EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 29, No.

4, 2006

Illustrations of Function-Based Interventions Implemented by General Education Teachers: Building Capacity at the School Site
Kathleen L. Lane, Jessica L. Weisenbach, M. Annette Little, Andrea Phillips, Joseph Wehby Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
Abstract This paper examines two illustrations of teacher-led function-based interventions to explore the extent to which teachers are able to design and implement function-based interventions with limited support from university personnel. Results of these A-B-A-B intervention designs suggest a functional relation between the introduction of the interventions and the corresponding changes in student behaviors for both examples. Further, all parties rated the intervention process favorably. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

hen students struggle to meet teachers' academic, social, and/or behavioral expectations, teachersoften seek additional assistance through available support mechanisms such as the prereferral intervention process {Lane, Givner, & Pierson, 2004; Walker, Irvin, Noell, & Singer 1992). The goal is to obtain intervention support to help students perform more successfully in the general education setting. One type of intervention that is particularly effective in creating meaningful, lasting change (Baer, Wolf, & Risely, 1987) is a functionbased intervention. In light of recent initiatives and mandates such as inclusive programming for students with exceptionalities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994), Response to Intervention models (RTI; Gresham, 2002), and multi-level models of positive behavioral support (PBS; Homer & Sugai, 2000), it is imperative that general education teachers acquire the skills to design, implement, and evaluate function-based interventions for students who do not meet academic and behavioral expectations. At a minimum, general education teachers must be familiar with these procedures to build capacity at the site level to meet the academic and behavioral needs of an increasingly diverse

Correspondence to Kathleen Lane, Ph.D., Department of Special Education, Peabody College, Box 328, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203-5721; e-mail: Kathleen, lane?" vanderbi I t.edu. This research was supported by OSEP Field IniHated Grant H324C030044B and NICHD Grant P30HD15052.

Pages 549-571

550

LANE et al.

student population (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). Interventions based on the reasons why behavioral, social, or academic problems occur are referred to as function-based interventions. While many interventions focus more on the form or topography of problem behaviors, function-based interventions employ a range of procedures to determine the antecedent (A) conditions that set the stage for and the consequences (C) that maintain the target (problem) behavior (B; Umbreit, et al., 2007). Specific procedures include interviews with teachers, parents, and students (Kern, Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, & Falk, 1994); A-B-C data collection via direct observations (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968); rating scales to determine behavioral function and identify acquisition and performance deficits (Gresham & Elliott, 1990); and functional analysis which involves systematic manipulations of environmental events to determine a functional relation between the event and the target behavior. Data collected using these procedures are used to generate a hypothesis statement regarding the conditions that prompt and reinforce the target behavior. Moreover, the hypothesis statement indicates the extent to which the target behavior functions to obtain (positive reinforcement) or avoid (negative reinforcement) attention, activities, or sensory stimulation (Umbreit et al., 2007). Subsequently, an intervention is designed based on the functional assessment results. The intervention involves three core components: (a) adjustment of the antecedent conditions that prompt the target behavior, (b) increased rates of reinforcement for a functionally-equivalent, more desirable replacement behavior, and (c) use of extinction procedures to eliminate the target behavior. To date, function-based interventions conducted by researchers have been effective with a broad scope of target behaviors, with a range of individuals, and in a variety of settings. For example, function-based interventions have decreased levels of off-task and inappropriate behavior (Kern et a!., 1994; Umbreit & Blair, 1997), reduced skin picking behavior (Lane, Thompson, Reske, Gable, & Barton-Arwood, in press), and increased levels of task engagement and prosocial behavior (Umbreit, Lane, & Dejud, 2004). Such procedures have been successful with students with severe disabilities (Dunlap, KernDunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991), attention deficit disorders (Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998), emotional and behavioral problems (Kern, Delaney, Clarke, Dunlap, & Childs, 2001), and students at-risk (Lewis & Sugai, 1996). Although initially developed in analogue conditions, function-based interventions have proven effective in naturalistic settings such as preschools (Umbreit, 1996), general education classrooms (Kern et al., 2001; Umbreit et al., 2004), and self-contained settings (Lane et al.).

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

551

Thus, function-based interventions are able to produce meaningful, lasting changes (Baer et al., 1987) when implemented with fidelity. Yet, most function-based interventions published to date have been designed, implemented, and evaluated with high levels of involvement from university support or other behavioral experts using a range of procedures. Therefore, a question regarding "success" arises as to the extent to which function-based interventions designed, implemented, and evaluated by general education teachers with limited university support using a systematic approach to functional assessment also produce meaningful behavioral changes. Namely, do function-based interventions conducted with at-risk general education students yield the desired outcomes when teachers have the primary responsibilities of (a) determining the function of the target behavior by analyzing data collected by a university liaison; (b) determining the appropriate intervention method; (c) developing intervention tactics; (d) implementing the intervention in the classroom; and (e) serving as the primary data collector of the target and replacement behaviors as well as treatment fidelity? This is an important question to answer if the field expects educators to participate in tertiary prevention efforts for students with exceptionalities and those students at risk for school failure who are not responsive to primary intervention efforts (Horner & Sugai, 2000). This paper presents the findings of two function-based interventions, both conducted with students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), implemented and evaluated by teachers with limited university support using a systematic approach developed by Umbreit and colleagues (2007). The objectives of this preliminary investigation are two fold. First, we present two case examples to illustrate the degree to which teachers were able to construct and implement function-based interventions following a systematic approach, which involved teachers having primary responsibility for determining the behavioral function; designing and implementing the intervention; and collecting data. Second, we examined teachers' ratings of social validity to determine the significance of the goals, acceptability of the procedures, and importance of the outcomes given that teachers served a primary role in this intervention process. Method
Participant and Setting

Participants were two typically developing, second-grade students (1 male, Marcus, and 1 female, Julie) enrolled in separate general education classrooms at one elementary school in middle Tennessee. Neither participant received special education services. Both students

552

LANE et al.

were identified for participation in a larger study. Project PREVENT (see Lane, Wehby, Phillips, Weisenbach, & Little, in preparation for overall intervention outcomes and a detailed description of the study). In the larger study, students were identified as at risk for EBD using one of three systematic screenings: the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994), the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992), and the Achenbach (1991), aggression subscale of the Teacher Report Form (TRF). Students who met one of the following criteria were invited to participate: (a) earned a score of 4 or greater on the SRSS indicating moderate or high risk for antisocial behavior; (b) exceeded normative criteria in stage two of the SSBD; or (c) scored in the borderline or clinical levels of the TRF. The two students in this paper were randomly assigned to participate in the behavior intervention condition, which consisted of a function-based intervention (described below). These two students were selected for inclusion in this paper because (a) their target behaviors and hypothesized functions were similar to other students in the behavioral condition and (b) the function-based plans constructed represented two different intervention methods.
Dependent Measures and Interobserver Agreement Marcus: Target behaviorNon-engagement. Non-engagement re-

fers to any behavior the student displays that is not engaged in work given by the teacher or that keeps the student from being engaged in work. Examples of non-engagement during seatwork time include; talking to peers; getting out of seat without permission; answering questions without raising his hand; and placing pencils, papers, and other materials in unassigned places. Non-examples include speaking when called on, getting out of seat to turn in an assignment; and talking to a peer when given permission.
Marcus: Replacement behavior Engagement. Engagement refers

to any behavior displayed by the student that is engaged in his assigned tasks and maintaining organization of his desk area. Examples include keeping materials in their assigned places; keeping track of classwork, homework, and other materials; and talking to peers only during designated times. Non-examples include throwing materials and stuffing papers in desk; forgetting to take folders out of his backpack and putting them in his desk; and talking to peers during silent seatwork.
Julie: Target behaviorTask Avoidance. Task avoidance referred to

any behavior that involved avoiding classroom work assigned by the teacher. Examples included being out of seat, wandering around the classroom, using n:iaterials inappropriately. Non-examples included

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

553

taking only needed materials and using them appropriately, sitting in her seat, and completing her work.
Julie: Replacement behavior - Work completion. Work completion

referred to any behavior that involved the student's completing her work, sitting in her seat with her eyes on her assignment, and completing the assignment with quality and accuracy. Examples included producing and turning in accurately completed work within the allotted seatwork time. Non-examples included turning in unfinished or incorrect work as well as turning in no work at all.
Recording systems and interobserver agreement. Marcus's non-en-

gagement was assessed using momentary time sampling procedures. This method was selected based on the fact that the behaviors were brief and uniform in length. Specifically, Marcus's teacher took data for twenty 3 min intervals (60 min daily observation session), 2 days per week. She used a data sheet provided on a clipboard that she kept with her wherever she was in the classroom. The data sheet listed operational definitions of the target and replacement behavior, as well as directions for how to collect data. Each time the teacher took data, she filled in her name, the date, and the start and end times of the session. She wore a Motiv-Aider , a small digital timer which the teacher could clip onto a belt loop. The timer was set to vibrate softly on a fixed 3 min interval. At the end of each 3 min interval, the timer vibrated, prompting the teacher to look up and observe Marcus's behavior for 5 sec. If Marcus was displaying the target behavior, non-engagement, she circled the "Yes" on the data sheet for the corresponding interval. If Marcus was not displaying the target behavior, she circled the "No" on the data sheet. Julie's work completion behavior was assessed using permanent product recording procedures. Three days per week, Julie's teacher rated Julie's center work for quality and accuracy. A data sheet was provided to the teacher that listed operational definitions of the target and replacement behaviors and directions for taking data. The teacher filled in her name, the date, and a brief description of each center time assignment. Each assignment was rated for completion and accuracy based on a scale of 0 - 4 (0 = below 65%; 1 = 65-69%; 2 = 70-79%; 3 = 80-89%; 4 - 90^1007o). For example, if Julie followed the example and completed 9 out of 10 sentences on a grammar worksheet, she received a rating of 4. During each phase of intervention, interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated between two independent observers (teacher and project liaison, a Master's student). During Marcus's observations, the teacher and the liaison used two Motiv-Aiders and set them simultaneously to vibrate on the same schedule. Both observers

