Identifying Function Based Interventions. A Special Project. Completed to Fulfill Requirements for the

1 Identifying Function Based Interventions A Special Project Completed to Fulfill Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science, Special Education Timothy Mills & Angie O Reilly Faculty Advisor, Chris Borgmeier, Ph. D. Graduate School of Education Spring 2011

2 Table of Contents Abstract...3 Introduction & Literature Review.4 Methods..8 Results...12 Discussion...13 References...17 Appendices Appendix A: Research Proposal 21 Appendix B: Consent Page 26 Appendix C: Demographics Table...27 Appendix D: Pre-Test Scenarios 1 & 2...28 Appendix E: Post-Test Scenarios 1 & 2...31

3 Abstract With the introduction of IDEA 97, schools have had the federally mandated responsibility to develop Functional Behavior Assessments and function based interventions for student with disabilities when these students have significant behavior problems which interfere with their learning. Despite this federal mandate, research shows that school professionals struggle to develop interventions based on the FBA hypothesized function of behavior. Some researchers suggest that school personnel must be trained service or one day trainings can provide a sufficient level of training support. The purpose of this present study is to determine what effect a fifty-five minute function based intervention training will have on the ability of school personnel to identify technically sound functioned based interventions that prevent and respond effectively to challenging behavior.

4 Part I: Introduction and Literature Review Introduction With the introduction of IDEA 97, schools have had the federally mandated responsibility to develop Functional Behavior Assessments (FBAs) and function based interventions for students with disabilities when these students have significant behavior problems which interfere with their learning (Lane, et al., 2007; Killu, 2008; Van Acker, et al., 2005). Since the introduction of IDEA legislation, the use of FBAs and function based interventions has steadily expanded and is now advocated as best practice for addressing the needs all students who have significant behavior challenges with or without disability (Scott, et al., 2005). The purpose of the FBA process is to develop effective behavior interventions which address the student s function of behavior. The information gained from conducting the FBA should result in a nuanced, individualized, and functionally specific Behavior Support Plan (BSP) (Van Acker, et al. 2005). The FBA-BSP should be viewed as a continuous process which leads to appropriate function based interventions that produce positive outcomes for students (Jolivette, et al., 2000; Scott, & Kamps, et al., 2000). If school professionals fail to make strong connections between the FBA hypothesized function of behavior and the development of function based interventions, the FBA analysis will have little positive impact on student outcomes (Etscheidt, 2006; Heckaman et al., 2000; McIntyre et al., 2005; Scott, & Kamps, et al., 2007). Literature Review When performed with fidelity, research has shown that function-based support is both effective and beneficial for students in school contexts. Function based interventions have been shown by Lane and colleagues to be more effective in reducing student problem behavior and promoting pro-social behavior then their non-function based intervention counterparts (Lane et al., 1999; Lane, et al., 2007). Ingram,

5 Lewis-Palmer, and Sugai (2005) concluded similarly that function based interventions were more effective than non-function based interventions. Other studies have had similar findings supporting the effectiveness of function based-interventions within classroom contexts (Scott & Kamps, 2007). The effectiveness of the FBA/function-based intervention process has led many researchers to advocate for wider use of function based interventions within school settings. Lane and colleagues would like to see classroom teachers using functional assessment data in the development of function based interventions (Lane, et al., 2007). Scott and colleagues would like to create a simpler more user-friendly FBA-function based intervention process which could be used as a preventive intervention for students exhibiting problem behaviors (Scott, et al., 2005). As Scott and colleagues write, If FBA technology can respond to the majority of problem behaviors observed by teachers on a daily basis, it will serve this larger middle ground of students as the first line of prevention. This requires an FBA format that combines effectiveness and efficiency, reducing the number of students that ultimately receive more intensive FBA and intervention. (Scott, et al., 2005) Yet the goal of creating an effective and efficient function based intervention process which could be used widely by school personal is not without its challenges. Despite the legal and professional mandates encouraging wider use of FBA and function based interventions to address student problem behavior, the FBA-BSP process still poses many significant problems for both school professionals and educational researchers. For whatever reason, schools have thus far been unable to consistently develop behavioral interventions which are informed by the hypothesized function of behavior (Etscheidt, 2006). In their review of 71 FBA-BIPs from the state of Wisconsin, Van Acker and colleagues found that the majority of the FBA-BIPs contained serious flaws which would inhibit effective function based interventions (Van Acker, et al., 2005). Many of the FBAs they examined did not take the function of behavior into consideration when developing the BIP (Van Acker, et al., 2005). They found that only 25 of the 71 FBA-BIPs developed behavioral interventions based off of the stated hypothesized function of behavior. Even worse, they

