1 / 109

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Model: A Tier 3 Behavior Intervention Process

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Model: A Tier 3 Behavior Intervention Process. Rose Iovannone , Ph.D., BCBA-D iovannone@usf.edu Don Kincaid, Ed.D ., BCBA kincaid@usf.edu. The contents of this training were developed under grant H324P04003 from the Department of Education. Agenda. AM

bette
Download Presentation

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Model: A Tier 3 Behavior Intervention Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Model: A Tier 3 Behavior Intervention Process Rose Iovannone, Ph.D., BCBA-D iovannone@usf.edu Don Kincaid, Ed.D., BCBA kincaid@usf.edu The contents of this training were developed under grant H324P04003 from the Department of Education

  2. Agenda • AM • PTR Overview • Step 1—Teaming • Step 2—Goal Setting • Step 3—PTR Assessment • PM • Step 4a—PTR Intervention Plan • Step 4b—Coaching/Fidelity • Step 5—Evaluation • Questions/Wrap-up • Next Steps

  3. Objectives • Participants will: • Describe the 5-step PTR Tier 3 support model • Identify the critical components that enhance the success of Tier 3 supports • Apply the principles of the PTR process to a case study • Determine how the PTR process is applicable within their setting

  4. Tier 3 Function-Based Behavior Interventions in Schools • Current Issues • Absence of uniform policies & practices • Form versus a process • Expert driven versus collaborative effort • Occasionally contextual fit considered • Limited support/follow-up/training for teacher provided • Teachers may not be the personnel to facilitate FBAs in schools • Increased focus on school psychologists (Scott & Kamps, 2007) and other school-based behavioral consultants or “coaches”

  5. Prevent-teach-reinforce The Model

  6. What is Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR)? • Research project funded by U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences • University of South Florida • Three central Florida school districts • University of Colorado, Denver • Two Colorado school districts • Purposes: • Answer the call for rigorous research • Evaluate effectiveness of PTR vs. “services as usual” using randomized controlled trial • Evaluate effectiveness of “standardized “ approach

  7. Participants • 200+ students—100 treatment, 100 comparison • K-8th grade • General and Special Education • All cognitive levels • All disabilities • Teacher-nominated top externalizers • Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) • Behavioral difficulties • Duration– minimum 6 months • Frequency— minimum of 1 time per week • Intensity– disruption to the learning environment

  8. Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: PTR • Intervention teams given manual and assigned PTR consultant • Five step process (aligned with problem solving process): • Teaming • Goal Setting (Identification of Problem) • Functional Assessment (Problem Analysis) • Intervention (Intervention Implementation) • Coaching and fidelity • Evaluation (Monitoring and Evaluation of RtI)

  9. PTR Preliminary Outcomes

  10. Student Demographics by Primary Disability

  11. Student Description

  12. Outcomes • Student Outcomes: • Treatment and control group comparison resulted in significant differences (p < .001; moderate effect sizes (.44 to .55) • Intervention students: • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS): Problem Behavior scores decreased • SSRS: Social Skills scores increased • Academic Engaged Time scores increased

  13. Randomized Controlled Trial Results

  14. Cross-Over Treatment Results

  15. Teacher Outcomes • Fidelity • Majority of teachers achieved .80 • Mean # coaching/training sessions = 3.5 • Prevention higher than Teach and Reinforce • Social Validity • Modified Teacher Acceptability Rating Form (TARF; Reimers & Wacker, 1988)—15 items • 5-point Likert Scale • 124 teachers • Overall—4.16 (.52) • Willingness to carry out plan—4.80 (0.42) • Like the procedures—4.46 (0.64) • Alliance • Teachers rated PTR consultants highly (4.80 mean) • Highest—trust, follow-through, collaborative

  16. The PTR Process

  17. Step 1: Teaming • Teaming: A collaborative process • Members • Person with knowledge of student (e.g., Classroom teacher, instructional assistant, parent) • Someone with expertise in functional assessment, behavioral principles (PTR consultant, school-based consultant) • Someone with knowledge of context (e.g., administrator or designee)

  18. Step 1: Teaming • Purpose: • Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of team functioning • Outline roles and responsibilities • Determine a consensus-making process

  19. Collaboration Activity (page 2 Activity Packet)

  20. Step 1: Teaming • Forms for creating an effective cohesive team • Classroom Team Survey (pg. 18 book; pg. 2-3 blank) • Teacher Work-Style Survey (pg. 19 book; pg. 4 blank) • Paraeducator Work-Style Survey (pg. 20 book; pg. 5 blank) • PTR Work-Style Comparison Sheet (used by facilitator) (pg. 21 book; pg. 6 blank) • Purposes: To identify potential issues enhancing and impeding effective intervention implementation

  21. Step 1: Teaming Facilitation Tips • Avoid direct confrontation or “fixing” issues • Purpose is for team to recognize potential issues that enhance and inhibit problem solving process • Less talk, more listening and facilitating • Provide visual summary of results to each team member • Ask them to review the results and reflect • Ask for their ideas, reactions, input • Facilitate the discussion

  22. Step 1: Teaming Case Study • Mike • 9-year-old male • ESE Classification: Autism • Placement: Self-contained, autism classroom with 6 students (wide age range) • Nonverbal: Uses signs, Dynamite, pictures to communicate • Team: Teacher and two aides, PTR Consultant

  23. TEAMING ACTIVITY: MIKEACTIVITY PACKET pages 3-5

  24. Step 1: Teaming Activity Instructions • Get with a “team” • Review the work-style survey responses (page 3) and the teaming survey (pages 4-5) from Mike’s team • Identify potential issues that may impact how the team functions • Discuss how you would facilitate a discussion with the team about the issues

  25. Step 1: Discussion • What do you need in order to facilitate Step 1? • How will you use this step? • What forms will you be using?

