A Systematic Review of the Empirical Support for Check-In Check-Out

Abstract

Tier 2 interventions play an important role within the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework, bridging the gap between schoolwide Tier 1 interventions and individualized Tier 3 supports. Check-in Check-out (CICO) is a promising Tier 2 intervention for addressing mild problem behavior and potentially preventing the need for more intensive supports. In this systematic review, we synthesize the characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes of 15 single-subject studies and one group design study examining CICO. The results suggest that CICO can be considered an evidence-based practice for students with problem behavior maintained by adult attention. Versions of CICO that were modified to address other functions (e.g., obtain peer attention, escape from tasks) demonstrated strong effects, but there were not a sufficient number of studies for modified CICO to qualify as an evidence-based practice. We discuss the implications of this review for practitioners as well as future research on CICO.

A meta‐analytic review of the evidence for check‐in check‐out

“…Finally, the first author searched the references of the five existing systematic reviews on CICO in order of publication date, which resulted in three additional articles meeting the inclusion criteria after reviewing Hawken et al () and two additional articles after reviewing Wolfe et al (). No unique references were included in Maggin et al (), Mitchell et al (), or Klingbeil et al ().…”

“…To date, the effectiveness of CICO has been investigated in five systematic reviews (Hawken, Bundock, O’Keefe, & Barrett, ; Klingbeil, Dart, & Schramm, ; Maggin, Zurheide, Pickett, & Baillie, ; Mitchell, Adamson, & McKenna, ; Wolfe et al, ). It should be noted Klingbeil et al () reviewed descriptive characteristics of studies that modified CICO based on functional behavior assessments (FBAs) of students’ behavioral difficulties, but did not include a research question about the effectiveness of CICO in these applications; therefore, it will not be discussed henceforth.…”

“…Hawken et al () included studies through 2013 yet had the greatest number ( k = 28) of studies in their review, which appears to be partially attributable to the fact that they included dissertations and theses as well as quasi‐experimental designs. Wolfe et al () included 16 studies in their review, though they included some references from 2015. This seems partially attributable to the exclusion of dissertations and theses.…”

“…Wolfe et al () utilized visual analysis supplemented by calculating a common index of nonoverlap, Tau‐U , for SCDs (Parker, Vannest, Davis, & Sauber, ) and Cohen's d for group designs for each outcome of each study. Though the authors did not synthesize effect sizes, Tau‐U was variable across studies and indicated the amount of data that improved from baseline to intervention phases ranged from 9% to 91% for problem behavior and 27–87% for academic engagement.…”

The Effect of Functional Behavior Assessment on School‐based Interventions: A Meta‐analysis of Single‐case Research

“…Tau‐U has been used in several meta‐analyses of Single Case Design (SCDs) since its development. For example, it has been used to document the effectiveness of several school‐based interventions including peer tutoring (Bowman‐Perrott et al., ; Bowman‐Perrott, Burke, Zhang, & Zaini, ), social skills interventions in inclusive settings for children with autism spectrum disorder (Camargo et al., ), peer management interventions (Dart, Collins, Klingbeil, & McKinley, ), and check‐in check‐out (Wolfe et al., ).…”