This study investigated the influence of behavior problem severity, interventionist, and modality of case presentation on teachers'judgments of the acceptability of school-based interventions. Fifty-four regular and special education teachers rated all possible combinations of two interventions applied to two behavior problems. Information concerning the behavior problems was presented through one of two modalities (written vs. videotaped). Teachers' ratings of intervention acceptability were subjected to a 2 (behavior problem severity) X 2 (interventionist) X 2 (modality of case presentation) analysis of variance. Behavior problem severity and interventionist significantly affected teacher judgments of intervention acceptability. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for the development and implementation of behavioral interventions in classroom settings.

This study examined components of teacher judgements that an intervention is either acceptable or unacceptable. A total of 180 preservice and student teachers were asked to evaluate the acceptability of six different interventions. The evaluations of acceptability were assessed using a 20-item rating scale. A factor analysis of the rating scale yielded one major dimension, a general acceptability factor, and four secondary dimensions of intervention acceptability: risk to the target child, amount of teacher time required, effects of the intervention on other children, and amount of teacher skill required. Results are discussed in terms of designing interventions that are both effective and usable by classroom teachers.

This study examined the extent to which treatment integrity of 4 special education teachers was affected by goal setting, performance feedback regarding student or teacher performance, and a meeting cancellation contingency. Teachers were trained to implement function-based treatment packages to address student problem behavior. In one condition, teachers set a goal for student behavior and received daily written feedback about student performance. In a second condition, teachers received daily written feedback about student performance as well as their own accuracy in implementing the intervention and would be able to avoid meeting with a consultant to practice missed steps by implementing the intervention with 100% integrity. This latter package increased treatment integrity the most above baseline levels. Higher levels of treatment integrity were significantly correlated with lower levels of student problem behavior for 3 of the 4 teacher-student dyads. Three of the 4 teachers also rated both feedback procedures as highly acceptable. Implications for increasing and maintaining treatment integrity by teachers via a consultation model are discussed.

Brief experimental analyses of oral reading fluency were conducted with 4 participants who had been referred by teachers and parents for reading problems. The procedures involved the sequential application of reading interventions to improve students' oral reading fluency. Following a baseline condition, instructional treatments were combined with prior conditions until there was improvement in oral reading fluency in the instructional passages and passages with high content overlap. Differentiated response patterns, assessed via a multielement design, were obtained for all participants. Results are discussed in terms of the potential benefits and limitations of conducting brief experimental analyses for selecting reading interventions.

No abstract