|
| Positive Program Evaluation Outcomes at the National, State, and Local Level |
| Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Back Bay A |
| Area: DDA/CSE; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Jennifer R. Zarcone (University of Kansas) |
| Discussant: Alan E. Harchik (May Institute) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
To evaluate the effects of trainers taught through a nationwide or statewide training program in Positive Behavior Support.
To understand how a hypothesis regarding behavioral function developed using direct observation and indirect measures compares to an analog functional analysis.
To understand how improving training behavior has subsequent positive effects on consumer behavior. |
| |
| Normative- and Competency-Based Means of Evaluating Staff Training in Positive Behavior Support |
| MARSHA B. PARSONS (Carolina Behavior Analysis and Support Center), Dennis H. Reid (Carolina Behavior Analysis and Support Center), Carolyn W. Green (Carolina Behavior Analysis and Support Center), David A. Rotholz (University of South Carolina) |
| Abstract: Two examples of how staff training in positive behavior support can be evaluated using normative- and competency-based measures are provided. In the first example, normative measures of functional activity involvement of adults with severe disabilities in day-treatment settings were used to provide evaluative standards for training staff in two adult education classrooms to improve the activity involvement of their students. The normative standards were based on observations in 100 day-treatment sites around the United States. Baseline observations indicated student activity involvement was below the normative average in both classrooms. Following staff training, activity involvement increased in both classrooms to above the normative average. In the second example, competency standards for proficiency in teaching individuals with severe disabilities were established that demonstrated a proficiency level of 80% correct teaching as sufficient to allow for student learning. Subsequently, those standards were used to evaluate training of over 700 staff how to teach people with severe disabilities. Results of the two examples are discussed regarding the advantages of using normative- and competency-based standards to evaluate staff training programs relative to more traditional training endeavors. |
| |
| Program Evaluation of a Statewide Training Program for Individuals with Disabilities using Positive Behavior Support |
| RACHEL L. FREEMAN (University of Kansas), Katie Hine (Parsons State Hospital and Training Center), Jennifer R. Zarcone (University of Kansas), Christopher Smith (University of Kansas), Donna Wickham (University of Kansas), Pat Kidwell (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: Evaluation research will be presented from the Kansas Institute for Positive Behavior Support state-wide training project. Data were collected from thirteen professionals in the field of developmental disabilities over a one year training period. Professionals participated in online instruction, onsite classes, and completed portfolios containing: person-centered plans (PCP), positive behavior support (PBS) plans, and systems change demonstrations. The following pre and post training outcome measures were collected: fidelity measures of PBS and PCP plans, baseline/intervention data on individual subjects, and team contextual fit and satisfaction surveys. Hierarchical linear analyses were used to evaluate the critical features of the training related to portfolio outcomes, online assessments and two exams. Each professional submitted three case studies involving functional assessment, baseline, and intervention data in order to complete the course. Of the 39 possible PBS plans, 25% cases were randomly selected and functional analyses conducted to confirm professionals’ hypotheses. |
| |
| Evaluating Program Satisfaction of People with Severe Disabilities With Direct Observation Technology |
| MARTIN THOMAS IVANCIC (Western Carolina Center) |
| Abstract: Data are shared for 32 individuals with profound, multiple handicaps living in a state residential facility who were observed for responses individually defined for happiness/ unhappiness across specified intervals across the day, every day, for the last 3 years. Data reveal program evaluation opportunities where preferred events can be incorporated into the program and disliked events can be removed. This measure is used as a standard way to represent concepts known as enriched environment, time-in, or life-quality. Further, on-going new treatments or placements showing changes from stable baselines help evaluate the propriety of the intervention directly from the individual involved. |
|
| |