|
...use practices and systems that meet the needs of their students with both efficiency and effectiveness (Sugai et al., 2000; U.S. General Accounting Of rice, 2001). Further, with the advent of legislation requiring more proactive strategies to identify and serve students with academic and social behavior concerns, schools may be unprepared and ill-advised as to how to best implement such practices.
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
Language in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) about special education eligibility and assessment procedures indicates that a local education agency "may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures" (Pub. L. No. 108-446 [section] 614, 118 Stat. 2706, 2004). This statement represents a considerable departure and alternative to the traditional IQ achievement discrepancy model used to determine special education eligibility under the learning disabilities (LD) category. The IQ achievement discrepancy model has been criticized for both its lack of treatment utility (Gresham et al., 2005) and inability to accurately differentiate low achieving students from students with learning disabilities (Fletcher et al., 1998). The response-to-intervention (RTI) process, in contrast, incorporates low-inference and functional assessment procedures that can link directly to group and individual intervention planning (Christ, Burns, & Ysseldyke, 2005).
RTI models typically are composed of a minimum of the following components: (a) a continuum of evidence-based services available to all students, from universal interventions and procedures to highly intensive and individualized interventions (Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003); (b) decision points to determine if students are performing significantly below the level of their peers in academic (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and social behavior domains; (c) ongoing monitoring of student progress (Gresham, et al., 2005); (d) employment of more intensive or different interventions when students do not improve in response to other interventions; and (e) evaluation for special education services if students do not respond to intervention instruction (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).
Traditionally, RTI has focused on academic concerns as a means to identify students under the LD category for special education services (Gresham et al., 2005). Research, generally, has evaluated either universal and/or targeted group interventions, often referred to as RTI-Standard Protocol (SP; Fuchs et al., 2003) or evaluated tertiary level individualized intervention, sometimes referred to as RTI-Problem Analysis (PA; Christ et al., 2005). Research evaluating components of either RTI-SP or RTI-PA has been conducted with elementary students with reading problems (Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999; Vaughn et al., 2003). In addition, multi-component and multiple baseline research designs and the conceptual logic of applying interventions of increasing intensity, as indicated by the needs of the student, have been used effectively to identify the most appropriate tertiary level academic or social behavior interventions for children (Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz, 2004).
A SOCIAL BEHAVIOR RTI MODEL
RTI logic has intuitive appeal as a means to serve and identify students with emotional and/or behavior disorders. Despite the lack of specific empirical support for RTI in the social behavior domain, similar models of behavior support have been implemented in schools. Such models have been based on principles of wraparound behavior support (Eber et al., 2002) and/or the inclusion and integration of graduated systems of behavior support (Sugai et al., 2000). A social behavior model of RTI promises to be an extension and new application of the already substantial research base regarding positive behavioral interventions, functional behavior assessment (FBA), and early intervention (Sugai et al., 2000; Vaughn et al., 2003).
UNIVERSAL INTERVENTION
Applying RTI logic to social behavior support could require a standard-protocol approach for universal and targeted group level interventions (sometimes referred to as Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions). The universal system, implemented schoolwide for all students, might require schools to identify and explicitly teach schoolwide expectations; implement a system to acknowledge expectation-compliant behavior; define and consistently apply consequences for inappropriate behavior; and regularly review progress towards schoolwide goals. Such a universal system reflects the features of schoolwide positive behavior support (SW-PBS; Lewis & Sugai, 1999). Numerous studies indicate that teaching expectations across settings and providing incentives for appropriate behavior (within the SW-PBS framework) can effectively reduce student problem behavior (Kartub, Taylor-Green, March, & Horner, 2000; Lewis, Powers, Kelk, & Newcomer, 2002; Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Sprague, 2001; Safran & Oswald, 2003).
Employing evidence-based classroom management strategies may also serve as a universal level preventative intervention. For example, consistently implementing an acknowledgment system to recognize appropriate behavior in class, providing multiple and varied opportunities for students to respond during instruction, minimizing transition time between classroom activities, and providing direct and immediate corrective feedback for social or academic behavior errors may provide an excellent universal level foundation from which to identify students who may require more specific intervention supports.
TARGETED INTERVENTION
Students who do not respond as expected to the universal level or Tier 1 intervention may receive targeted or Tier 2 interventions. Tier 2 interventions typically provide targeted instruction focusing on the development of specific skills for a group of individuals engaging in similar error patterns. For example, students who are accurate but slow readers might receive a targeted fluency-based intervention. Within a social behavior RTI logic, corollaries to such targeted reading interventions have been examined, for example, "check in and check out" (CICO) and behavior education program (BEP). The CICO intervention provides additional structure, prompts, instruction, feedback, and acknowledgment for students engaging in similar low-level social behavior errors (Filter et al., in press; Hawken & Horner, 2003; Todd, Kauffman, Meyer, & Horner, in press). There are numerous variations of CICO interventions, such as Daily Behavior Report Cards (Chafouleas, McDougal, Riley-Tillman, Panahon, & Hilt, 2005), but what is generally consistent across most variations is the efficiency with which an intervention can be implemented and its application to groups of students. Incorporating a targeted social behavior intervention into a social behavior RTI logic also fits seamlessly within the SW-PBS framework.
INDIVIDUALIZED INTERVENTION
Students who are unsuccessful in response to a targeted intervention may experience Tier 3 or RTI-problem analysis (Christ et al., 2005), specific and time-intensive assessments to determine individual skill deficits and to assist in the design of an individual intervention. Depending on a variety of factors, evaluation for special education eligibility may also ensue. Functional behavior assessment (FBA) might be deemed comparable to a Tier 3 assessment for reading. FBA is a process used to determine events that reliably predict and maintain behaviors of concern (Homer, 1994; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1998). The process is a widely supported assessment procedure specifically mentioned in IDEA, used to inform behavioral intervention, and theoretically anchored to applied behavior analysis and PBS (Sugai et al., 2000). FBAs require collecting and analyzing various forms of indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments to deduce a plausible hypothesis which can be tested and which identifies the likely conditions under which behaviors of concern occur.
The FBA is of little value by itself, unless it is used to inform an intervention plan. Because it is used to design a function-based intervention, the FBA-based hypothesis statement--which includes both desired behaviors and acceptable alternative behaviors or benchmarks toward desired behaviors--is usually stated clearly within the plan. The majority of the function-based behavior intervention plan is then devoted to outlining strategies to (a) change antecedent conditions likely to precede problem behavior, (b) teach prosocial behaviors effective in accessing the same consequences as problem behaviors, (c) decrease access to desired consequences following problem behavior, and (d) increase access to desired consequences following appropriate behavior (Crone & Homer, 2003). The plan also includes implementation tasks, decision rules to modify implementation, and demographic information.
Function-based support--the practice of linking FBA information to the design and implementation of behavior intervention plans--has resulted in positive outcomes for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities (Carr, 1977; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982) and individuals with emotional and behavior disorders (Lewis & Sugai, 1993; Vollmer & Northup, 1996).
RTI activities fit easily within SW-PBS's three-tiered prevention logic (Sugai et al., 2000). RTI represents a process that facilitates access to appropriate levels of both academic and social behavior intervention support. Although intensifying levels of behavior support can be defined, the dependent measures and decision rules schools use to identify "low responders" to social behavior interventions are not as well established. Furthermore, eligibility for special education services and more...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Exceptional Children
Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: implicat..., March 22, 2007
Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in..., March 22, 2007
Transition to employment: role of the family in career development., March 22, 2007
Risk factors predictive of the problem behavior of children at risk fo..., March 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