6 found that BIPs were often missing from IEP students who were exhibiting challenging behavior and that in some cases the behavioral interventions chosen by a school team seemed to serve the same function as the undesired target behavior (Van Acker, et al., 2005). They concluded that in most cases, there was a general disregard for the FBA function of behavior when school teams developed behavioral interventions and that from their research, they found, no compelling evidence supporting the ability of school-based personnel to use the outcome s of the FBA to develop effective interventions (Van Acker, et al., 2005). Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, and Hagan s (1998) findings suggest that even after being presented with training on the FBA process, school teams were more likely than not to ignore a student s function of behavior when they developed behavior interventions. Scott and colleagues ( 2005), seeking to replicate the above findings of Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, and Hagan (1998), designed a 6-hour training course which included three video-based case studies focusing on the function based interventions. School teams partook in the trainings then submitted their real life FBAs for evaluation by a group of experts who read the FBAs and then identified function based interventions. Out of the submitted FBAs, many contained behavioral interventions that had no discernible connection to the hypothesized function of behavior and often they focused more on exclusionary practices when compared to expert selected interventions. Scott and colleagues (2005) concluded there was no discernible evidence that school-based teams could develop proactive function based intervention plans apart from the coaching of a behavioral expert. These and similar findings create uncertainty as to whether school teams have the ability to consistently develop function based interventions which are informed by an FBAs hypothesized function of behavior (Blood, & Neel, 2007). The inability of schools to consistently develop proactive function based behavioral interventions based on the FBA is a serious legal, practical, and ethical challenge. Schools have a legal obligation to develop appropriate BIPs based on recent and meaningful assessment for students with disabilities. The failure of schools to develop behavior plans which are clearly linked to FBA data for students with

7 disabilities opens schools up to the possibility of litigation (Etscheidt, 2006). Without proactive function based behavior plans schools might be more tempted to use intervention strategies such as exclusion, reduced school day, or parent-centered discipline, which in light of previous case rulings, have been regarded as unsatisfactory (Etscheidt, 2006). Practically, the inability of schools to consistently develop proactive function based behavioral interventions based off of the FBA hypothesized function of behavior, results in the development of ineffective interventions which waste time and resources and result in continued student problem behavior. Ethically and legally, schools have a charge to do all they can to produce good outcomes for students in the least restrictive environment. When behavioral interventions for students are not function based, they do not produce lasting behavioral change nor do they give students the skills they need in order to replace problem behavior with pro-social behavior (Dunlap, 1993; Lane, et al., 2007). For these legal, practical, and ethical reasons schools must become fluent in forming interventions that are based off of the hypothesized function of behavior. Yet how are we to bridge the gap between the FBA assessment and the use of that information to inform the formation of function based behavioral interventions? What type of training will equip school practitioners to be able to identify function based interventions? Research has shown that function based interventions can be successfully implemented in school settings by school teams with training and coaching, yet there is no consensus concerning how much or how little training is needed (Lane, et al., 2007; Van Acker, et al., 2005). Some researchers suggest that school personnel must be trained extensively in behavioral analysis if the FBA-BSP process is to be completed with fidelity (Scott, et. al., 2005). Others argue that in-service or one day trainings can provide a sufficient level of training support (Lane et.al., 2007) For these reasons, there is a continuing need to examine the relationship between the training of school personal and their ability to develop FBAs and function based interventions with fidelity (Blood and Neil, 2007; Scott, & Kamps, 2007). A key part of the FBA-BSP process is to identify the function of behavior and in turn to develop function based interventions. The focus of this study is to assess the effectiveness of training specifically targeting the skill of identifying function-based interventions given a FBA summary statement.

8 Part II: Methods Present Study The purpose of this present study is to determine what effect a fifty-five minute function based intervention training will have on the ability of school personnel to identify technically sound functioned based interventions that prevent and respond effectively to challenging behavior. Setting & Participants Forty school professionals participated in the training at the Northwest Regional Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) Conference. Participants were asked to fill out a demographics page where they were able to identify whether they were a classroom teacher, school or district administrator, instructional assistant, behavioral specialist, special education teacher, school psychologist or a consultant. Eleven participants recorded that they were classroom teachers, six school counselors, four behavior specialists, four school psychologists, four special education teachers, two district administrators, one consultant, one school administrator, and seven others which recorded their job as other (see figure 2.1). Out of these forty participants, thirteen participants recorded that they had attended a previous training on the FBA-BSP process. Eight recorded that they had attended a previous conference on the FBA-BSP process. Six recorded that they attended a university course on the FBA-BPS process. Five recorded that they had conduced trainings on the FBA-BSP process and eight recorded that they had no previous experience in the FBA-BSP process (see figure 2.2). Out of these forty participants, eighteen participants recorded that they had been a member of a team that had conducted an FBA-BSP. Six recorded that they implemented an FBA-BSP, four recorded that they had developed a BSP, three recorded that they had conducted an FBA-BSP, three recorded that they that they had conducted an FBA, and six recorded that they had no experience in the FBA-BSP process (see figure 2.3).