554

LANE et al.

took data independently from different places in the classroom. lOA for Marcus's target behavior, non-engagement, was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. When the teacher and liaison collected data together for Julie, the liaison and the teacher would independently score the same work samples, and compare their ratings. IOA for Julie was computed by dividing the smaller rating by the larger rating and multiplying the quantity by 100. Prior to collecting data, teachers participated in formal data collection trainings. The minimum criterion for acceptable reliability before collecting any data was 90% for Marcus and 75"/. for Julie. IOA data were collected for 25% of the sessions in each phase. For Marcus, the mean IOA across phases was 99% (range: 95 -100%). In Julie's case, mean IOA was 100% with no variation in agreement.
Functional Assessment Procedures. Outcomes, and Hypothesis Statements Marcus. The Preliminary Functional Assessment Survey (Dunlap et

al., 1993) was conducted by the liaison with Marcus and his teacher. Marcus's teacher identified Marcus's non-engagement as a major concern. She identified attention from teachers and peers as the main function of the behavior, which occurred primarily during unstructured time with peers. She also indicated that Marcus frequently sought teacher and peer attention as a primary reinforcer. In the student interview, the Student Assistance Functional Assessment Interview (Kern

et al., 1994), Marcus indicated that he had problems with exhibiting non-engagement because he knew the answers and, in his excitement, frequently shared the answers with his peers. He also indicated that he was frustrated often because he felt disorganized, and that he felt more focused when his peers were not there to distract him. It was hypothesized that Marcus's behavior served a function of gaining attention. Direct observations revealed that, during quiet seatwork, Marcus would frequently talk to peers, get out of his seat, and play with materials at his desk. He would often gain peer and teacher attention following such behaviors. A-B-C data from three hours of direct observations conducted by the liaison were organized into the Function Matrix (see Table 1) which was reviewed by the teacher and confirmed with the liaison. Of 32 observed instances of the target behavior within the classroom setting, 28 occurrences were hypothesized to function as gaining attention from his teacher and peers. The teacher and the liaison collaboratively developed the following hypothesis: when engaged in unstructvired activities, Marcus displays non-engagement (such as getting out of seat without permission and talking to peers), to access attention from teacher and peers.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

555

Table 1 Function Matrices: Results Marcus's Function Matrix Function Attention Positive Reinforcement ABC Data instances: 28 Teacher, parents, and student interviews: identified attention as an effective reinforcer. ABC Data Instances: 4 Negative Reinforcement

Tangibles/ Activities Sensory

lulic's Function Matrix Function Attention Positive Reinforcement ABC Data Instances: 6 Teacher intenuew: Offtask behavior occurs more with certain peers. Parent infcrview. Attention, affection, and affirmation are very reinforcing to lulie. ABC Data Instances: 23 Teacher interview. Occurs most often during long periods of independent seatwork, such as center time. Effective punishment is for lulie to miss out on a preferred activity. Parent interview: "Her main problem is not focusing. She doesn't want to do her work, so she finds other things to do.... Her biggest problem is motivation." Negative Reinforcement

Tangibles/ Activities

Sensory

556

LANE et al,

Julie. Interviews were conducted by the liaison with Julie, her teacher, and her mother. Julie's teacher identified Julie's task avoidance behavior as a top concern, indicating that she felt thaf Julie was fully capable of completing her work, yet her performance did not match her abilities. Julie's teacher was unsure why Julie displayed such behavior, but it was often during less structured time when students were not as actively engaged and were expected to complete seatwork on their own. This occurred most often during center time, when students were given three independent assignments to complete while the teacher conducted small reading groups. She sfafed that the behavior occurred more when Julie's peers were present. Often Julie losf recess time for not completing her center time work. Julie's mother also identified task avoidance as a persistent problem behavior, although she could not identify a reason for the behavior. During the student interview, Julie indicated that she struggled with task avoidance during class time, especially when she was with her classmates and her teacher. Julie's teacher stated that Julie's behavior occurred more when she was around certain peers and during less supervised times. Her mother also indicated that attention and affection were primary reinforcers for Julie. Direct observation data also supported an avoidance function. Julie would display task avoidance by sitting at her desk with her eyes on her paper for 5 niin or more, and then turn in an assignment without answers. Other task avoidance behaviors thought to be serving an escape function included going fo the cubbies without permission and remaining there for longer than 5 min, picking up materials around the classroom and playing with them inside her desk. After three hours of A-B-C data collection via direct observations, the liaison documented 23 occurrences of task avoidance serving a hypothesized escape function. The teacher and liaison reviewed the dafa placed into the Punction Matrix (see Table 1). They collectively hypothesized that, when in class, particularly during less structured times, Julie engages in fask avoidance (e.g., being out of seat without permission, using materials inappropriately, etc.) to gain attention and avoid instructional tasks.
Intervention Plan: Selection and Design for Marcus

Intervention planning was based on the Punction-Based Intervention Decision Model, guiding intervention planning based on two questions: (1) Is the skill in the child's repertoire? (2) Does the classroom environment represent effective practices (Umbreit et al., 2007)? In answering the first question, observational data, as well as results from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott,

