Effects of Matching Instruction Difficulty to Reading Level for Students With Escape-Maintained Problem Behavior

Abstract

The effects of a literacy intervention matching student skill level with academic performance demands were examined through a multiple baseline across participants design. The dual dependent variables were problem behavior and academic engagement. Four students in Grades 2 or 3 who exhibited low academic performance and problem behavior during reading instruction participated. Functional behavioral assessment and oral reading fluency assessment indicated that each of the students (a) was at risk for reading difficulties and read at the frustration level in text used for reading instruction and (b) had escape-maintained problem behavior during instruction sessions. A nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across students was used to assess the effects of matching reading instructional level (e.g., reducing the aversive level of instruction) on academic engagement and problem behavior. Matching the reading instructional level to the skill level of the students was associated with academic engagement increases and problem behavior decreases for three of the students. The fourth student demonstrated improvement during baseline that made effects of the intervention difficult to assess. Conceptual implications and suggestions for integrating behavioral and academic supports are explored.

A Systematic Review of Function‐Based Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities

“…Skill building activities as part of the function‐based intervention typically included development of academic skills though they were infrequently included ( n = 5). One study with three participants (Sanford & Horner, ) placed all three students in a new reading program (Reading Mastery; Science Research Associates, ) as part of the function‐based intervention. Vocabulary instruction ( n = 1) and development of decoding skills ( n = 1) were also present.…”

“…The majority of studies reported at least some information regarding intervention fidelity. (Christensen, Young, & Marchant, ; Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, ; Filter & Horner, ; Haydon, ; Lane et al., ; March & Horner, ; McComas, Goddard, & Hoch, ; Payne et al., ; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, ; Sanford & Horner, ; Trussell, Lewis, & Stichter, ). One study reported collecting fidelity data for participant training and use of the peer component of the intervention, all of which were at acceptable levels (Christenson et al., 2007).…”

“…In addition one graph within a multiple baseline across settings design (Todd, Horner, & Sugai, ) did not meet design standards as it did not demonstrate sufficient attempts to demonstrate an experimental effect. Based on our analysis of design, five studies (Fairbanks et al., ; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, ; Sanford & Horner, ; Todd et al., ; Trussell et al ()) with seven participants met design standard without reservations.…”

Improving The Accuracy of Student Problem Identification Using Rule-Based Machine Learning

“…Benefits in understanding the involvement of behaviour problems among youth and informing the design of interventions to reduce behaviour problems [3]. Educators must be able to understand the behaviour and academic problems of students so that they can help the problems they face and prevent difficulties in the future [4].…”

Effects of single‐case reading interventions for students with and at‐risk of emotional and behavioral disorders in grades K–12: A quantitative synthesis

“…Research also suggests that teachers must be proficient in classroom management to improve the reading skills of students with EBD (J. Garwood, Vernon‐Feagans, & Family Life Project Key Investigators, ). For example, students with EBD may display problem behaviors to avoid or in response to reading tasks (Sanford & Horner, ), which may result in the loss of substantial instructional time (J. McKenna & Ciullo, ). However, researchers have also theorized that the relationship (e.g., causal, moderating, or mediating) between problem behaviors and academic achievement is distinct across students (Gresham, ).…”