9 Research Design A single group pre-test post-test design was used to determine whether a 55 minute training on function based interventions enabled participants to more accurately identify functioned based interventions when given an FBA summary of the function of behavior. A pre-test was given during the first ten minutes of the 75 minute training session and an alternate form post-test were given to participants during the last ten minutes of the session. In the first section of each test scenario, a student, his grade level, the problem routine and a summary of the antecedent, behavior, consequence of the student s hypothesized function of behavior were identified. For both pretest and post tests two hypothesized functions of behavior were given. Both the pre and post tests contained one hypothesized function of behavior that was attention seeking behavior and one hypothesized function that was work avoidance or escape behavior. Independent Variable All participants attended the 55 minute training on FBA function based interventions. The training was designed to help participants to define function based intervention and to provide examples and non-examples of function based interventions off of FBA summaries of behavior. Dependent Variable Participants were tested before and after the training on their ability to identify function based interventions and function based replacement behaviors when given a summary of the function based intervention. Measures The measure were developed by Chris Borgmeier to assess the respondent ability to select an appropriate function-based intervention based on a Functional Behavioral Assessment summary statement consisting of a targeted routine, antecedent, problem behavior and consequence. Based on the summary

10 of behavior, participants are asked to select the most appropriate response(s) from five available choices for each of four interventions (selecting an alternate behavior, antecedent intervention, teaching intervention, reinforcement intervention and response to problem behavior). The reinforcement intervention and response to problem behavior categories each request two responses, which coincide to reinforcing the alternate behavior & desired behavior or responding to problem behavior by prompting the alternate behavior or extinction. In section two, participants were presented with five possible alternative behaviors and were asked to identify the most appropriate alternative behavior based on the function of behavior above. One of the alternative behaviors matched the function of behavior while the other four did not. In section three, participants were presented with five possible interventions for manipulating the antecedent, teaching behavior, and altering positive and negative consequences. Participants were asked to select one intervention that best matched the function of behavior summery in the categories of manipulate antecedent and teach behavior. They were then asked to select two interventions that best matched the function of behavior summery for both the positive consequence and negative consequence categories. For the first two categories, manipulate antecedent and teach behavior, only one of the interventions clearly correlated with the hypothesized function of behavior while others did not. For the last two categories, positive and negative consequences, two of the interventions for each clearly correlated with the hypothesized summary of the function of behavior while the other three did not. The two post-test scenarios were identical to the two pre-test scenarios (see the pre-test and post-test in appendix D).

11 Demographic Data Figure 2.1 Job Position Demographics Job Position Amount Other 7 Classroom Teacher 11 Special Education Teacher 4 School Psychologist 4 School Counselor 6 Instructional Assistant 0 School Administrator 1 Behavior Specialist 4 District Administrator 2 Consultant 1 Figure 2.2 Training Demographics Previous Training in the FBA-BSP Process Amoun t No Previous Training in the FBA-BSP Process 8 Attended Conference on the FBA-BSP Process 8 Attended In-service Training on the FBA-BPS Process 13 Attended University Course on the FBA-BSP Process 6 Conducted Trainings on the FBA-BSP Process 5 Taught University Course on the FBA-BSP Process 0 Figure 2.3 Experience Demographics Experience in the FBA-BSP Amount Process No Experience in FBA-BSP 6 Process Team Member in FBA-BSP 18 Process Has Conducted a FBA 3 Has Developed a BSP 4 Has Implemented an FBA-BSP 6 Has Conducted an FBA-BSP 3

12 Part III: Results & Discussion Overall Summary of Results First, when given a summary of a function of behavior along with a set of correct/incorrect function based intervention for the antecedent, behavior, consequence, and alternative behavior pathway of a BSP, participants significantly increased in their ability to choose correct functioned based interventions when given training on BSPs. On average, participants picked the most appropriate function based intervention for both pre-test scenarios 54% of the time. Participants picked the most appropriate function based intervention for both post-test scenarios 80.6% of the time. Participants improved in their ability to pick most appropriate function based intervention by 26.6% after they had participated in the FBA-BSP training (see figure 3.1 & 3.2). Participants picked the most appropriate function based interventions for the attention seeking pre-test scenario 56.71% of the time. Participants picked the most appropriate function based intervention on the attention seeking post-test scenario 81% of the time. This is 24.29% increase in correct responses from the attention seeking pre-test scenario to post-test scenario (see figure 3.1). Participants picked the most appropriate function based interventions for the task avoidance behavior pre-test scenario 61.28%. Participants picked the most appropriate function based interventions on the work avoidance behavior post-test scenario 81 % of the time. This is a 19.72% increase in correct responses from the task avoidance pre-test scenario to the post-test scenario (see Figure 3.2). Second, participants who recorded that they had previous experience in developing or implementing BSP s or training in the FBA-BSP process scored relatively better when identifying appropriate function based intervention then those with less experience and training. Those who had previous experience in developing BSP s identified the correct interventions 74% of the time (figure 3.4). Participants who recorded that they had either attended a university course on the FBA-BSP process or had conducted trainings on the FBA-BSP process answered largest percentage of the pre-test questions correct with 55% and 53% correct responses respectively (see figure 3.5).