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

557

1990) completed by Marcus's feacher, indicated that engagement (the replacement behavior) was a skill already in Marcus's repertoire. The SSRS contains three subscales to assess social skills (30 items), problem behavior (18 items), and academic competence (9 ifems). The social skills items are rated on two separate 3 point Likert-type scales to evaluate the frequency (0 = never, 1 = occasionally, 2 = often) and importance (0 = not Important, 1 = important, 2 ^ critical) of each skill Inspection of the social skills items indicated that Marcus had performance deficits (frequency scores of 1 and importance scores of 1 or 2) in cooperation and self-confrol. Specifically, inspection of the social skills items on the SSRS indicated that Marcus had the ability to, but often did not, follow teacher-given directions. Further he also had performance deficits in terms of transitioning easily from one classroom activity to another. Thus, Marcus was capable of displaying engagement, buf was not engaged consisfently. Regarding the environment, the classroom did represent effective practices. Specifically, Marcus's teacher consistently used a behavior management plan fhaf included three colors (green = verbal warning, yellow = timeout, and red = note home). His teacher coupled this system with high rates of positive reinforcement via verbal praise to all sHidents. However, she indicated that Marcus was not responding to this program. According to Method 3: Adjust the Contingencies, the consequences that previously reinforced the target behavior were now used to reinforce the replacement behavior. Namely, an intervention was needed to increase the rate of reinforcement for engagement and decrease the rate of reinforcement for non-engagement. The three components of Marcus's intervention (B phase) are outlined below. Intervention Component 1: Antecedents. Antecedent conditions were adjusted to prompt the occurrence of the replacement behavior engagement. First, a cardboard pocket was attached to the side of Marcus's desk using masking fape. The folder was intended as a place for Marcus to keep anything he needed to turn into his teacher at the end of morning work time. This was included because Marcus's teacher indicated that Marcus had difficulty remembering to turn work in, and would end up either throwing it away or taking it home, thus missing points for work he had actually completed. Finally, a checklist addressing behavioral goals was developed by the liaison, Marcus's teacher, arid Marcus himself. At the end of each morning work time, Marcus and his teacher would independently rate Marcus's behavior on the following five goals: (1) I followed the daily chart; (2) I put ail of today's work in my center folder; (3) My crayons, markers, and pencils are put away neatly; (4) I only got out of my seat when necessary; and (5) I only talked at appropriate times. Marcus and his

558

LANE et al.

teacher would rate behavior by circling a "+" if Marcus had met his goal or a "-" if Marcus had not met his goal. Intervention Component 2: Reinforcement. The reinforcement condition was developed so that the consequence that previously reinforced the target behavior was provided for the replacement behavior. Specifically, Marcus's teacher provided attention via verbal praise and public recognition (e.g., addressing the class to praise Marcus for his positive behavior) contingent on Marcus's displaying engagement. Further, if Marcus met all of his goals, as rated by both he and his teacher on his checklist, he chose a reinforcer from a list of preferred rev^'ards related to attaining peer and/or teacher attention (e.g., running a classroom errand with a peer, receiving extra time on the computer with a peer, choosing a game to play with a peer). Each reinforcer lasted between 5-10 min and could be obtained at the end of the day, or at another time deemed appropriate by the teacher. Ifiterx'entioii Component 3: Extinction. The consequence that previously reinforced the target behavior was withheld. Specifically, other than a brief verbal redirection from his teacher, Marcus did not receive attention for non-engagement. Further, peers were instructed to ignore students who were acting inappropriately during quiet work times. Intervention Summary and Training. Marcus's intervention contained three components: antecedent adjustments, reinforcement for engagement, and extinction of non-engagement. Marcus was trained in the intervention components via explicit instruction conducted by Marcus's teacher and the liaison (e.g., explaining what non-engagement and engagement look like and sound like). Further, the organizational folder was explained, and each goal on the checklist was modeled and discussed with Marcus, followed by guided practice where Marcus would explain and/or demonstrate each of these components. Non-examples were also modeled and discussed. Following initial teaching, Marcus's teacher and the liaison observed Marcus in the classroom setting and guided him as he worked through the intervention for two days of training. Both the teacher and liaison ensured that Marcus was able to distinguish between engagement and non-engagement and was capable of using checklist and the tolder independently. Marcus's teacher was also trained in the procedures. She and the liaison discussed examples and non-examples of non-engagement, as well as examples of verbal praise to tell Marcus when he was displaying engagement. The liaison observed the teacher implementing the intervention in the classroom, answering questions and providing guidance as needed.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS Intervention Implementation: Classroom Procedures for Marcus