  26. Step 2-Goal Setting Identify the problem

  27. What Determines Success? • Analysis of outcomes of 800+ consultation cases involving elementary students • Problem identification = 43% • Problem analysis & plan development = 31% • Goal attainment occurred in 97% of cases in which a plan was implemented • “consultants successful in identifying problems were almost invariably able to solve those problems” Bergan & Tombari, 1976

  28. Step 2: Goal Setting • Purpose: • Identify behaviors of greatest concern to the team and possible replacement behaviors (teach) • Prioritize and operationalize behaviors targeted for intervention • Develop teacher friendly baseline data collection system • Targeted Areas: • Problem behaviors • Social skills • Academic behaviors

  29. Step 2: Goal Setting (pg. 7-9 blank forms; pg. 38 book)

  30. Social Behavior Academic Broad Decrease Increase Case Study—Step 2: Goal Setting

  31. Step 2: Data Collection System Behavior Rating Scale – BRS (pg. 10 blank forms; pg. 39 book) • Direct Behavior Rating (DBR)—Hybrid assessment combining features of systematic direct observations and rating scales • Efficient and feasible for teacher use • Provides data for decisions • Prioritized and defined behaviors measured • Requires minimum of 1 appropriate and 1 inappropriate behavior

  32. Step 2: Behavior Rating Scale (BRS) • Behavior recorded at least once each day • Specific time period/routine • Whole day • Combination of both • Anchors –scale of 1-5 • Measure options: • Frequency • Duration • Intensity • Percentage of opportunities

  33. BRS Guiding Questions • In which routine(s) will you be rating the behavior? • What would be the easiest way to track the behavior? • How often it occurs? • How long it lasts? • How intense it is? • What is your estimate of the behavior happening on a typical day? • Problem behavior = 4 • Appropriate behavior = 2 • What would the behavior look like on a great day? • Problem behavior = 1 • Appropriate behavior = 5

  34. Case Study - Mike: Operational Definitions • Problem behaviors • Screaming—loud, high pitched noise heard outside the classroom • Hitting—anytime Mike touches peers or adults with an open hand, fist, foot, or object while screaming or protesting • Replacement/Appropriate Behaviors • Express frustration appropriately using Dynamite, pictures, or signs to ask for a break or attention • Transition to non-preferred activities: Moving to non-preferred activity and engaging with appropriate verbal expression

  35. Case Study- Mike: Behavior Rating Scale 01/15

  36. BRS Psychometrics (Preliminary) • Kappa coefficients of: • Problem Behavior 1 (N = 105) = .82 • Problem Behavior 2 (N = 90) = .77 • Appropriate Behavior 1 (N = 103) = .65 • Appropriate Behavior 2 = (N = 56) = .76 • Iovannone, Greenbaum, Wei, Kincaid, & Dunlap (in review)

  37. Other Uses of BRS • Systemic data tracking method for Tier 3 • Sample system created by: • Cindy Anderson • School district in Florida

  38. Secondary Level Modifications • Teams with 3 or more members • Select one team member who will be the primary interventionist • Behavior identification and BRS development will be focused on that person’s situation • Other team members provide input/support • If desired, other team members can record BRS data in their settings—rating descriptions can stay the same or minor modifications can be made • Each row of BRS can represent a different teacher OR • Each teacher can keep own BRS • Consultant/coach collects all BRS ratings at specified times

  39. Step 2a Activity: Developing a Behavior Rating Scale (BRS)

  40. Step 2: BRS Group Activity • Setting up a Behavior Rating Scale • One volunteer • Identify a behavior of concern • As a group, walk through the steps to set up the scale

  41. BRS Problem Behavior: Group Activity

  42. Activity—Step 2b Activity Packet—Page 6

  43. Step 2 Activity Instructions • Watch the video of Paris • Identify one problem behavior • With your team, agree upon an operational definition of the behavior • Write it on the goal form, second row (decrease) • What would you target as a replacement behavior? • Clearly define the behavior and write it on the third row (increase).

  44. Activity (page 7 Activity Packet) • In your teams, identify one student you know with serious problem behaviors. • As a team, identify one behavior you would like decrease for this student • Define it in clear, measurable terms • Identify a behavior you would like to see increase that may replace the problem behavior • Define it in clear, measurable terms

  45. Facilitation Tips • Have team members submit the goal setting table as homework • Have a visual that summarizes all of the input • Do not reword input—wait until meeting to have team provide clarification • If step is conducted during problem solving meeting, use group processes to ensure all team members participate • Use post-it notes or index cards and provide several to each team member • Use 2 minute thinking time, have team members write input on notes/cards • Use round robin to get input from all

  46. Step 2: Discussion • What do you need in order to facilitate Step 2? • How will you implement this step?

  47. Step 3: Functional behavior assessment Analyze the Problem

  48. Given 60 seconds, use 4 straight lines to connect all of the dots without lifting your pen (Page 8 Activities)

  49. A box to think outside of:

  50. Step 3: PTR Functional Assessment • PTR Assessment (FBA) (pp. 56-61 book; 9-13 activity; 12-16 blank forms) • Checklist format • Prevent = antecedents • Teach = function, possible replacements • Reinforce = consequences, possible reinforcers • One form completed for each problem behavior by each team member • Information leads to hypothesis

More Related