Horner, Robert H.; Newton, James S.; Todd, Anne W.; Algozzine, Bob; Algozzine, Kate; Cusumano, Dale; Preston, Angela (2018). Behavioral Disorders, v43 n4 p444-456. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1185345
Reviewed: May 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of students scoring proficient on state end of grade ELA assessments |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 5;
|
61.37 |
61.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Proportion of students scoring proficient on state end of grade ELA assessments |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
58.80 |
62.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Proportion of students scoring proficient on state end of grade ELA assessments |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 3;
|
57.47 |
58.94 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of students scoring proficient on state end-of-grade math assessments |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 4;
|
68.62 |
67.07 |
No |
-- | |
|
Proportion of students scoring proficient on state end-of-grade math assessments |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 5;
|
68.44 |
66.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Proportion of students scoring proficient on state end-of-grade math assessments |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 3;
|
63.20 |
67.54 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Out of school suspensions (rate) |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
72.00 |
33.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Office disciplinary referrals (rate) |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
84.00 |
53.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Out of school suspensions (total) |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.46 |
8.46 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Office disciplinary referrals (total) |
Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 23% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 27% | |
| White | 47% |
| Hispanic | 23% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 77% |
The study took place in 38 elementary schools in North Carolina (20 schools from 2 districts) and Oregon (18 schools from 8 districts). All participating schools had been implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) for at least 1 year.
Schools were all elementary schools with students in kindergarten through grade 5. On average, the intervention schools enrolled 494 students and the comparison schools enrolled 477 students. The sample of students was 23% African American, 1% American Indian, 2% Asian, 23% Hispanic, 47% Caucasian, and 4% multiple races. Most (59%) students were eligible for free lunch and some (9%) were eligible for reduced-price lunch.
The Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) model involves the following: (1) precisely defining problems (e.g., what the problem is, when and where it occurs, who is engaging in the behavior, the function that is maintaining the behavior); (2) setting goals related to the problem; (3) selecting contextually appropriate solutions; (4) developing an action plan; (5) identifying ways to gather fidelity and outcome data; (6) analyzing those data; and (7) using what is learned from the data analysis to refine the action plans.
The comparison schools continued with business as usual procedures and received the training prior to the last data collection period.
District coaches were provided with a 3-hour training session that detailed the content, rationale, and objectives for each workshop session. They were given an opportunity to practice the workshop activities and received information abut the ways in which they should provide support during the two coaching sessions. PBIS teams in intervention schools were then provided with a 6-hour training by the district PBIS coaches on the TIPS model, followed by two coaching sessions. The training included content on meeting foundations, which consists of assigning roles and responsibilities to meeting participants, procedures around using an agenda and taking minutes, and documenting decisions.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube