Search

This study examined interventions for addition and subtraction that were implemented through single-case design (SCD) research studies. We attempted to extend prior SCD meta-analyses by examining differences in effect sizes across several moderating variables and by including a novel index of effect, improvement rate difference (IRD). We also examined the extent to which effect sizes differed by degree of experimental control achieved in the studies. Forty-seven effect sizes were obtained across 11 studies. IRD effect sizes ranged from 0.59 to 0.90 and suggested a moderate to large effect for the math interventions. Variables that appeared to moderate the effects were student age, time spent in intervention, and intervention type. We also identified a relationship between experimental control and the obtained effect sizes. Findings indicated that further SCD research in basic arithmetic and rigorous experiments are necessary to establish an evidence base that accurately characterizes intervention effectiveness.

This study examined the impact of various components of rater training on the accuracy of rating behavior using Direct Behavior Rating-Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS). Specifically, the addition of frame-of-reference and rater error training components to a standard package involving an overview and then modeling, practice, and feedback was investigated. In addition, amount of exposure to the direct training component (i.e., number of practice and feedback opportunities) was evaluated, and the rates at which behavior was displayed were carefully manipulated to control for and evaluate training impact by target and rate of behavior. The sample consisted of undergraduate students assigned to one of 6 possible conditions. Overall findings suggested that completion of a training package did result in enhanced accuracy when using DBR-SIS to rate academic engagement and disruption. However, results also supported that the most comprehensive package of DBR training may not always result in greater improvements over a standard package involving direct training. In general, a more intensive training package appeared beneficial at improving ratings for targets that had previously been difficult to rate accurately (e.g., medium rate disruptive behavior). Limitations and implications for future research are discussed. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

This study presents an evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy and concurrent validity of Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales for use in school-based behavior screening of second-grade students. Results indicated that each behavior target was a moderately to highly accurate predictor of behavioral risk. Optimal universal screening cut scores were also identified for each scale, with results supporting reduced false positive rates through the simultaneous use of multiple scales. (Contains 5 tables.)

In this study, the researchers evaluated the sensitivity of Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scales (DBR-SIS) for assessing behavior change in response to an intervention. Included in the analyses were data from 20 completed behavioral consultation cases involving a diverse sample of elementary participants and contexts using a common intervention in an A-B design. Secondary purposes of the study were to investigate the utility of 5 metrics proposed for understanding behavioral response, as well as the correspondence among these metrics and teachers' ratings of intervention acceptability. Overall, results suggest that DBR-SIS demonstrated sensitivity to behavior change regardless of the metric used. Further, we found limited association between student change and teachers' ratings of acceptability. (Contains 2 tables.)

A total of 4 raters, including 2 teachers and 2 research assistants, used Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) to measure the academic engagement and disruptive behavior of 7 middle school students across multiple occasions. Generalizability study results for the full model revealed modest to large magnitudes of variance associated with persons (students), occasions of measurement (day), and associated interactions. However, an unexpectedly low proportion of the variance in DBR data was attributable to the facet of rater, as well as a negligible variance component for the facet of rating occasion nested within day (10-min interval within a class period). Results of a reduced model and subsequent decision studies specific to individual rater and rater type (research assistant and teacher) suggested degree of reliability-like estimates differed substantially depending on rater. Overall, findings supported previous recommendations that in the absence of estimates of rater reliability and firm recommendations regarding rater training, ratings obtained from DBR-SIS, and subsequent analyses, be conducted within rater. Additionally, results suggested that when selecting a teacher rater, the person most likely to substantially interact with target students during the specified observation period may be the best choice. (Contains 6 tables and 3 figures.)

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three levels of training (direct, indirect, and none) on teachers' ability to accurately rate video of student behavior. Direct and indirect training groups received instructional sessions on direct behavior ratings (DBRs), with the direct training group receiving opportunities for practice and feedback. Each training group viewed a video of a typical classroom environment and then rated the proportion of time the student displayed disruptive behavior and academic engagement. Accuracy was examined through comparison of the teachers' ratings with direct observation data. Teacher acceptability of using DBRs was also assessed. Overall, the results suggested that the most intensive level of training (i.e., direct) did not improve the accuracy with which teachers rated behaviors using DBRs. Limitations and future implications are discussed. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)

