Download Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions: WWC Intervention Reports and more Slides Functional Analysis in PDF only on Docsity!
What Works Clearinghouse™ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WWC Intervention Report
A summary of findings from a systematic review of the evidence
Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance December 2016
Functional Behavioral
Assessment-based
Interventions
Intervention Description^1
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is an individualized prob- lem-solving process for addressing student problem behavior. An assessment is conducted to identify the purpose or function of a student’s problem behavior. This assessment process involves col- lecting information about the environmental conditions that precede the problem behavior and the subsequent rewards that reinforce the behavior. The information that is gathered is then used to identify and implement individualized interventions aimed at reducing problem behaviors and increasing positive behaviors. Accordingly, the studies evaluating FBA examine different FBA-based interventions identified for each student. FBA-based interventions can be used to address diverse problem behaviors, such as disruptive and off-task behaviors, noncompliance, and inappropriate social interactions.
Research^2
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 17 studies of FBA- based interventions that both fall within the scope of the Children Identi- fied With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance topic area and meet WWC pilot single-case design standards. No studies meet WWC group design standards. Seven studies meet pilot single-case design standards without reservations, and 10 studies meet pilot single-case design stan- dards with reservations. Together, these single-case design studies included 39 children between 5 and 18 years old who are identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance.^3
Report Contents
Overview p. 1 Intervention Information p. 3 Research Summary p. 4 Effectiveness Summary p. 5 References p. 6 Research Details for Each Study p. 30 Outcome Measures for Each Domain p. 55 Findings Included in the Rating for Each Outcome Domain p. 58 Single-Case Design Findings in a Domain Not Included in the Effectiveness Rating p. 63 Endnotes p. 66 Rating Criteria p. 68 Glossary of Terms p. 70
This intervention report presents findings from a systematic review of functional behavioral assessment-based interventions conducted using the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, version 3.0, and the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance review protocol, version 3.0.
Threshold to include single-case design evidence in WWC effectiveness ratings
All single-case design experiments presented in the same research article are characterized as one study. Results from single- case design studies contribute to the WWC effectiveness rating for an outcome domain only if the studies with outcomes in that domain meet a set of threshold criteria, reflecting replication across different studies, research teams, and cases. Specifically, these criteria are: (1) at least five studies that examine the intervention must meet WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations or meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations, and (2) the single-case design studies must be conducted by at least three different research teams with no overlapping authorship at three different institutions, and (3) the combined number of cases (i.e., participants, classrooms) must total at least 20. For more information, please refer to the Pilot Single-Case Design standards in Appendix E of the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 3.0)
The results from single-case design studies only affect the WWC effectiveness rating for an outcome domain if the studies with outcomes in that domain collectively meet a set of threshold criteria. (See the box above for the ratio- nale behind this threshold and a description of the criteria.) The evidence from single-case design studies of FBA-based interventions on children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance reaches the required threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for two outcome domain(s)—school engagement and problem behavior. The evidence from the single-case design studies for FBA-based interventions does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for one outcome domain—social-emotional competence.^4 There were no studies that meet standards in the 13 other domains, so this intervention report does not report on the effectiveness of FBA-based interventions for those domains.^5 (See the Effectiveness Summary on p. 5 for further description of all domains.)
Effectiveness
FBA-based interventions were found to have potentially positive effects on school engagement and potentially positive effects on problem behavior for children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance based on evidence from single-case design studies. The evidence from the single-case design studies for FBA-based inter- ventions does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for the social-emotional competence domain.
Table 1. Summary of findings from single-case design studies 6
Outcome domain
Number of studies
Number of research teams
Number of casesa
Rating of effectiveness
Percentage of SCD experiments demonstrating a positive effect (#)
Percentage of SCD experiments demonstrating a negative effect (#) School engagement 15 7 32 Potentially positive effects
Problem behavior 8 5 21 Potentially positive effects
Social-emotional competence
3 2 4 na na na
Table Notes: In single-case design research, a case, such as a student or classroom, is the unit of intervention administration and data analysis. An experiment is the examination of a single outcome measure repeatedly within and across different phases defined by the presence or absence of the intervention. There may be multiple experiments for a case if more than one outcome is examined, for example. All experiments within a research article comprise one single-case design study. For the social-emotional competence domain, the rating of effectiveness and percentage of single-case design experiments demonstrating a positive and negative effect are not applicable (na) because the studies with out- comes in this domain do not meet the threshold criteria to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings. SCD = single-case design. a (^) In this intervention report, each case was a single student as opposed to a group of students, such as a classroom.