13 Finally, pre-test results showed that participants struggled to identify antecedent and teaching interventions but were better able to identify appropriate consequent interventions once a problem behavior had occurred. Participants picked appropriate function based consequent interventions for the escape task pre-test scenario on average 78.50% and 67.25% average for the attention seeking pre-test scenario. Participants picked the appropriate antecedent intervention and alternate and desired behaviors only 38.33% for the escape task pre-test scenario and 42.66% for the attention seeking pre-test scenario (see Figure 3.3). Discussion Significance of Results This study reaffirms the findings of previous studies which find that school personnel need continued explicit instruction in the formation of function based interventions if they are to form effective function based interventions. Most of the participants in the current study struggled on the pre-test to identify function based interventions even when they had previously attended trainings or been involved in forming behavior support plans. Yet this study also adds to the evidence which concludes that school personnel can be trained to identify appropriate function based interventions. Though most participants initially struggled to identify proper function based interventions, they were able after the training, to identify functioned based interventions with significantly more accuracy. This study also suggests school professionals have a harder time developing function based preventive interventions in contrast to the reactive consequent interventions. This final result suggests that FBA-BSP coaches need to develop better tools and training which might help school personnel to develop proactive function based interventions to problem behavior. Limitations There are some limitations to this current study. First, the assessment pre and post tests, which were utilized in this study, are pilot assessments which have yet to be proven valid by experts in the field.

14 Some of the test items or cases may be more difficult than others. Second, there were some environmental factors which might have limited the effectiveness of the training. Some of the participants near the back complained that they could not see the slides nor hear the training adequately. Third, Many participants arrived late to the training and some left early. Future Research To extend and confirm the initial results of this study, the test validity of the assessment tools needs to be established. We also need to find out if educators can move beyond selecting pre-determined function based interventions to generating own interventions. Finally we need to assess under what conditions does function based training translate into success in forming appropriate function based intervention for real student cases.

Percentage of participants who correctly identified function based intervention Percentage of participants who correctly identified function based intervention Identifying Function Based Interventions 15 Figure 3.1 Attention Seeking Pre-Test/Post-Test Senario Correct Identification Percentages of Approprate Fuction Based Intervention Per Intervention Area. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alt Antec Teach PosReinf PosAlt NegExt NegAlt Attn PRE POST Figure 3.2 Task Avoidance Pre-Test/Post-Test Correct Identification Percentages of Approprate Fuction Based Intervention Per Intervention Area. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alt Antec Teach PosReinf PosAlt NegExt NegAlt Escape PRE POST

Percent Correct Pre and Post Test Percentage of participants who correctly identified function based intervention Alt Antec Teach PosReinf PosAlt NegExt NegAlt Alt Antec Teach PosReinf PosAlt NegExt NegAlt Identifying Function Based Interventions 16 Figure 3.3 Summary of Pre-Test Percentage of Correct Responses 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 38.33% Average Escape 78.50% Average 42.66% Average Attn 67.25% Average Escape Alt Escape Antec Escape Teach Escape PosReinf Escape PosAlt Escape NegExt Escape NegAlt Attn Alt Attn Antec Attn Teach Attn PosReinf Attn PosAlt Attn NegExt Attn NegAlt Figure 3.4 Correct Responses per Level of Previous Experience 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 6 18 3 4 6 3 Number of Participants Percentage correct Pretest Percentage Correct Post Test Level of Experience

Percentage Correct Pre and Post Test Identifying Function Based Interventions 17 Figure 3.5 Correct Responses per Level of Training 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 8 8 13 6 5 0 Number of participants Percent Correct Pretest Percent Correct Post Test Level of Training