559

Baseline phase. The baseline condition consisted of regular classroom practices during a 90 min time period in the morning. Students entered the room, went to their assigned seats, and began their seatwork while the teacher conducted reading groups in the back of the classroom. Typically, students had two or three brief, independent assignments to complete. Students were expected to work quietly at their tables while completing their independent activities, then turn in their seatwork when it was completed and choose an educational "center" (e,g., read a book, do a math activity, listen to a book on tape, etc.). Students sat in clusters of four desks and were expected to work silently, only talking if they needed help on an assignment from a fellow peer. Intervention Phase. The intervention phase (B) was identical to baseline in setting, physical arrangement, number of adults and students present, and time period; students were given their seatwork assignments to complete independently while the teacher met with small reading groups. The intervention included an organizational folder on the side of Marcus's desk where he would place work to be turned in and a daily behavior checklist to be completed by both Marcus and his teacher. The behavior management plan, the "color system" remained in place during all phases.
Intervention Plan: Selection and Design for Julie

In answering the first question posed by the Function-Based Intervention Decision Model, performing the replacement behavior was in Julie's repertoire. Both her teacher and her mother stated that they had seen Julie complete work with accuracy, and that it was not a question of ability. Direct observations during more structured class time indicated that Julie was capable of completing assigned work on her grade level. Rather than teaching her how to complete work, she appeared to require additional environmental structure to increase the probability of finishing her assignments. The second question, whether classroom conditions represented best practices, was answered negatively. For Julie, expectations often seemed unclear and the large amount of time given for students to complete work on her own was aversive to her. Julie indicated that she felt better when someone was working with her to complete her assignments. Also, reinforcement for task avoidance was being provided prior to the intervention via intermittent attention tor Julie's task avoidance behaviors (e.g., peers talking to her, her teacher conferencing with her in the hallway about why she was not completing her work). Based on the data following the functional assessment procedures. Method 2: Improve the Environ-

560

LANE et al.

ment was chosen. The components of Julie's intervention are outlined below. Intervention Component 1: Antecedents. At the beginning of center time, Julie's teacher explained each of three seatwork assignments to the class. To provide extra assistance to Julie, her teacher would provide an example for Julie at the top of each of her assignments. For example, if students had to complete a vocabulary assignment, her teacher would provide the answer for the first one, to ensure tbat Julie knew exactly what was expected with each assignment. Julie was also given a checklist, on which she would write down each of her assignments at the beginning of center time. To begin each assignment, Julie was taught to follow the example to complete her work. Following completion, she would rate herself on completion and accuracy. A peer assistant, a student in the class chosen by Julie's teacher, sat next to Julie, and was available if Julie had questions. After checking her own completed work, Julie would give her work to her peer assistant to check. After she and her peer checked her work, sbe would move on to the next assignment and follow the same steps. After checking each of her assignments, Julie would check in with her teacher and turn in her work. Intervention Component 2: Reinforcement. Julie gained peer attention and a brief break from work after she completed each assignment and had her peer check it. Her peer was taught to praise her when she had completed her assignment. Julie also gained reinforcement in the form of praise and attention when her teacher checked all 3 assignments. Intermittently throughout the week, Julie was asked to run a classroom errand after she had checked in with her teacher, contingent upon completion of all seatwork assignments. This component allowed Julie to receive a brief break contingent upon task completion. Intervention Component 3: Extinction. If Julie exhibited task avoidance, no attention was provided except a brief verbal redirection by her teacher, instructing her to finish her work. Julie was also no longer permitted to enter the cubbies area (a place Julie would often escape to during periods of seatwork) until all of her work was completed and turned in. Jntervention summary and training. Julie's intervention contained three components: antecedent adjustment, reinforcement for work completion, and extinction of task avoidance. Julie and her peer were trained together in the use of the intervention components. In the hallway, the liaison explained how Julie would use the checklist to write down her assignments and how her peer was going to help her keep everything organized during center time. The use of teacher-

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

561

provided examples was also explicitly taugbt and modeled to Julie and her peer. Following this training, Julie's peer was pulled into the hallway by himself and taught how to praise Julie for getting her assignments completed. Specific examples {and non-examples) of praise statements were modeled and discussed. Subsequent to this initial training, Julie and her peer were observed using the intervention in class during center time, as the liaison guided them through the steps and ensured understanding of all components. Training with Julie's teacher consisted of reviewing all parts of the intervention, as well as giving her examples of how she could provide an example for each assignment for Julie. She and the liaison also reviewed examples of praise statements and explicitly defined the extinction component of the intervention (e.g., no longer allowing Julie to escape to the cubbies when she had work to do, and providing no attention other than a brief verbal redirection when Julie avoided tasks). The liaison observed the teacher implement the plan and was available to answer questions.
Intervention Implementation: Classroom Procedures for JiiUe

Baseline phase. The baseline condition consisted of regular classroom practices during a 90 min time period in the morning. Students were given three seatwork assignments to complete independently while the teacher conducted reading groups. Students sat at their desks, in clusters of four students, and were expected to work quietly while they completed their work. Intervention phase. The initial phase was identical to the baseline phase in setting, physical arrangement, number of adults and students present, and tin^e period; students were given their seatwork assignments to complete independently while the teacber met with small reading groups. The intervention phase included a checklist given to Julie to complete with her three assignments and a peer to check her work after Julie checked eacb assignment herself. She would then have her teacher check eacb assignment, providing praise and attention for work completion. Julie was allowed a brief break from assignments during work checking periods with her peer. Task avoidance was extinguished by prohibiting Julie from going to the cubbies during seatwork and by giving only a simple verbal redirection when she displayed task avoidance.
Components Related to Valid Inference Making

Interventions for Marcus and JuHe both included core features necessary to draw accurate conclusions about intervention outcomes. These included: social validity, treatment fidelity, and generalization data (Lane & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004).

