton, Amina M. (2010). Education and Treatment of Children, v33 n4 p537-559. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898555
-
examining3Students, gradesK-1
Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report (977 KB)
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Male: 100% -
Race White 66% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 34% Not Hispanic or Latino 66%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted at an elementary school that served approximately 800 students in grades K–6 and included a total of 35 classrooms. A schoolwide discipline model was used to address the behavioral needs of students. Additional support, including a daily management system and replacement behavior training, was provided to students who continued to exhibit behavioral problems. The three students in this study were not responsive to these interventions, so they were identified to receive a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and an individualized behavior intervention plan. The study took place in each student’s general education classroom. Josh’s class had 30 students, and his teacher had 5 years of teaching experience. Zane’s class had 25 students, and his teacher had 4 years of teaching experience. Ian’s class had 30 students, and his teacher had 1 year of teaching experience. Observation sessions (for all conditions) occurred during the classroom activities that the students’ teachers had indicated were most likely to elicit problem behavior.
Study sample
Three students were part of the study sample. All participants were considered at risk for an emotional and behavioral disorder due to ongoing behavioral problems that negatively affected their academic and social development. Josh was a 6-year-old Hispanic boy in first grade who had behavioral issues related to adaptability, hyperactivity, social skills, attention, and conduct problems. Zane was a 5-year-old Caucasian boy in full-day kindergarten who had issues in the areas of attention, adaptability, social skills, and hyperactivity. Ian was a 6-year-old Caucasian boy in full-day kindergarten who had behavioral issues in the areas of hyperactivity, attention, adaptability, social skills, and conduct problems. By the end of the study, Ian was given a diagnosis of emotional disability and speech/language impairment.
Intervention
FBA procedures for each student included a review of school records, teacher and student interviews, and direct observation in the classroom. The results of the FBA suggested that Josh engaged in disruptive behavior to avoid activities that were difficult for him. Zane engaged in disruptive behavior to obtain attention from his teacher, especially when there was a long duration between opportunities to respond. Ian engaged in disruptive behavior to avoid difficult tasks and gain teacher attention and assistance. As a result of the FBA, Josh was given smaller work units and a timer to prompt feedback on his work. He was also offered free time after completing some work and all appropriate requests for help were acknowledged by his teacher. When he demonstrated off-task behavior, he was redirected to the task. To increase Zane’s likelihood of being on task, the teacher provided a reminder of expected behavior to the whole class before instruction and as needed during instruction. His off-task behavior was ignored, but he was called on the first time he responded appropriately and was called on again up to three additional times as a means of reinforcing on-task behavior. Ian’s work was modified for his fluency level, and he received brief instructions at the start of each lesson. The teacher explained behavioral expectations to the whole class and repeated these individually to Ian. Reinforcement of on-task behavior included providing free time following task completion and providing periodic attention. Off-task behavior was addressed via redirection and maintaining the task demand.
Comparison
The study used one multiple baseline design experiment across three students. Baseline conditions were not explicitly described, other than mention of the schoolwide positive behavior supports.
Support for implementation
This was not described, though intervention integrity data confirmed that all interventions were implemented with high levels of fidelity.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).