18 References Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to Implementation: A Look at What Is Actually Being Delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 67-80. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Etscheidt, S. (2006). Behavioral Intervention Plans: Pedagogical and Legal Analysis of Issues. Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 223-243. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Lane, K., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Spencer, J., & Kalberg, J. (2007). Teaching Elementary School Educators to Design, Implement, and Evaluate Functional Assessment-Based Interventions: Successes and Challenges. Preventing School Failure, 51(4), 35-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Lane, K., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau, A. C., Merwin, M. T., & Bergman, W. A. (2007). Function-Based Interventions for Students Who Are Nonresponsive to Primary and Secondary Prevention Efforts: Illustrations at the Elementary and Middle School Levels. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 169-183. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Jolivette, K., Scott, T. M., Nelson, C., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, R. A. (2000). The Link between Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) and Behavioral Intervention Plans (BIPs). ERIC Digest E592. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Killu, K. (2008). Developing Effective Behavior Intervention Plans: Suggestions for School Personnel. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 140-149. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Scott, T. M., Alter, P. J., & McQuillan, K. (2010). Functional Behavior Assessment in Classroom Settings: Scaling Down to Scale Up. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(2), 87-94. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Scott, T. M., & Kamps, D. M. (2007). The Future of Functional Behavioral Assessment in School Settings. Behavioral Disorders, 32(3), 146-157. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C., Conroy, M., & Payne, L. (2005). An Examination of the Relation between Functional Behavior Assessment and Selected Intervention Strategies with School-Based Teams. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 205-215. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

19 Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R. A., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are We on the Right Course? Lessons Learned about Current FBA/BIP Practices in Schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(1), 35-56. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

20 Appendices

21 Proposal I. Project Title and Prospectus Appendix A Title: Evaluating the impact of varying lengths of training to identify function-based behavioral interventions. Prospectus: With the intention of providing a quality education for every student, recent litigation emphasizes inclusion of students with disabilities in the mainstream classroom. However, the challenging behavior that sometimes accompanies this population presents serious difficulties for schools and school districts. Despite passage of law requiring the use of function-based behavioral interventions in schools (IDEA; P.L. 105-17), a practice well-supported by research, common experience and research both suggest that effective implementation of this method is limited. One critical step in this process is translating Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) information for an individual student into technically sound, function-based interventions. Several researchers in the field have suggested that personnel in schools continue to struggle to connect results from FBA to interventions that are based on the function of behavior (Scott & Kamps, 2007; Van Acker et al., 2005). This study will use a pre-test/post-test design to determine the effectiveness of training to increase participants effectiveness in identifying technically sound/function-based interventions using a summary statement from a functional behavioral assessment. With financial challenges common in schools, a second important consideration in schools is time and resources dedicated to training and professional development. This training will evaluate training outcomes resulting from different lengths of training including a 60-minute training and a 3 hour training. The primary research questions are: 1. Can educators be trained to identify an alternate behavior consistent with the function of student behavior and identify effective function-based interventions for preventing, teaching and responding effectively to problem behaviors? a. In a 60 minute training? b. In a 3 hour training? 2. Which elements of behavior support plan development do educators have more or less success completing following a 60 minute or 3 hour training? a. alternate behavior b. interventions for prevention c. interventions for teaching behaviors d. interventions for responding to behavior (desired and non-desired) 3. Can educators generalize trained skills to real Behavior Supports Plans using students assessed at school sites? 4. Are there identifiable trends in the types of behavioral interventions selected on the Behavior Support Planning assessment tool based on individuals varying roles, training or experience developing behavior support plans?

22 II. Exemption Claim for Waiver of Review This project qualifies for a waiver of review under the first criterion: Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods. This project will take place in an educational conference setting with school personnel. The study will ask educators participating in a training workshop to complete a pre-test and post-test. The content of the training workshop focuses on functional behavioral assessment and behavior support planning, which are common occurrences in schools and required by federal law under certain circumstances. The vignettes used for the pre and post assessments will not be based on real students. For participants completing the generalization portion of the study based on functional behavioral assessments conducted at the school site, all student and staff identifying information will be removed prior to data collection and analysis by the researchers. III. Volunteer Recruitment Participants will be attendees at the 9 th annual Northwest PBIS Conference in Eugene, OR. Conference participants are primarily educators from schools and school districts across Oregon. This session is likely to draw teachers and specialists who work with students with challenging behavior. Participants will selfselect to attend the training and/or voluntarily complete the assessment at a booth at the conference. Recruitment of participants at conference will occur in two ways (1) participants can choose to visit a booth at the conference to take the assessment or (2) participants may choose to attend the conference session. The session description will resemble the following depending on what conference organizers include in the description based on the proposal: Title: In 1 hour can we train you to identify effective behavioral interventions for challenging students? The trainers will see if in a one hour training they can successfully train participants to select effective behavioral interventions for students with challenging behavior based on using a brief pre-test/ post-test measure. In addition to conference participants the researchers will likely solicit expert colleagues (e.g. professors and researchers published in the area of Behavior Support Planning) to complete the Behavior Support Planning Assessment tool to ensure a sufficient range of expertise for determining the efficacy of the tool. Pre and post-tests will be stored in Dr. Borgmeier s locked office in the Department of Special Education.