In this study, preliminary evidence of the potential for Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) in screening assessment of school social behavior is provided through evaluation of the concurrent validity of DBR with a commonly used criterion measure. The teacher-completed form of the "Social Skills Rating System" (SSRS) was selected as the criterion measure given similarity to DBR in both broad construct of interest and intended use. Classroom teachers completed DBRs of academic engagement and disruptive behavior twice daily, along with fall and spring completion of the SSRS. Overall results support a moderate to strong association between the methods, with stronger correlations in the fall assessment period. In addition, evidence of teacher acceptability for DBR is provided. Along with specific recommendations for future research, implications are discussed regarding selection and interpretation of behavior assessment methods for screening purposes. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)

Teachers are often called upon to identify students at behavioral and emotional risk by completing a variety of assessment tools. However, many teachers may lack the requisite skills to reliably identify students at risk or use data derived from assessment tools to inform intervention. A series of trainings was developed to improve decision making on the Intervention Selection Profile–Social Skills, with a focus on improving accuracy and use of data. Specifically, a two-study randomized controlled design was employed to evaluate the efficacy of a basic informational training and a training with a practice component with regards to a control condition on the collection and use of social–emotional assessment data on the ISP-SS. Results suggest limited influence of training on the accuracy of data collection, yet significant influence on improving how data are used to inform intervention. Implications for practice and research, as well as limitations, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is important to explore the relationship between teachers' perceptions of their cultural responsiveness as well as students' classroom behavior and risk, as these relationships may impact decisions about equitable access to school behavioral health supports. This paper includes two studies conducted with teachers in two large suburban school districts. Study 1 investigated the relationship between teachers' (n = 20) ratings on a measure of cultural responsiveness, the Assessment of Culturally and Contextually Relevant Supports (ACCReS), and students' classroom behavior. Results indicated that higher ACCReS scores significantly predicted lower classwide disruptive behavior. Study 2 investigated the relationship between teachers' (n = 30) ratings on the ACCReS and ratings of their students' risk on the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener. For social behavior, higher ACCReS scores predicted teachers perceiving lower social risk; however, identification as a Black student and a student with a disability predicted higher risk. Findings are preliminary, yet implications include recommendations for high‐quality professional development to promote teacher cultural responsiveness. Such support could guide teachers to create educational environments in which fewer discipline referrals for behavior occur, teachers perceive less social risk, and access to school behavior supports is more equitable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, the researchers evaluated the sensitivity of Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scales (DBR-SIS) for assessing behavior change in response to an intervention. Included in the analyses were data from 20 completed behavioral consultation cases involving a diverse sample of elementary participants and contexts using a common intervention in an A-B design. Secondary purposes of the study were to investigate the utility of 5 metrics proposed for understanding behavioral response, as well as the correspondence among these metrics and teachers' ratings of intervention acceptability. Overall, results suggest that DBR-SIS demonstrated sensitivity to behavior change regardless of the metric used. Further, we found limited association between student change and teachers' ratings of acceptability., Student behavior in school settings continues to receive substantial attention within policy, practice, and research arenas. For example, research has clearly documented the important role that school settings can serve [...]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the structural validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariance of scores from the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener–Student Rating Scale (mySAEBRS), a student self-report universal screening tool. Participants included 24,094 K–12 students who completed the mySAEBRS. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) supported the fit of a bifactor model, wherein each item corresponding to both a general factor (i.e., Total Behavior) and one of three narrow factors (i.e., Social Behavior, Academic Behavior, and Emotional Behavior). Such model fit was superior to that of alternative factor structures (i.e., unidimensional, correlated-factor, and higher order). A review of pattern coefficients suggested items were relatively split, with some items loading higher on the general factor and others loading higher on their narrow factor. A series of multigroup CFAs supported the configural and metric invariance of the bifactor model, while yielding less consistent support for scalar/threshold invariance. Omega reliability coefficients indicated each mySAEBRS scale was associated with acceptable internal consistency (>.70). However, when accounting for other factors, only the Total Behavior, Social Behavior, and Emotional Behavior scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (i.e., >.50). Implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic screening for behavioral and social-emotional concerns at school is one way to ensure that at-risk children are identified and provided services. School psychologists play a critical role in creating multitiered systems of support that consider universal screening, early intervention, and ongoing progress monitoring to help support students with behavioral concerns. In this "Presenters in Focus" Q&A, convention presenters Katie Eklund and Stephen Kilgus discuss best practice strategies for engaging in universal screening at school and how these data can inform service delivery considerations. They will explore these issues in more depth during their Field-Based Skills Session, "School-Based Social-Emotional and Behavior Screening: Using Data to Guide Interventions," at the 2018 national convention in Chicago.