Breaks are Better: A Tier II Social Behavior Intervention

Boyd, R. Justin; Anderson, Cynthia M.

doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9184-2

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Graphical data were extracted from line graphs using Digitzelt software (Bormann, 2012) and were imported and saved into Excel spreadsheets for further analyses.…”

Section: Variable Coding and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most popular tool used for Tier 1 treatment integrity assessment was the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai et al, 2001). In two studies (Boyd & Anderson, 2013;Ennis et al, 2016), Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ; Cohen et al, 2007) or SET with BoQ was used. Most studies (84.6%; n = 22) reported data on individual students (n = 89).…”

Section: Tier 1 Treatment Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A meta‐analysis of Tier 2 interventions implemented within School‐Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

Blair

Park

Kim

2020

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis synthesized 26 published single-case design (SCD) studies on Tier 2 behavior interventions implemented within the educational framework of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. We used Tau-U indices to determine the overall magnitudes of effect of the Tier 2 behavior interventions and the potential variables that moderate improved student behavioral outcomes. The 26 studies that were analyzed included a total of 243 student participants. The studies were evaluated to determine whether and to what extent they met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) SCD standards. Of these, 10 studies were confirmed as meeting WWC SCD standards with or without reservations. Notable findings were that outcomes for students in kindergarten and secondary grade levels were limited, and insufficient screening methods were used to identify and select students needing Tier 2 interventions. The results indicate that the literature reports Tier 2 interventions with effect sizes ranging from 0.26 to 0.98. Average effect size for social skills instruction was found to be large, whereas Check-in/Check-out, group contingency, and intervention packages had medium effect sizes. Moderator analyses indicated different effect sizes across intervention types, outcomes, and implementers. The results are discussed in relation to implications for practice, limitations, and future research.

show abstract

“…Graphical data were extracted from line graphs using Digitzelt software (Bormann, 2012) and were imported and saved into Excel spreadsheets for further analyses.…”

Section: Variable Coding and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tier 1 Treatment Integritymentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis of Tier 2 interventions implemented within School‐Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

Blair

Park

Kim

2020

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As with disruptive behavior, researchers often defined academic engagement as an aggregate of several behaviors including orientation to the teacher or instructional materials, compliance with teacher requests, task completion, or appropriate verbalizations (e.g., answering questions or requesting help). Boyd and Anderson (2013) measured the frequency of requests for breaks and requests for teacher assistance. Turtura, Anderson, and Boyd (2014) compared the amount of classwork and homework completed between phases, but not in a manner that allowed for a demonstration of a functional relation.…”

Section: Boyd and Andersonmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Function-Modified Check-In/Check-Out

Klingbeil

Dart

Schramm

2018

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS; Sugai & Horner, 2006) is an application of multitiered systems of support logic that establishes interventions to address student behavior within the school. PBIS is a popular intervention framework used in more than 20,000 schools across 45 states (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2015; Simonsen, Myers, & Briere, 2011). At the Tier 1 level, a school-wide PBIS system is implemented in which all students are taught basic behavioral expectations and are rewarded for meeting those expectations (Sugai & Horner, 2006). At Tier 2, check-in/check-out (CICO; Hawken & Horner, 2003) is perhaps the most common intervention strategy within a PBIS framework (Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch, 2014; Debnam, Pas, & Bradshaw, 2012) and is thought to bridge the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 3 services (Wolfe et al., 2016). Description of CICO CICO is a mentor-based behavioral intervention that is comprised of five core treatment components. Specifically, CICO includes (a) a daily check-in meeting with an adult, during which behavioral expectations are introduced and defined; (b) the use of a daily progress report (DPR) that the student carries throughout the day to monitor behavior; (c) teacher provided feedback on the DPR about the student's behavior at regularly scheduled intervals; (d) a daily checkout which often includes reinforcement contingent upon appropriate behavior; and (e) home-school communication, typically using the DPR (Crone, Hawken, & Horner, 2010; Mitchell, Adamson, & McKenna, 2017). CICO has been identified as highly effective for reducing problem behavior and somewhat effective for increasing appropriate behavior in recent systematic reviews (e.g., Maggin, Zurheide, Pickett, & Baillie, 2015; Wolfe et al., 2016). Yet, Maggin et al. (2015) and Wolfe et al. (2016) noted that CICO was less effective or ineffective for students whose problem behavior was maintained by a function other than adult attention, a finding that has been reported in previous CICO research. For example, McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, and Dickey (2009) found that CICO produced large, desirable effects on problem behaviors (d = 1.04), office discipline referrals (d = 0.78), and prosocial behavior (d = 0.99) for 778032P BIXXX10.

show abstract

“…Studies including FCT elements were no exception to this rule. For example, Breaks are Better (Boyd & Anderson, 2013) was implemented in conjunction with existing Tier 1 supports in addition to well-established Tier 2 components such as daily check-in with a mentor to review expectations, set goals, and review progress. Even studies explicitly called FCT sometimes included multiple additional intervention elements such as alternative seating or grouping, self-monitoring, and a token economy (Umbreit, 1995).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Cr Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, students with EBD are chronically underidentified and underserved in school settings (Forness, Freeman, Pararella, Kauffman, & Walker, 2012). Many schools use multitiered systems (e.g., positive behavioral interventions and supports [PBIS]) to screen for students who need behavioral support as a means of preventing special education referral (e.g., Boyd & Anderson, 2013) or as part of the pre-referral process (e.g., Germer et al, 2011). In this framework, interventions often are based on functional behavioral assessment (FBA), particularly in Tiers 2 and 3 (Horner & Sugai, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Practices Reflecting Functional Communication Training for Students With or At Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Systematically Mapping the Literature

Hollo

Burt

2018

Behavioral Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) present complex challenges for educators. This heterogeneous group is comprised of students with varying strengths and limitations in social, emotional, and behavioral competencies (Siperstein, Wiley, & Forness, 2011). Students with EBD also consistently underperform in measures of academic (Siperstein et al., 2011) and language skills (Benner, Nelson, & Epstein, 2002). The reverse also is true: Students with language or learning disabilities are at increased risk for social and behavioral difficulties (Benner et al., 2002; Tomblin, Zhang, Buckwalter, & Catts, 2000). Furthermore, these associations are robust across samples and over time (Chow & Wehby, 2016). This combination of deficits in academic, social, emotional, and behavioral competencies is difficult for teachers to manage, let alone remediateparticularly when problem behavior is the target of intervention at the expense of underlying language and learning needs (Hollo & Chow, 2015). Such issues contribute to the notoriously poor outcomes experienced by children with EBD on indices of school performance and dropout, unemployment, and incarceration (Wagner & Newman, 2015). Another common characteristic of children with EBD is the occurrence of comorbid language impairments (LI) that are unidentified in the usual scope of practice. To assess the extent of this problem, Hollo, Wehby, and Oliver (2014) meta-analyzed 22 studies spanning three decades. Results indicated approximately four in five school-age students with EBD had at least mild LI (defined as scoring greater than 1 SD below the mean on standardized assessments) 751697B HDXXX10.

show abstract

Breaks are Better: A Tier II Social Behavior Intervention

Cited by 21 publications

References 32 publications

A meta‐analysis of Tier 2 interventions implemented within School‐Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

A meta‐analysis of Tier 2 interventions implemented within School‐Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

A Systematic Review of Function-Modified Check-In/Check-Out

Practices Reflecting Functional Communication Training for Students With or At Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Systematically Mapping the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About