23 IV. Informed Consent Individual educators will choose whether they will participate. As participants arrive at the booth or the training they will be provided the opportunity to complete the Behavior Support Planning Assessment tool. The following brief statement will be written on the cover page regarding consent for participation: By completing and turning in this assessment I am providing my consent to use my results for research purposes. I understand that the results will be confidential. If I choose to provide my email address to receive feedback on my results, I understand that my personal information will not be included in any publication or presentation. By providing my contact information I am also agreeing to a follow-up contact regarding potential participation in part 2 of this study. I know that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. I also understand that participating in this study will in no way impact my job or personnel evaluation. Email address (not required only include if you would like to receive email feedback on your assessment results, you are also agreeing to a follow-up contact for potential participation in part 2 of this study) Within the training session participants will have the option to decline participation or to complete the pre and post tests anonymously. The researchers will provide a brief handout with contact information if participants later decide to rescind their participation in the study. They will be asked to sign a consent form indicating their understanding of the study and the voluntary nature of their participation before beginning the pre-test. Participants will be informed that they can withdraw from participation at any time. No names will be reported in the results. All pre-test and posttest results will be stored in Dr. Borgmeier s locked office in the Department of Special Education at PSU. V. First-Person Perspective Session Participant Perspective I read the description for the session titled, In 1 hour can we train you to identify effective behavioral interventions for challenging students? and decided to attend the session. At the start of the session I was handed a pre-test that included a consent statement and a brief section for demographic information. I was told that I was free to participate in the pre-test or not, but I was free to attend the session either way. I decided to participate so I completed the consent and the pre-test, which took me about 10 minutes. After collecting the pre-test, the training began. At the end of the training I was provided with a post-test. I completed the post-test and turned it in before I left. On the post-test I had the option of including my email address if I wanted them to inform me of the results of my pre-test and post-test. I included my email address because I was interested in knowing my results for the assessment, and in potentially participating in the follow-up portion of the study. I was also provided a sheet with the researchers contact information in the event I later chose to withdraw my participation from the study.

24 Three days later I received an email summarizing my results on the assessment with an option to participate in part 2 of the study. For part 2 of the study I was asked to send a copy of a completed Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Support Plan I ve completed on a student since attending the training. I was asked to remove all identifying information from the assessment and behavior support plan documents including both student and staff names. Booth Participant Perspective While attending the conference I noticed a booth with the option to take the Behavior support Planning Assessment to measure my competence in identifying function-based interventions. When I approached the booth, I was handed a pre-test that included a consent statement and a brief section for demographic information. I was told that I was free to complete the assessment or not. I was told that if I wanted to learn more about this I could attend the session titled:, In 1 hour can we train you to identify effective behavioral interventions for challenging students?. I decided to participate so I completed the consent and the assessment, which took me about 10 minutes. On the assessment I had the option of including my email address if I wanted them to inform me of the results of my assessment. I chose not to attend the session suggested above. Expert Participant Perspective I was contacted by one of the researchers and asked to take the Behavior Support Planning Assessment tool. I decided to participate so I completed the assessment on-line through survey monkey. I reviewed the consent statement and completed the assessment, which took me about 10 minutes. On the assessment I had the option of including my email address if I wanted them to inform me of the results of my assessment. VI. Potential Risks and Safeguards Potential Risks Participants will not experience any physical, psychological, social, economic, or legal risks beyond what might ordinarily be encountered at an educational conference or in ordinary daily activities as they struggle with what interventions to select for students with challenging behavior that they are working with. Participants might experience mild disappointment that a portion of the 75 minute or 3 hour session will consist of a pretest and post-test, but that should be presented to them in advance in the session description. Protection against Risk To minimize potential risks of any type, participants will be assured of their right to immediately terminate their participation at any time, for any reason, without penalty. In the event that a participant wishes to rescind their participation after the training, they will be provided with a form with the researchers contact information to request that their information be rescinded from the study results. Steps will be taken to ensure all information is kept confidential. This includes keeping all materials secure in a lockable file cabinet in a locked office.

25 VII. Potential Benefits Associated risks are minimal in relation to the benefits that may result from the study. Teachers will receive training identifying effective behavioral interventions for students. This training should benefit students and staff through increased identification of technically sound, function-based interventions in the process of behavior support planning for students with challenging behavior. Greater outcomes for the field will be an increased understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency with which we can provide professional development related to identifying function-based behavioral interventions. This training will also provide information related to training content and the aspects of behavior intervention planning that may require more or less training to achieve accuracy and fluency. VIII. Records & Distribution To minimize the risk of loss of confidentiality, the following precautions will be taken: Standard practices for maintaining participant confidentiality will be employed. Code numbers will be assigned by the research investigators and these code numbers will be used instead of names in record keeping, computerized spreadsheet, during analysis, and in reporting the results. Access to subject data will be restricted to investigators or their assistants responsible for data entry. Names of individual participants will remain confidential, and name/code sheets will be maintained separately from data with code numbers only; all code sheets, and data will be stored in a lockable filing cabinet in a locked office and will be destroyed when no longer needed, at the latest within 5 years of completion of the project.