Research Summary
The WWC identified no eligible group design studies and 34 eligible single-case design studies that investigated the effects of FBA-based interventions on children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance. An additional 293 studies were identified but do not meet WWC eligibility criteria for review in this topic area. Citations for all 327 studies are in the References section, which begins on p. 6. The WWC reviewed the 34 single-case design studies against pilot single-case design standards. Seven studies meet pilot single-case design standards without reservations, and 10 studies meet pilot single-case design stan- dards with reservations. Those 17 studies are summarized in this report. The remaining 17 studies do not meet pilot single-case design standards. Sixteen of the 17 studies that meet pilot single-case design standards with or without reservations have at least one outcome in a domain that reaches the threshold for including single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings. Details on these studies are described in Appendices A–C. The remaining study that meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with or without reservations only has outcomes in a domain that does not reach the threshold for including single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings in this report; more details on this study can be found in Appendix D.^12
Table 2. Scope of reviewed research Grades K– Delivery method Individual Intervention type Practice
Summary of studies meeting WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations
Seven studies have experiments that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations.^13 These experiments investigated the effects of FBA-based interventions on school engagement, problem behavior, and social-emotional competence outcomes. The experiments included children identified with or at risk for an emo- tional disturbance, ranging in age from 7 to 14 years old. Different FBA-based interventions were identified for each student and included approaches such as student self-monitoring, modifications to the proximity of peers and teachers, peer support, teacher attention, and modifications to assignments. Details on these studies are described in Appendices A–D.
Summary of studies meeting WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations
Ten studies have experiments that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. These experi- ments investigated the effects of FBA-based interventions on school engagement, problem behavior, and social- emotional competence outcomes. The experiments included children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance, ranging in age from 5 to 17 years old. Different FBA-based interventions were identified for each student, and included approaches such as teacher attention, modifications to the proximity of peers and teachers, reinforcement, and curricular modifications. Details on these studies are described in Appendices A–D.
Effectiveness Summary
The WWC review of FBA-based interventions for the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance topic area includes student outcomes in 16 domains: alphabetics, communication/language competencies, com- munity, general reading achievement, math achievement, problem behavior, reading comprehension, reading fluency, school engagement, science achievement, self-care/daily living, self-determination, social-emotional competence, social studies achievement, vocational/occupational, and writing achievement. The 17 studies of FBA-based interventions that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards reported findings in three of the 16 domains: (a) school engagement, (b) problem behavior, and (c) social-emotional competence. Effec- tiveness ratings of FBA-based interventions on children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance are presented for two of the three domains (school engagement and problem behavior). The findings from the social- emotional competence domain do not meet the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings in this report.^12 For a more detailed description of the rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies and extent of evidence criteria, see the WWC Rating Criteria on p. 67. In each of these studies, FBA was used by researchers and school staff to identify the function of at least one stu- dent’s problem behavior and select an intervention for each child. Accordingly, the FBA-based interventions for each student did vary.
Summary of effectiveness for the school engagement domain
Table 3. Rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies for the school engagement domain
Rating of effectiveness Criteria met Potentially positive effects Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
Across the 34 single-case design experiments for the school engagement domain, 25 experiments (74%) documented a positive effect and 0 experiments documented a negative effect.
Fifteen studies that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with or without reservations reported findings in the school engagement domain. Author-reported findings for each study are reported in Appendix A. The results of the WWC’s visual analysis of each single-case design experiment are reported in Appendix C. Across the 34 single-case design experiments, 25 experiments (74%) documented a positive effect, and no single-case design experiments documented a negative effect. This results in a rating of potentially positive effects for the school engagement domain.
Summary of effectiveness for the problem behavior domain
Table 4. Rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies for the problem behavior domain
Rating of effectiveness Criteria met Potentially positive effects Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
Across the 25 single-case design experiments for the problem behavior domain, 17 experiments (68%) documented a positive effect and 0 experiments documented a negative effect.
Eight studies that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with or without reservations reported findings in the problem behavior domain. Author-reported findings for each study are reported in Appendix A. The results of the WWC’s visual analysis of each single-case design experiment are reported in Appendix C. Across the 25 single-case design experiments, 17 experiments (68%) documented a positive effect, and no single-case design experiments documented a negative effect. This results in a rating of potentially positive effects for the problem behavior domain.
Janney, D. M., Umbreit, J., Ferro, J. B., Liaupsin, C. J., & Lane, K. L. (2013). The effect of the extinction pro- cedure in function-based intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(2), 113–123. doi:10.1177/ Additional source: Janney, D. M. (2009). A component analysis of function-based intervention: the role of the extinction pro- cedure. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
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(4), 239–247. Kern, L., Starosta, K. M., Bambara, L. M., Cook, C. R., & Gresham, F. R. (2007). Functional assessment-based inter- vention for selective mutism. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2), 94–108. Mustian, A. L. (2011). The comparative effects of function-based versus nonfunction-based interventions on the social behavior of African American students. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 757196704) Nahgahgwon, K. N., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C. J., & Turton, A. M. (2010). Function-based planning for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(4), 537–559.
Studies that do not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards^14
Adams, P. N. (1997). Utilizing behavioral diagnostics to reduce disruptive behavior in public school settings with children and adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58(7-B), 3913. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements. Barreras, R. B. (2008). An experimental analysis of the treatment validity of the social skills deficit model for at-risk adolescents. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3332602) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demon- strate an intervention effect. Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 387–397. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Dwyer, K., Rozewski, D., & Simonsen, B. (2012). A comparison of function-based replacement behaviors for escape-motivated students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 115–125. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention. Ellis, J., & Magee, S. K. (1999). Determination of environmental correlates of disruptive classroom behavior: Integra- tion of functional analysis into public school assessment process. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(3), 291–316. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. C. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assess- ments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity dis- order. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(1), 65–78. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements. Glenn, J. H., & Waller, R. J. (2007). Reducing irresponsible talking out during class in a 7th grade student with an emotional/behavioral disorder. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(6), 2. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect.
Gunter, P. L., Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., Carrell, D. E., & Flowers, J. (1993). Lag sequential analysis as a tool for func- tional analysis of student disruptive behavior in classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1 (3), 138–148. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements. Kamps, D., Wendland, M., & Culpepper, M. (2006). Active teacher participation in functional behavior assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders risks in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disor- ders, 31(2), 128–146. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Kamps, D. M., Ellis, C., Mancina, C., Wyble, J., Greene, L., & Harvey, D. (1995). Case studies using functional analysis for young children with behavior risks. Education and Treatment of Children, 18(3), 243–260. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. McCann Sawyer, L. (2003). Linking functional behavioral assessment and self-monitoring to facilitate the inclusion of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University). The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demon- strate an intervention effect. Sams, S. E. (1999). The effects of functional intervention on the behavior of four students labeled ADHD. Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 60(04A), 107-1081. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Stage, S. A., Jackson, H. G., Moscovitz, K., Erickson, M. J., Thurman, S. O., Jessee, W., & Olson, E. M. (2006). Using multimethod-multisource functional behavioral assessment for students with behavioral disabilities. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 451–471. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Starosta, K. M. (2010). A comparison of functional assessment- and non-functional assessment-based interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data- base. (UMI No. 3404118) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Waller, R. J., Albertini, C. L., & Waller, K. S. (2011). Self-monitoring of performance to promote accurate work completion: A functional based intervention for a 4th grade student presenting challenging behavior. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 4(1), 52–60. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements. Watson, T. S., Dufrene, B., Weaver, A., Butler, T., & Meeks, C. (2005). Brief antecedent assessment and treatment of tics in the general education classroom: A preliminary investigation. Behavior Modification, 29(6), 839–857. doi:10.1177/0145445505279252 The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insuf- ficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Wright-Gallo, G. L., Higbee, T. S., Reagon, K. A., & Davey, B. J. (2006). Classroom-based functional analysis and intervention for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(3), 421–434. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect.
Studies that are ineligible for review using the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance Evidence Review Protocol
Anderson, C. M. (2000). Linking functional assessment with diagnostic classification: Development of functional assessment methodology. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61 (3-B), 1623. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol.
Bergstrom, M. K. (2003). Efficacy of school-based teams conducting functional behavioral assessment in the gen- eral education environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06A), 139-1968. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Biniker, K. L., & Pindiprolu, S. S. (2008). Functional assessment based intervention plans in alternative educational settings in the USA: A case study. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 9(1), 68–77. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Blair, K. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of positive behavior support to address the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30 (2), 68–79. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Blair, K. C., Lee, I., Cho, S., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Positive behavior support through family–school col- laboration for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(1), 22–36. doi:10.1177/0271121410377510 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C. S. (1999). Using functional assessment and children’s preferences to improve the behavior of young children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24(2), 151–166. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Educa- tion and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 67–80. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher-conducted trial-based functional analyses as the basis for intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 208–218. doi:10.1002/jaba.21 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly III, E. J., Ervin, R. A., & Ward, P. (2002). Facilitating teacher inquiry through data-based behav- ioral consultation and functional assessment in a special education classroom. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 21(4), 31–39. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Boyajian, A. E., DuPaul, G. J., Handler, M. W., Eckert, T. L., & McGoey, K. E. (2001). The use of classroom-based brief functional analyses with preschoolers at-risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychol- ogy Review, 30(2), 278–293. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Briere III, D. E., & Simonsen, B. (2011). Self-monitoring interventions for at-risk middle school students: The impor- tance of considering function. Behavioral Disorders, 36(2), 129–140. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J. (1995). An approach to functional assessment and analysis of disruptive behavior in regular education classrooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 10(2), 151–164. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J. (1997). The use of functional analysis to develop peer interventions for disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 65–76. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Brownell, K. (1995). Functional assessment and analysis of behavior as a process for identifying an appropri- ate intervention for the challenging behavior of a preschool child. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Department of Special Education). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Burke, M. D. (2001). An examination of function-based instructional and antecedent interventions for elementary students with escape-maintained problem behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08A), 200-2725. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
Butler, L. R., & Luiselli, J. K. (2007). Escape-maintained problem behavior in a child with autism: Antecedent func- tional analysis and intervention evaluation of noncontingent escape and instructional fading. Journal of Posi- tive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 195–202. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Calderhead, W. J. (2003). Effects of interspersed math problems on the task engagement of middle school stu- dents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(11A), 86-4008. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Cameron, M. (2006). Managing school discipline and implications for school social workers: A review of the literature. Children & Schools, 28(4), 219–227. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Campbell, A., & Tincani, M. (2011). The Power Card strategy: Strength-based intervention to increase direction fol- lowing of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 240–249. doi:10.1177/1098300711400608 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Carter, D. R., & Horner, R. H. (2007). Adding functional behavioral assessment to First Step to Success: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 229–238. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Additional source: Carter, D. R., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Adding function-based behavioral support to First Step to Success: Inte- grating individualized and manualized practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(1), 22–34. doi:10.1177/ Cautilli, J., Harrington, N., Gillam, E. V., Denning, J., Helwig, I., Ettingoff, A., ... Angert, A. (2004). Do children with multiple patterns of problem behavior improve? The effectiveness of an intensive bio-behaviorally oriented school-based behavioral health program. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 1(1), 74–93. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ848680.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Chait, A. M. (2003). Comparison of descriptive functional assessment instruments to experimental functional analy- ses for children with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63 (9-B), 4354. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Chen, P. (2005). The use of functional analysis to test the accuracy of teachers’ hypothesized behavior functions based on differing amounts of information (Master’s thesis, University of Washington). The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Chitiyo, M. S. (2005). Functional/structural analysis: A brief review of functional assessment studies conducted with people with challenging behaviours. International Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 102–110. http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ846939.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Choi, H. (2000). The effects of functional assessment and treatment on problem behaviors of one student with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11A), 169-4336. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Chorpita, B. F., Albano, A. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). A systematic replication of the prescriptive treatment of school refusal behavior in a single subject. Journal of Behavior Therapy an Experimental Psychia- try, 27, 281–290. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Cihak, D., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2007). Use of brief functional analysis and intervention evaluation in pub- lic settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(2), 80–93. The study is ineligible for review it does not use an eligible design. Cipani, E. (2002). An historical view of the clinical and research base of functional analysis. Teacher Educator, 37(4), 231–253. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design.