562

LANE et al.

Social zmliditi/. Both teachers completed the Intervention Rating Profile-15 (IRP-15; Witt & Elliott, 1985a), a 15-itcm questionnaire assessing the teacher's perceptions of the importance of the intervention for influencing behavioral change. Scores on the IRP-15 range from 15 to 90, where high scores indicate high social validity. Marcus and Julie completed an adapted version of the Children's Intervention Rating Profile (CIRP; Witt & Elliott, 1985b), a 7-item rating scale adapted to reflect more simplistic language. Items range from 7 to 42, where high scores indicated high validity. Both were completed before and after each intervention was implemented. Treatment fidelity. Treatment fidelity was collected weekly by both teachers and the liaison using a behavioral checklist that delineated intervention components. Each item was rated on a 3 point Likerttype scale (O=iiot ai all, l=part of the time; 2=all of the time). Percentage

of session fidelity was computed by summing the scores and dividing by the total number of points possible, then multiplying by 100. An overall fidelity percentage score was computed for each phase by averaging the session integrity scores collected during the given phase. The teacher and the liaison completed treatment fidelity forms once a week on randomly selected days. During baseline and withdrawal conditions, low scores indicated a high fidelity, and during intervention phases, high scores indicated high fidelity.
Generalization and maintenance. With any intervention, program-

ming for generalization and maintenance is critical. Both students practiced the intervention to fluency before participating independently, and extensive training following a direct instruction paradigm {teaching, modeling, guided practice, and independent practice) was completed to ensure that students knew exactly what replacement behavior was expected. Additionally, the nature of a self-monitoring intervention was intended to guide students toward fluency and generalization. Students who learn to self-monitor their own behaviors can internalize these strategies for use in other environments without the need for an adult to assist them (Rutherford, Quinn, & Mathur, 1996). For both students, utilizing a self-monitoring checklist prompted Julie to review her work before turning it in, and prompted Marcus to review his behavior at the end of each morning work session. Further, in Marcus's case, Marcus's teacher began by checking the checklist daily but then faded to checking at random two or three days per week, once Marcus was capable of honestly rating his own behavior.
Training of Teacher and Students in Intervention Procedures

Both Marcus and Julie's teachers participated in 6 hrs of training conducted by the primary investigator during the summer on the

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

563

principles of applied behavior analysis and how to implement a functional assessment-based intervention. They also each participated in the functional assessment process by working with the liaison (1 hr per week) to use the function matrix to determine the function, working through the decision model to identify the appropriate type of method, assist in designing the intervention procedures, implementing the intervention, and collecting treatment fidelity and student outcoine data. Emphasis was placed on data collection procedures, given that the teachers were the primary data collectors, and providing positive reinforcement contingent on the display of the target behavior. See student training procedures (e.g., explicit instruction) detailed in the summary sections above.
Experimental Design and Analysis

For both students, an A-B-A-B withdrawal design was employed, comparing baseline and intervention phases. Data analysis was conducted via visual inspection and computation of non-overlapping data points (PND; Kennedy, 2005). Intervention Outcomes
Marcus

During baseline, Marcus displayed non-engagement at an average of 55.00% of intervals, (see Figure 1). However, these data were variable with the percentage of intervals ranging fron:T 40-70% (SD = 10.00). Treatment fidelity data indicated that none of the intervention components were present during baseline data (0%). During intervention (B), non-engagement decreased to an average of 11.07% {SO = 10.98; range - 0 - 30%), showing a dramatic downward trend (slope ^ -4.46) over the course of the intervention. PND was 100% between baseline and the first intervention phase. Fidelity data per both the liaison and the teacher indicated that the intervention was implemented at a high level (100% by both raters). When the intervention was withdrawn, non-engagement increased again to an average of 19.10"/. {SD = 8.61; range 10-30% of intervals), with an upward trend (slope = 2.58). Both the teacher and liaison rated the fidelity during this phase at 0%; thus, there was no evidence of treatment contamination. Reinstating the intervention resulted in a decrease in non-engagement, with a mean of 5.00% {SD = 5.00; range = 0-107o). Both the teacher and liaison rated fidelity as high (100% by teacher and 83.33% by liaison). In brief, the intervention produced changes in Marcus's behavior which were contingent upon the presence of the intervention. Marcus

564

LANE et al.

