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

Abstract

Secondary level or Tier 2 interventions such as the Check-in Check-out (CICO) intervention effectively reduce problem behaviors of students who are non-responsive to school-wide interventions. However, some students will not be successful with Tier 2 interventions. This study investigated the effects of adding individualized function-based support for four students with disabilities who were not successful in general education settings while receiving only a secondary level intervention. Results indicated that the combination of secondary and individualized function-based interventions effectively decreased problem behavior for all participants. Teachers and students rated the interventions as acceptable and effective. Research and practice implications are discussed.

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

“…Researchers included a teacher interview in their FBAs in all 11 studies. In fact, the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers (FACTS; March et al, 2000) was used all but one study (MacLeod, Hawken, O’Neill, & Bundock, 2016). Student interview data were also collected, using semi-structured interviews, in three studies (Cheney et al, 2009; March & Horner, 2002; Swain-Bradway, 2009).…”

“…Within the function-modified CICO protocols, the intervention procedures (excluding reinforcers) were standardized across participants in eight of the 11 studies (see Table 3). Researchers made individualized modifications to the procedures based on student FBA data in three studies (Fairbanks et al, 2007; MacLeod et al, 2016; March & Horner, 2002). Across all studies, however, the function-modified CICO interventions appeared to maintain the core components of traditional CICO.…”

“…However, researchers incorporated self-monitoring to provide more frequent performance feedback in two studies. MacLeod et al (2016) required three of four participants to self-monitor their on-task behavior. March and Horner (2002) required a student who was motivated by escape from aversive tasks to monitor his own work completion throughout the day with additional reinforcement provided for work completion.…”

“…Changes to the daily check-out procedures included more frequent check-outs to increase access to contingent reinforcement (Campbell & Anderson, 2008; Swoszowski et al, 2013) or allowing students to check-out with a peer (Campbell & Anderson, 2008). In MacLeod et al (2016), participants could earn reinforcers aligned with the hypothesized behavior function contingent upon appropriate behavior over a 20-min period. Although, it was unclear whether participants still could earn additional reinforcers at the end of the day.…”

“…To increase adult attention, some researchers increased the frequency of meeting with the mentor, thereby increasing the amount of adult attention received (Fairbanks et al, 2007; MacLeod et al, 2016; Swoszowski et al, 2013). Researchers also increased the frequency of verbal praise delivered contingent on appropriate behavior (Cheney et al, 2009; Fairbanks et al, 2007; MacLeod et al, 2016; Turtura et al, 2014). Students were also allowed to earn extra time with adults (e.g., lunch, extended check-out) contingent upon appropriate behavior (Fairbanks et al, 2007; MacLeod et al, 2016; Swain-Bradway, 2009).…”