Dufrene, B. A., Harpole, L. L., Sterling, H. E., Perry, E. J., Burton, B., & Zoder-Martell, K. (2013). Functional analysis identified habit reversal components for the treatment of motor tics. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 35(1), 41–62. doi:10.1080/07317107.2013.761036 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Dukes, C., Rosenberg, H., & Brady, M. (2008). Effects of training in functional behavior assessment. International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 163–173. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ814386.pdf. The study is ineli- gible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (2011). Function-based interventions for children with challenging behavior. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 333–343. doi:10.1177/1053815111429971 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Dykeman, B. F. (2009). Response to intervention: The functional assessment of children returning to school with traumatic brain injury. Education, 130(2), 295–300. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Emerson, E., Reeves, D., Thompson, S., Henderson, D., Robertson, J., & Howard, D. (1996). Time-based lag sequential analysis and the functional assessment of challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disabil- ity Research, 40, 260–274. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. ERIC/OSEP Special Project on Interagency Information Dissemination. (1999). Positive behavioral support. Research Connections in Special Education, 4, 1–9. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Ervin, R. A., Kern, L., Clarke, S., DuPaul, G. J., Dunlap, G., & Friman, P. C. (2000). Evaluating assessment-based intervention strategies for students with ADHD and comorbid disorders within the natural classroom con- text. Behavioral Disorders, 25(4), 344–358. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Ervin, R. A., Radford, P. M., Bertsch, K., Piper, A. L., Ehrhardt, K. E., & Poling, A. (2001). A descriptive analysis and critique of the empirical literature on school-based functional assessment. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 193–210. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Eschenauer, R., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2005). The transformative individual school counseling model: An accountabil- ity model for urban school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 8(3), 244–248. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Farmer, T. W., & Xie, H. (2007). Aggression and school social dynamics: The good, the bad, and the ordinary. Journal of School Psychology, 45(5), 461–478. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.008 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Feeney, T. J. (2010). Structured flexibility: The use of context-sensitive self-regulatory scripts to support young persons with acquired brain injury and behavioral difficulties. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 25(6), 416–425. doi:10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181fbc0a2 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Fettig, A., Schultz, T. R., & Sreckovic, M. A. (2015). Effects of coaching on the implementation of functional assess- ment-based parent intervention in reducing challenging behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17 (3), 170–180. doi:10.1177/1098300714564164 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Filter, K., & Horner, R. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 32, 1-19. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Fisher, W. W., Rodriguez, N. M., & Owen, T. M. (2013). Functional assessment and treatment of perseverative speech about restricted topics in an adolescent with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 46(1), 307–311. doi:10.1002/jaba.19 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Flick, G. L. (2011). Understanding and managing emotional and behavior disorders in the classroom. Boston, MA: Pearson. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Floyd, R. G., Phaneuf, R. L., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2005). Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: A review of research. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 58–73. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Fox, J. (1998). Functional behavioral assessment and technical assistance in applied settings. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 43(1), 4–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Fox, J. J., & Conroy, M. A. (2000). FBA for children and youth with emotional-behavioral disorders: Where we should go in the twenty-first century. Preventing School Failure, 44(4), 140–141. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Gable, R. A., Butler, C. J., Walker-Bolton, I., Tonelson, S. W., Quinn, M. M., & Fox, J. J. (2003). Safe and effective schooling for all students: Putting into practice the disciplinary provisions of the 1997 IDEA. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 74–78. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Gable, R. A., & Hendrickson, J. M. (2000). Strategies for maintaining positive behavior change stemming from func- tional behavioral assessment in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(3), 286–297. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Gage, N. A., Lewis, T. J., & Stichter, J. P. (2012). Functional behavioral assessment-based interventions for students with or at risk for emotional and/or behavioral disorders in school: A hierarchical linear modeling meta-analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2), 55–77. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Gale, C. M., Eikeseth, S., & Rudrud, E. (2011). Functional assessment and behavioural intervention for eating dif- ficulties in children with autism: A study conducted in the natural environment using parents and ABA tutors as therapists. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(10), 1383–1396. doi:10.1007/s10803-010- 1167-8 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Gann, C. J., Ferro, J. B., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2014). Effects of a comprehensive function-based inter- vention applied across multiple educational settings. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 50–60. doi:10.1177/0741932513501088 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Garbutt, N., & Furniss, F. (2007). Context sampling descriptive assessment: A pilot study of a further approach to func- tional assessment. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(2), 127–130. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 3148.2006.00317.x The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Goh, A. E., & Bambara, L. M. (2012). Individualized positive behavior support in school settings: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 271–286. doi:10.1177/0741932510383990 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Gomi, Y., & Noro, F. (2010). Function-based interventions for behavior problems of a student with a developmental disability: School-based treatment implementation. The Japanese Journal of Special Education, 47(6), 457–
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Goodman, S. D. (1999). Improving special education teachers’ use of data-based instruction (academic perfor- mance). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06B), 168-2930. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Grandy, S. E., & Peck, S. M. (1997). The use of functional assessment and self-management with a first-grader. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 19(2), 29–43. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Grant, S. H., & Van Acker, R. (2002). The challenges of gangs and youth violence in the schools. Fourth CCBD mini- library series: Addressing the diverse needs of children and youth with emotional/behavioral disorders—programs
Hoff, K. E., Ervin, R. A., & Friman, P. C. (2005). Refining functional behavioral assessment: Analyzing the separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during ongoing classroom routines. School Psy- chology Review, 34(1), 45–57. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen, H. G., Green, G., & Stanislaw, H. (2005). A comparison of intensive behav- ior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(4), 359–383. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Hughes, M. A. (2003). Self-operated auditory prompting systems with verbal prompt matched to function for the reduction of behavior in public community settings for students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Dis- sertation Abstracts International, 64(06A), 98-2042. (AAI3095174) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Hughes, M. A., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. L. (2006). Self-operated auditory prompting systems as a function- based intervention in public community settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(4), 230–243. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Humphreys, T. G. (2003). The effectiveness of a multi-gated teacher questionnaire in developing a functional hypothesis for problem behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University). The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Humphries, M. L., & Keenan, K. E. (2006). Theoretical, developmental & cultural orientations of school-based pre- vention programs for preschoolers. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9(2), 135–148. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7 (4), 224–236. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Johnson, J. C. (2007). An investigation of the perceptions of special education teachers concerning their role in writing and implementing the functional behavioral assessment process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68 (07A), 125-2895. (AAI3274694) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Johnston, S. S., & O’Neill, R. E. (2001). Searching for effectiveness and efficiency in conducting functional assessments: A review and proposed process for teachers and other practitioners. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(4), 205–214. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Jones, A. S. (2008). Effects of positive behavior support training on children’s maladaptive behavior, parenting skills, and parental support of families with children with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young Univer- sity). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Jordan, N., Leon, S. C., Epstein, R. A., Durkin, E., Helgerson, J., & Lakin-Starr, B. L. (2009). Effect of organizational climate on youth outcomes in residential treatment. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 26(3), 194–
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Kant, A. R., & March, R. E. (2004). Effective strategies for addressing challenging behavior in schools. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 1(3), 3–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kates-McElrath, K., Agnew, M., Axelrod, S., & Bloh, C. L. (2007). Identification of behavioral function in public schools and a clarification of terms. Behavioral Interventions, 22(1), 47–56. doi:10.1002/bin.230 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Katsiyannis, A., Conroy, M., & Zhang, D. (2008). District-level administrators’ perspectives on the implementation of functional behavior assessment in schools. Behavioral Disorders, 34(1), 14–26. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1990). A preliminary analysis of a functional model of assessment and treatment for school refusal behavior. Behavior Modification, 14(3), 340–366. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design.