Marcus's Non-engagernent 100 n 90Baseline (A) Treaiiiierii (B) Withdrawal (A) TreatiiK-mtB)

^ 70 E O) 60 n S 50-

I 405 302010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Probe

figure 1. Marcus's Non-engagetnent

Julio's Work toompkuon

BasclincIA)
reaiiiuTil (B) Withdrawal ( A ) Trcaiment (B]

4 -,

3 -

2-

1 -

1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 Probe

Figure 2. Julie's Work Completion

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

565

and his teacher rated the intervention favorably prior to and following intervention implementation (pre-intervention, IRP-15 = 85; CIRP - 38; post-intervention, IRP-15 = 75; CIRP - 42).
Julie

During baseline, Julie's work completion mean was .917 (range=.67 to 1.67; SD=.32), with fewer than two assignments completed each day (see Figure 2). When the intervention (B) was implemented, there was an immediate increase in Julie's work completion with the mean score increasing to 3.69 (range=3-4; SD=.4O), with 100% PND relative to baseline. The plan was implemented with 83.33% fidelity according to the liaison and 100% as measured by Julie's teacher. Reinforcement components were implemented with 100% fidelity from both perspectives. During withdrawal, Julie's work completion decreased to a level above the baseline mean, but below the intervention mean (M=1.83; SD=.73; range = 1-2.67). Fidelity data collected by the teacher and liaison indicated that there was no evidence of treatment contamination. When intervention was reinstated, work completion again increased immediately with mean of 3.92 (SD=.17; range = 3.67-4), with 100% PND relative to the baseline and withdrawal phases. The intervention was implemented with 100% fidelity according to both perspectives. Overall, the intervention resulted in significantly higher work completion and accuracy scores for Julie. Julie and her teacher also rated the intervention as socially valid both prior to and following intervention implementation (pre-intervention 1, IRP-15 = 87; CIRP = 39; post-intervention, IRP-15 - 72; CIRP - 41). Summary Results indicated that both interventions, which addressed different target behaviors and used different intervention methods, were successful. Namely, findings revealed a functional relation between the introduction of the intervention and the corresponding changes in student behavior. Further, both interventions were rated favorably by students and teachers. Discussion Function-based interventions designed, implemented, and evaluated with strong university support have been effective in addressing a broad scope of target behaviors, with a range of individuals, and in a variety of settings (Ervin et al., 1998; Kern et al., 2001; Umbreit et al., 2004). However, questions remain as to whether or not similar out-

566

LANE et al.

comes occur when teachers are responsible for the core components of the process. In this paper we explored the degree to which general education teachers were able to construct and implement functionbased interventions following a systematic approach, which involved teachers having primary responsibility for determining the behavioral function; designing and implementing the intervention; and collecting data. To address this objective, we featured two illustrations that addressed different target behaviors and used different intervention methods. Second, we examined social validity ratings to determine if teachers were comfortable with the goals, procedures, and outcomes in the intervention process in which they assumed primary responsibilities. In this model, teachers and liaisons participated in a collaborative approach in which teachers assumed a primary role in this standardized intervention process. Specifically, after completing a 6 hour professional development training, teachers participated in the following roles: (a) analyzed functional assessment data using the function matrix; (b) selected the appropriate intervention method using the decision model; (c) assisted in intervention design, (d) participated in training procedures with the students; (e) implemented the intervention; and (f) collected student outcomes and treatment fidelity data. This level of teacher involvement represents a marked departure from the studies currently constituting the literature base, which have university personnel as the primary persons identifying the function, determining intervention techniques, and assessing the fidelity of the dependent (student behavior) and independent (intervention implementation) variables. With the trend towards inclusive programming and the movement toward instituting RTI and PBS models in schools, we feel it is important to determine if teachers can assume this level of responsibility when supporting nonresponsive students in the general education setting (Gresham, 2002; Horner & Sugai, 2000; Fuchs et al., 1994). Results from this preliminary investigation suggest a functional relation between the introduction of the intervention and the corresponding changes in student behavior for both Marcus and Julie. For Julie and Marcus, their respective interventions were implemented with high fidelity from both the teacher and liaison perspectives. A clear functional relation was established between the introduction of the intervention and increased levels of work completion for Julie and decreased levels of non-engagement for Marcus, as evidenced by PND scores of 100%. Thus, in response to the first objective, findings suggest that teachers may be able to design, implement, and evaluate function-based interventions within the context of the general education classroom.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

567

Second, in most function-based intervention efforts conducted with students at risk for EBD, which generally tend to report moderate-to-high levels of social validity, the teacher is typically not the primary intervention agent (Lane, Umbreit, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 1999). We anticipated possible differences in social validity, relative to researcher-led interventions, given that the teachers had greater ownership of the process (by virtue of being the primary intervention agent and by investing the time in the summer training activities), and possibly higher expectations for success than if the intervention agent was an "outsider." Both teachers and their students rated the interventions favorably. However, findings are very preliminary given that these are but two representative illustrations. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the limitations discussed below.
Limitations and Future Directions

