A 2-Year Outcome Study of the Check, Connect, and Expect Intervention for Students At Risk for Severe Behavior Problems

Abstract

Two hundred seven students in Grades 1 through 5 who were at risk for severe behavior problems participated in a 2-year study of the effects of the Check, Connect, and Expect (CCE) program. The CCE program combined the essential intervention procedures of the Check & Connect Program and the Behavior Education Program . A stratified random sample of students based on school assignment was used to compare the outcomes of 121 CCE program students with 86 comparison students. Sixty percent of the CCE students (n = 73) graduated from the program and 40% (n = 48) did not. Linear growth analyses of eight different outcome measures found that three standardized problem behavior measures significantly decreased to normative levels for CCE graduates. Social skills and academic measures did not significantly change over time. The discussion focuses on the comparative efficacy of CCE as a targeted intervention for students at risk for severe behavior problems.

Goal-Setting Interventions for Students with Behavior Problems: A Systematic Review

“…In one singlesubject study, a functional relation was discussed by authors who indicated one could not be established due to the limitation of the design (i.e., AB design; Swoszowski, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2013). Statistically significant effects were reported for students' classroom behavior (e.g., Fabiano et al, 2010;Simonsen et al, 2011); daily report cards (e.g., Cheney et al, 2008;Cheney et al, 2009); scores on the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990;e.g., Cheney et al, 2008;Cheney et al, 2009), Teacher Rating Form (Achenbach, 2001; e.g., Cheney et al, 2009), and Behavior Assessment Scale for Children 2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004;e.g., McIntosh et al, 2009); academic productivity and success (e.g., Fabiano et al, 2010); and office discipline referrals (e.g., Hawken, O'Neill, & MacLeod, 2011;McIntosh et al, 2009).…”

Addressing Instructional Avoidance With Tier II Supports

“…This work may include, but not be limited to, developing new interventions. As noted previously, interventions such as Check and Connect (A. R. Anderson et al, 2004;Cheney et al, 2009; and First Step to Success (Beard & Sugai, 2004;Loman, Rodriguez, & Horner, 2010;Rodriguez, Loman, & Horner, 2009) have documented empirical support but have not yet been fully developed to fit within a multitiered framework. Thus, work is needed to define decision rules and to delineate steps needed to build and maintain capacity to implement within a school, without support from a research team.…”

Combining Tier 2 and Tier 3 Supports for Students with Disabilities in General Education Settings

“…Research has shown CICO to be effective in reducing problem behavior with elementary and middle school students (Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2014;Cheney et al, 2009;Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007;Filter et al, 2007;Hawken, 2006;Hawken, Bundock, Kladis, O'Keeffe, & Barrett, 2014;Hawken & Horner, 2003;Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007;March & Horner, 2002;McCurdy, Kunsch, & Reibstein, 2007;Miller, Dufrene, Sterling, Olmi, & Bachmayer, 2015;Todd, Kaufman, Meyer, & Horner, 2007). In a recent review of 28 studies evaluating CICO, the intervention was found to decrease observed problem behavior, improve academic engagement or work completion, improve the percentage of DPR points, and reduce Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs; Hawken et al, 2014).…”