26 Appendix B Behavior Support Planning Study ID # CONSENT By completing and turning in this assessment I am providing my consent to use my results for research purposes. I understand that the results will be confidential. If I choose to provide my email address to receive feedback on my results, I understand that my personal information will not be included in any publication or presentation. By providing my contact information I am also agreeing to a follow-up contact regarding potential participation in part 2 of this study. I know that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time. I also understand that participating in this study will in no way impact my job or personnel evaluation. Email address (not required) *only include if you would like to receive email feedback on your assessment results, you are also agreeing to a follow-up contact for potential participation in part 2 of this study) DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Identify your current position/job title: Classroom teacher SPED teacher School Psych School Counselor Paraprofessional Other School Administrator PBIS Coach Behavior Specialist District Administrator Parent Consultant Identify your previous training in Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Support Planning (FBA/BSP) no previous training attended previous conference trainings training through inservice professional development training through university course o If yes how many courses? conducted trainings/presentations on how to conduct FBA/BSP taught a university course on how to conduct FBA/BSP Identify your previous experience participating in Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Support Planning (FBA/BSP) never participated in FBA/BSP participated as a team member only estimated # of cases conducted an FBA estimated # of cases developed a BSP estimated # of cases implementer of a BSP based on FBA estimated # of cases conducted a functional analysis estimated # of cases

27 Appendix C DemographicTable Position Training Experience Other 7 None 8 Never 6 Classroom Teacher 11 Previous Conference 8 Team Member 18 Special Educator 4 Inservice 13 Conducted FBA 3 School Psychologist 4 University Course 6 Developed BSP 4 Counselor 6 Conducted FBA/BSP Trainings 5 Implemented FBA/BSP 6 Instructional Assistant 0 Taught University Course 0 Conducted Functional Analysis 3 Admin 1 Behavior Specialist 4 District Admin 2 Consultant 1

28 Appendix D PreTest #1 Behavior Support Plan based on a Functional Behavioral Assessment Student Dexter Grade 5 th Date Today #1 Identify the most appropriate Alternate Behavior in the Competing Behavior Pathway Below Antecedent Task Routine too difficult: When asked to complete math worksheets requiring multi-digit multiplication or division, can do single digit mult & division problems #2 -- Select the Intervention Strategies that Best Match the FBA Summary Statement above: Manipulate Antecedent to prevent problem & prompt alternate/desired behavior Teach Behavior Explicitly Teach Alternate & Desired Behaviors Alter Consequences to reinforce alternate & desired behavior & extinguish negative behavior Check the top 2 interventions Problem Behavior Student disrespects teacher often calling teacher racist, refuses to work, breaks pencil, destroys paper, out of seat walking around room Mark the 2 Most Appropriate Alternative Behaviors Ask to work with a peer Finish half the worksheet then take a break Ask teacher for a break from work Ask a peer for help Put X through difficult problem & go to next Ask the teacher for help with the problems Check the top 2 interventions Consequence/Function Escape Difficult Math Task -by being sent to hall or office, work refusal, destroys materials, out of seat Check the top 2 interventions Move student s seat closer to the teacher Have student join a counseling group Have student work with a peer Use a computer game to have student practice multi-digit division Warn student he will be sent to the office if he breaks his pencil Recite the school-wide rules to the student before assignments that require spelling Give student worksheets with more single digit & fewer multi-digit mult/div problems Let student use a calculator w multidigit mult/div problems Teach the student the definition of racist Teach student to ask peer for help Teach student to ask teacher for a break Have student write what they did wrong & what they should do next time Teach student to complete half of the problems & ask for a break Teach student to put X through problems he can t do & move to next one Teach student to ask teacher for help Teach student to multiply the cost of the number of pencils he has broken Teach empathy; have student write how it feels when he s called names Send the student to the counselor s office for disrespect Make the student pay for all the pencils he has destroyed Give the student a Skip 5 problems card as a reward for completing 15 problems Pull student aside & talk about the seriousness of his accusation and how being called names makes him feel Tell student good job when he puts an X on multi-digit problems, moves on & keeps working Have the student stay in the classroom during recess to finish work When student gets upset give him an alternate assignment