When interpreting findings from this preliminary study, we encourage the reader to consider the following limitations. First, the teachers in this study were both fully certified teachers who taught in an inclusive school district in rural middle Tennessee. Julie's teacher was a first year teacher; whereas Marcus's teacher was a veteran teacher. Further, in this district, there are no self-contained classes at the elementary level; all students with special education needs are served in the general education environment. Consequently, it is possible that these teachers were more amenable to participating in ideographic interventions relative to teachers working in schools that do not subscribe to an inclusive model. Prior to generalizing results of this study, replication is necessary to confirm this pattern of responding in other educational settings, with students with more severe behavioral concerns, and with teachers with varying years of teaching experience. Second, because both interventions occurred in the Spring semester of the 2005 school year, maintenance data were not collected. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which behaviors (e.g., work completion) maintained into the following school year or generalized into other instructional time blocks. However, neither Marcus nor Julie qualified for secondary level support from Project PREVENT at the onset of the following school year which suggests maintenance of effects for both students. Extensions of this line of inquiry are encouraged to collect both generalization and maintenance data to establish sustainability. Third, it should be noted that for Marcus there was a slight discrepancy in levels of implementation as reported by the liaison and teacher in the second intervention phase. In this study, the teacher and liaison were very similar in fidelity ratings; however, this is not

568

LANE et al.

often the case. Although a nominal discrepancy, this pattern is consistent with other research (Greshan^, Gansle, & Noell., 1993) that finds teacher ratings to be generally higher than those of an outside observer. Consequently, we recommend that future studies also assess treatment fidelity from multiple perspectives. Two strategies might be to address issues of social desirability during the training process and provide frequent feedback on implementation levels to promote continuity between perspectives (Wickstrom, Jones, LaFleur, & Witt, 1998). Although preliminary in nature, this study does provide initial evidence to suggest that general education teachers are able to design and implement function-based interventions, playing a key role in all stages of the systematic process. We encourage future investigators to continue this line of inquiry by examining (a) the feasibility and effectiveness of such an intervention approach when implemented in noninclusive environments and (b) the relationship between social validity and intervention outcomes. References Achenbach, T.M. (1991). The Child Behaznor Checklist: Manual for the teacher's report form. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. ]ournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97. Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, TR. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis, journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 313-327. Bijou, S.W., Peterson, R.F., & Ault, M.H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175-191. Drummond, T. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Grants Pass, OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program. Dunlap, C , Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K., White, R., & Falk, G. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275-291. Dunlap, C., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F.R. (1991). PreliminaryFunctionai Assessment Survey. Unpublished document. Division of Applied Research and Educational Services, University of South Florida, Tampa.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVFNTIONS

569

Ervin, R., DuPaul, G., Kern, L., & Friman, P. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assessments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65-78. Fuchs, D., & Fiichs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309. Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Daniels, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Gresham, F.M., Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G.H. (1993). Treatment fidelity in applied behavior analysis with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 257-263. Homer, R. H., &c Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support: (An emerging initiative special issue). Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 231-232. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G,, Clarke, S., & Falk, G.D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-19. Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (2001). Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using individualized curricular modifications. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 239-247. Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K.E. (1994). Student-assisted functional assessment interview. Diagtwstique, 19, 20-39. Lane, K.L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M.E. (2004). School-hascd interventions: The tools you need to succeed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Lane, K.L., Givner, C. C, & Pierson, M,R. (2004). Teacher expectations of student behavior: Social skills necessary for success in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Special Education, 35, 104-110.

570

LANE et al.

Lane, K.L., Thompson, A., Reske, C , Gable, L., & Barton-Arwood, S. (in press). Reducing skin picking via competing activities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Lane, K.L, Umbreit, J., Beebee-Frankenberger, M.E. (1999). Functional assessment research on students with or at risk for EBD: 1990 to the present. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 1, 101-

m.
Lane, K.L., Wehby, J.H., Phillips, A., Wcissenbach, ]., & Little, M.A. (in preparation). The utility of academic and behavioral interventions in preventing learning and behavior problems. Lewis, T, & Sugai, G. (1996). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investigation on the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer social attention on students in general education settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 1-19. Rutherford, R.B., Quiiin, M. M., &L Mathur, S.R. (1996). Ejfcctive strategies for teachi}ig appropriate behaviors to children with emotional/ behavioral disorders. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Umbreit, J. (1996). Functional analysis of disruptive behavior in an inclusive classroom, journal of Early Intervention, 20, 18-29. Umbreit, J., & Blair, K.S. (1997). Using structural analysis to facilitate treatment of aggression and noncompliance in a young child at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 7586. Umbreit, J., Lane, K.L., & Dejud, C. (2004). Improving classroom behavior by modifying task difficulty: Effects of increasing the difficulty of too easy tasks. Journal of Positive Behavior Support, 6, 13-20. Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C , & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Walker, H.M., Irvin, L.K., Noell, J., & Singer, G.H. (1992). A constructive score approach to the assessment of social competence; Rationale, technological considerations, and anticipated outcomes. Behavior Modification, 16, 448-474. Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders: Technical Manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West, Inc. Wickstrom, K., Jones, K., LaFleur, L., & Witt, J. (1998). An analysis of treatment fidelity in school-based behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 141-154.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS

571

Witt, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1985a). Intervention rating profile-15. Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In Kratochwill, T. R. (Ed.). Advances in school psychology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 251-288. Witt, J.C, & Elliott, S.N. (1985b). Children's intervention rating profile. Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In Kratochwill, T. R. (Ed.). Advances in school psychology, Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 251-288.

Copyright of Education & Treatment of Children (West Virginia University Press) is the property of West Virginia University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.