Treatment Implementation Following Behavioral Consultation in Schools: A Comparison of Three Follow-up Strategies

Noell, George H.; Witt, Joseph C.; Slider, Natalie J.; Connell, James E.; Gatti, Susan L.; Williams, Kashunda L.; Koenig, Jennifer L.; Resetár, J; Duhon, Gary J.

doi:10.1080/02796015.2005.12086277

Cited by 342 publications

(215 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

205

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that the completion of permanent products occurred after intervention implementation (e.g., teacher was not observed announcing criteria for winning, but criteria for winning was written on the poster when permanent products were coded). Estimates of treatment fidelity via self-report have been criticized for being inflated (e.g., Noell et al, 2005); permanent products may be susceptible to the same problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For direct observation, fewer sessions produced a reliable estimate of GBG implementation, which led the authors to endorse this assessment method (Gresham et al, 2017). Self-report has been criticized due to implementers’ tendency to inflate their treatment fidelity ratings (e.g., Noell et al, 2005), although this is not always the case (Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009b). In comparing treatment fidelity assessments of behavior support plan implementation per direct observation and permanent product, Sanetti and Collier-Meek (2014) found that data collected using direct observation (a) reflected intervention steps more comprehensively, (b) could include an assessment of implementation quality, and (c) were more highly correlated with student outcomes.…”

Section: Treatment Fidelity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In sum, current research on treatment fidelity assessment methods documents the strengths of direct observation while also highlighting its limitations in comparison with the use of permanent products (e.g., influence of observation timing). Self-report has received less formal evaluation and empirical support due to concerns regarding accuracy (Collier-Meek, Fallon, et al, in press; Noell et al, 2005; Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2014).…”

Section: Treatment Fidelity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing the Implementation of the Good Behavior Game: Comparing Estimates of Adherence, Quality, and Exposure

Collier‐Meek

Fallon

DeFouw

2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment fidelity assessment is critical to evaluating the extent to which interventions, such as the Good Behavior Game, are implemented as intended and impact student outcomes. The assessment methods by which treatment fidelity data are collected vary, with direct observation being the most popular and widely recommended. The current study presents an exploratory analysis of the differences between fidelity estimates collected through direct observation versus permanent product across three dimensions of treatment fidelity: adherence, quality, and exposure. Findings indicate that direct observation may allow for a more complete estimate of adherence when compared with permanent product, if implementation occurs within the observation window. Quality was only captured via direct observation. Direct observation may not produce adequate estimates of exposure depending on implementation timing. Implications for treatment fidelity assessment are reviewed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment Fidelity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment Fidelity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Implementation of the Good Behavior Game: Comparing Estimates of Adherence, Quality, and Exposure

Collier‐Meek

Fallon

DeFouw

2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…School-based interventions must be implemented sufficiently to impact student outcomes (see DiGennaro Reed, & Codding, 2013; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009). Low levels of treatment integrity, indicative of inconsistent implementation, have been documented across interventions designed to address academic and behavior concerns for students with disabilities and in general education at the individual student, classroom, and school-wide level (e.g., Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Noell et al, 2005; Sanetti, Collier-Meek, Long, Byron, & Kratochwill, 2015). To investigate why low levels of treatment integrity are so pervasive, researchers have begun to evaluate variables that may influence implementation (e.g., Domitrovich et al, 2008; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Long et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Fit of the Ecological Framework for Implementation Variables

Collier‐Meek

Johnson

Sanetti

2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many teachers struggle to deliver interventions with sufficient treatment integrity, perhaps due to implementation variables that mediate or moderate treatment integrity. Potential implementation variables have frequently been conceptualized in ecological frameworks, including the intervention, implementer, organization, and external environmental levels. Although the ecological framework is a useful organizational tool, a measure aligned with this model of implementation variables has not yet been developed. This article describes the development of the Assessment of Ecological Implementation Influences (AEII), a measure to evaluate implementation variables across ecological levels. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to evaluate to what extent responses on the AEII reflect the hypothesized ecological factor structure. The model of variables from the intervention to external environment level was not reflected within the factor structure here. Rather, factors emerged that were not previously accounted for in the implementation variables literature. Implications for future research on the measurement of treatment integrity and implementation variables are described.

show abstract

“…PFB has been shown to be effective for improving the implementation of behavioral supports in instructional packages (Gilbertson, Witt, Singletary, & VanDerHeyden, 2007) as well as decreasing rates of undesired behavior (DiGennaro, Martens, & Kleinmann, 2007; Jones, Wickstrom, & Friman, 1997). PFB methods as described in Noell et al (2005) consisted of providing frequent feedback regarding the specific components implemented correctly as well as the steps not implemented correctly. The available research suggests that PFB improves overall adherence to intervention protocols and is applicable to a wide range of consumers and applications (Solomon, Klein, & Polityo, 2012), though its applicability to peer-mediated SST has not yet been explored.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Training Peer Models to Promote Social Skills: Considerations for Practice

Mathews

Vatland

Lugo

et al. 2017

Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social skills training programs have increasingly enlisted same-age typical peers as instructors in the teaching of social skills to children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The inclusion of peers in the teaching process has been found to be a critical component in these programs. Despite strong support for incorporating peers in social skills programs, there are few guidelines for training peers. The present study examined a treatment package to teach typical school-aged children skills to become peer models. A multiple baseline across behaviors research design was implemented using components of behavioral skills training to teach (a) initiating verbal interactions, (b) prompting for targeted skills, and (c) delivery of praise. The peer models quickly acquired the skill of initiating verbal interactions; however, posting of data, prompting, and additional contingencies were needed to maintain and generalize prompting for targeted skills and delivery of praise with novel children.

show abstract

Treatment Implementation Following Behavioral Consultation in Schools: A Comparison of Three Follow-up Strategies

Cited by 342 publications

References 35 publications

Assessing the Implementation of the Good Behavior Game: Comparing Estimates of Adherence, Quality, and Exposure

Assessing the Implementation of the Good Behavior Game: Comparing Estimates of Adherence, Quality, and Exposure

Evaluating the Fit of the Ecological Framework for Implementation Variables

Training Peer Models to Promote Social Skills: Considerations for Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About