Kemler, S. C. (2007). Training high school staff on functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and behavioral interven- tion plans (BIPs). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(10A), 211-4254. (AAI3287777) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kern, L., Gallagher, P., Starosta, K., Hickman, W., & George, M. (2006). Longitudinal outcomes of functional behav- ioral assessment-based intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(2), 67–78. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kern, L., Hilt, A. M., & Gresham, F. (2004). An evaluation of the functional behavioral assessment process used with students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 440–452. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kircher, K. L. S. (2009). Functional behavioral assessment in schools: Teacher knowledge, perspectives, and dis- cipline referral practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(04A), 280-1242. (AAI3354430) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kirk, J. F. (2009). A comparison of traditional and function-based token systems. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(12-A), 4686. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Clements, A., Paden, A. R., & Dickes, N. R. (2011). Functional assessment of instructional variables: Linking assessment and treatment. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1059–1077. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kurtz, P. F., Chin, M. D., Rush, K. S., & Dixon, D. R. (2008). Treatment of challenging behavior exhibited by chil- dren with prenatal drug exposure. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(6), 582–594. doi:10.1016/j. ridd.2007.05.007 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lalli, J. S., Casey, S. D., & Kates, K. (1997). Noncontingent reinforcement as treatment for severe problem behavior: Some procedural variations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 127–137. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Lane, K. L., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Spencer, J. L., & Kalberg, J. R. (2007). Teaching elementary school educators to design, implement, and evaluate functional assessment-based interventions: Successes and challenges. Preventing School Failure, 51(4), 35–46. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Lane, K. L., Eisner, S. L., Kretzer, J., Bruhn, A. L., Crnobori, M., Funke, L., … Casey, A. (2009). Outcomes of func- tional assessment-based interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in a job-share setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 573–604. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Shepcaro, J. C. (2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based inter- ventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Excep- tional Children, 75(3), 321–340. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lane, K. L., Smither, R., Huseman, R., Guffey, J., & Fox, J. (2007). A function-based intervention to decrease disrup- tive behavior and increase academic engagement. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3-4(4- 1), 348–364. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ805537.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Lane, K. L., Umbreit, J., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (1999). A review of functional assessment research with stu- dents with or at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1, 101–111. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Little, M. A., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. (2006). Illustrations of function-based interven- tions implemented by general education teachers: Building capacity at the school site. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 29(4), 549–571. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lang, R., Davis, T., O’Reilly, M., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., Sigafoos, J., … Regester, A. (2010). Functional analysis and treatment of elopement across two school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 113–118.