29 Give the student more time to work on math problems Have student write an apology to teacher for calling him racist Teach student to ask for alternate assignment When student starts getting upset send him to the cool down spot Give student a candy bar when he finishes the whole worksheet PreTest #2 Behavior Support Plan based on a Functional Behavioral Assessment Student Quinn Grade 3rd Date Today #1 Identify the most appropriate Alternate Behavior in the Competing Behavior Pathway Below Antecedent Routine- Reading During reading stations time when students is supposed to do independent reading or work independently on a worksheet while teacher is providing small group instruction to other students Problem Behavior Disruptive and negative comments to teacher; says things like this is dumb, you can t tell me what to do, you stink, this is gay Consequence/Function Get peer attention -peers laugh and encourage his behavior; talk about it after class Mark the 2 Most Appropriate Alternative Behaviors Ask a peer for help Finish half the worksheet then take a break Ask for a work break Ask to work with a peer Ask for an Alternate Assignment Ask the teacher for help with the problems #2 -- Select the Intervention Strategies that Best Match the FBA Summary Statement above: Manipulate Antecedent to prevent problem & prompt alternate/desired behavior Teach Behavior Explicitly Teach Alternate & Desired Behaviors Alter Consequences to reinforce alternate & desired behavior & extinguish negative behavior Check the top 2 interventions Check the top 2 interventions Check the top 2 interventions Recite the school-wide rules to the student before class starts Give student modified worksheet with fewer shorter tasks Let student use a dictionary Give the student more time to work on worksheets Move student s seat closer to the teacher Teach the student to ask teacher to work with a peer Teach student to ask teacher for a break Have student write what they did wrong & what they should do next time Teach student to complete half of the problems & ask for a break Teach student to put X through problems she doesn t want to do & move to next one Send a note home to the student s parents regarding student behavior Send the student to the counselor s office for disrespect Peers tell Quinn be respectful when she makes negative comments Student earns 5 min. of free time with peer for completing independent tasks with no negative comments

30 Have student join a counseling group Have student work with a peer Give student jobs to hand out materials and assignments to other students periodically Warn student she will be sent to the office if he makes negative comments Have the student wear headphones to reduce distractions Teach student to ask peer for help Teach student to ask teacher for help Teach empathy; have student write how it feels when people say bad things to her Have student write an apology to teacher for calling disrespect Teach student to ask for alternate assignment Pull student aside & talk about how her comments make teacher feel Peers earn Wow Cards for ignoring Quinn s negative comments Have the student stay in the classroom during recess to finish work When student gets upset give him an alternate assignment When student starts getting upset send him to the cool down spot Give student a candy bar when he finishes the whole worksheet

31 Appendix E Post Test #1 Behavior Support Plan based on a Functional Behavioral Assessment Student Dexter Grade 5 th Date Today #1 Identify the most appropriate Alternate Behavior in the Competing Behavior Pathway Below Routine- Math Antecedent Task too difficult: When asked to complete math worksheets requiring multi-digit multiplication or division, can do single digit mult & division problems #2 -- Select the Intervention Strategies that Best Match the FBA Summary Statement above: Manipulate Antecedent to prevent problem & prompt alternate/desired behavior Teach Behavior Explicitly Teach Alternate & Desired Behaviors Alter Consequences to reinforce alternate & desired behavior & extinguish negative behavior Check the top 2 interventions Problem Behavior Student disrespects teacher often calling teacher racist, refuses to work, breaks pencil, destroys paper, out of seat walking around room Mark the 2 Most Appropriate Alternative Behaviors Ask to work with a peer Finish half the worksheet then take a break Ask teacher for a break from work Ask a peer for help Put X through difficult problem & go to next Ask the teacher for help with the problems Check the top 2 interventions Consequence/Function Escape Difficult Math Task -by being sent to hall or office, work refusal, destroys materials, out of seat Check the top 2 interventions Move student s seat closer to the teacher Have student join a counseling group Have student work with a peer Use a computer game to have student practice multi-digit division Warn student he will be sent to the office if he breaks his pencil Recite the school-wide rules to the student before assignments that require spelling Give student worksheets with more single digit & fewer multi-digit mult/div problems Let student use a calculator w multidigit mult/div problems Teach the student the definition of racist Teach student to ask peer for help Teach student to ask teacher for a break Have student write what they did wrong & what they should do next time Teach student to complete half of the problems & ask for a break Teach student to put X through problems he can t do & move to next one Teach student to ask teacher for help Teach student to multiply the cost of the number of pencils he has broken Teach empathy; have student write how it feels when he s called names Have student write an apology to teacher for Send the student to the counselor s office for disrespect Make the student pay for all the pencils he has destroyed Give the student a Skip 5 problems card as a reward for completing 15 problems Pull student aside & talk about the seriousness of his accusation and how being called names makes him feel Tell student good job when he puts an X on multi-digit problems, moves on & keeps working Have the student stay in the classroom during recess to finish work When student gets upset give him an alternate assignment When student starts getting upset send him