A Demonstration of Individualized Positive Behavior Support Interventions by Head Start Staff to Address Children's Challenging Behavior

Abstract

Following the implementation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Positive Behavior Support (PBS) strategies in six Head Start (HS) classrooms, three children in two classrooms were identified who had significant behavioral challenges and met the criteria for the use of individualized PBS. The purpose of this demonstration was to evaluate whether the effects of individualized PBS intervention implemented by HS classroom staff would have a generalized effect on inappropriate and appropriate behaviors, defined both individually for each child in a support plan and globally across three children. Following intervention with all three target children, both individually and globally defined inappropriate behavior showed decreases over baseline levels, whereas individually and globally defined appropriate behavior showed increases over baseline levels. Overall fidelity was high for implementation of prevention strategies but varied by child and classroom. Social validity ratings indicated that intervention strategies were feasible for use in classrooms and had positive effects on students and staff.

The Evaluation of a Three-Tier Model of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports for Preschoolers in Head Start

“…Consultants conducted assessments and provided support to classroom teams to develop hypothesis statements and corresponding BSP strategies. BSP's plans comprised of prevention, teaching, and consequence strategies were developed through the use of the ABC-PTR process and matched the identified function(s) of the targeted problem behaviors for each child (see Voorhees, Walker, Snell, and Smith [2013)] for more information about Tier 3 procedures).…”

Positive Behavioral Supports: Empirically Supported Use of Behavioral Logs

“…So why do teachers not use behavioral logs correctly? The primary reason may be insufficient training (Tillery et al, 2010) or support (Voorhees, Walker, Snell, & Smith, 2013). Any behavioral log training provided to teachers absolutely must decrease any ambiguity about how these systems should work (Irish-Zelener, 2000).…”

Teaching Paraprofessionals to Implement Function-Based Interventions

“…Also, the coach reviewed with each paraprofessional graphs depicting student behavior during baseline and intervention phases and levels of fidelity of implementation. These coaching strategies (i.e., video-based performance feedback, modeling, and roleplaying) are common among studies in which classroom teams are taught to implement behavioral interventions through workshops and coaching (e.g., Snell et al, 2013). After each coaching session, the coach emailed to paraprofessionals a checklist of intervention strategies and notes from the coaching session and completed a self-assessment to evaluate whether she or he implemented all coaching strategies during the session.…”

“…Because many of the intervention strategies were interactive in nature and necessitated multiple applications during the target routines, the reported fidelity may represent an over-estimation of intervention implementation by paraprofessionals. To address this issue, researchers should utilize more sophisticated methods (e.g., Voorhees et al, 2013) in an effort to generate more precise measurement of fidelity.…”

“…To support further the value of FBI as a feasible strategy that can be used by a variety of school personnel, including paraprofessionals, additional research is needed whereby school personnel receive a level of professional development necessary to implement successfully FBI for students with disabilities. One promising professional development approach is coaching (e.g., Rodriguez, Loman, & Horner, 2009; Voorhees, Walker, Snell, & Smith, 2013). Coaching involves individualized training by an expert (e.g., university faculty) after initial training has occurred (e.g., workshop) and typically follows one of two models: (a) side-by-side coaching in which the trainee receives in-vivo feedback during skill implementation, or (b) supervisory coaching in which the trainee is observed initially and receives feedback after the observation (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010).…”