Losinski, M., Maag, J. W., Katsiyannis, A., & Ennis, R. P. (2014). Examining the effects and quality of interventions based on the assessment of contextual variables: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 407–422. doi:10.1177/0014402914527243 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Luiselli, J. K. (1996). Functional assessment and treatment of aggressive and destructive behaviors in a child victim of physical abuse. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27(1), 41–49. The study is ineli- gible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. MacDonald, J. M., Ahearn, W. H., Parry-Cruwys, D., Bancroft, S., & Dube, W. V. (2013). Persistence during extinc- tion: Examining the effects of continuous and intermittent reinforcement on problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 333–338. doi:10.1002/jaba.3 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Machalicek, W., O’Reilly, M., Chan, J. M., Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Davis, T., … Didden, R. (2009). Using videocon- ferencing to conduct functional analysis of challenging behavior and develop classroom behavioral support plans for students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(2), 207–217. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Machalicek, W., O’Reilly, M. F., Beretvas, N., Sigafoos, J., & Lancioni, G. E. (2007). A review of interventions to reduce challenging behavior in school settings for students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(3), 229–246. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. March, R. E. (1998). The effects of functional assessment strategies with middle school students who display chronic antisocial behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(02A), 161-389. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. March, R. E., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Feasibility and contributions of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 158–170. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Maynard, B. R., Tyson-McCrea, K., Pigott, T., & Kelly, M. (2011). A systematic review and meta-analysis of indicated interventions to increase school attendance. Evanstone, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effective- ness. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519156.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McCahill, J., Healy, O., Lydon, S., & Ramey, D. (2014). Training educational staff in functional behavioral assess- ment: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26(4), 479–505. doi:10.1007/ s10882-014-9378-0 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McComas, J. J., Hoch, H., & Mace, F. C. (2000). Functional analysis. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Conducting school-based assessments of child and adolescent behavior (pp. 78–120). New York, NY: Guilford Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. McConnell, M. E., Hilvitz, P. B., & Cox, C. J. (1998). Functional assessment: A systematic process for assessment and intervention in general and special education classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(1), 10–20. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. McDougal, J., & Hiralall, A. S. (1998, April). Bridging research into practice to intervene with young aggressive stu- dents in the public school setting: Evaluation of the behavior consultation team (BCT) project. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL. http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED421681.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McDougal, J. L., Nastasi, B. K., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2005). Bringing research into practice to intervene with young behaviorally challenging students in public school settings: Evaluation of the behavior consultation team (BCT) project. Psychology in the Schools, 42(5), 537–551. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McGarrell, M., Healy, O., Leader, G., O’Connor, J., & Kenny, N. (2009). Six reports of children with autism spectrum disorder following intensive behavioral intervention using the preschool inventory of repertoires for kinder-
garten (PIRK[R]). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(3), 767–782. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, A. S. (2003). An analysis of early career California special education teachers’ views on functional behavioral assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03A), 96-859. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K. (2005). Academic, behavioral, and functional predictors of chronic problem behavior in elementary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(07A), 117-2493. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K. (2006). Academic, behavioral, and functional predictors of chronic problem behavior in elementary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 66(7-A), 2493. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K., Borgmeier, C., Anderson, C. M., Horner, R. H., Rodriguez, B. J., & Tobin, T. J. (2008). Technical ade- quacy of the Functional Assessment Checklist: Teachers and Staff (FACTS) FBA interview measure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(1), 33–45. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function of prob- lem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 131–147. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Mcloughlin, C. S. (2010). An exploratory case-study research report incorporating service learning. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 53–64. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893712.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Meyer, E. A., Hagopian, L. P., & Paclawskyj, T. R. (1999). A function-based treatment for school refusal behavior using shaping and fading. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(6), 401–410. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Meyer, K. A. (1996). The functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by children in elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(08A), 114-3393. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Meyer, K. A. (1999). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(2), 229–232. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Miller, J. H. (2005). Disruption in the preschool classroom: A functional assessment based approach (Doctoral dis- sertation, Vanderbilt University). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., & Kumar, K. (2005). Instructional adaptation in the management of escape-maintained behavior in a classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 216–223. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Moore, T. R., Tervo, R. C., McComas, J. J., Rivard, P. F., & Symons, F. J. (2009). Longitudinal functional analysis of problem behavior during an atypical neuroleptic medication cross-over evaluation for an adolescent with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 105–119. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Moreno, G. (2011). Addressing challenging behaviours in the general education setting: Conducting a teacher- based functional behavioural assessment (FBA). Education, 3-13, 39(4), 363–371. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Moreno, G., Wong-Lo, M., & Bullock, L. M. (2014). Assisting students from diverse backgrounds with challenging behaviors: Incorporating a culturally attuned functional behavioral assessment in prereferral services. Prevent- ing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(1), 58–68. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
