|Evidence-Based Practices in Schools: Supporting Students at the Classwide Level, Individual Level, and via Telehealth|
|Saturday, May 29, 2021|
|5:00 PM–6:50 PM |
|Area: EDC/DDA; Domain: Translational|
|Chair: Kimberly Crosland (University of South Florida)|
|Discussant: Diana Ginns (University of South Florida)|
|CE Instructor: Kimberly Crosland, Ph.D.|
This symposium will bring together four studies that focus on improving outcomes for students both at the class-wide and individual level. The first study will describe a federally funded grant to develop a class-wide modular approach for assisting teachers in self-contained classrooms with students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD). The second presentation will provide the audience with an overview of coaching fidelity data from a tri-state implementation of the MAAPS model and a conceptualization on virtual (telehealth) coaching. The third presentation will move to describing individual outcomes for students with disruptive behavior and describe the use of the collaborative Prevent-Teach-Reinforce model to develop an effective interventions for students. The last presentation will describe another study at the individual student level in which two interventions were compared (choice vs. DRO without extinction) to determine which intervention resulted in the best outcomes and was more preferred by students with EBD. These studies describe how behavior analysts can work at the systems, class-wide, and individual level to best support educational personnel and students.
|Instruction Level: Intermediate|
|Keyword(s): EBP, PTR, School Consultation, Telehealth|
|Target Audience: |
Participants should have basic behavioral knowledge and education in behavior analysis (at least one course in behavior modification/behavior analysis) and/or at least one year practicing behavior analysis.
|Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the presentations, participants will be able to: 1. Describe strategies for implementing interventions class-wide and at the individual level for students in school academic settings. 2. Discuss how best to support students and teachers in virtually or telehealth context. 3. Describe and understand multiple strategies including DRO, Choice, and Prevent-Teach-Reinforce for individual students in classroom settings.|
Development of Modular-Based Consultation Using Evidence-Based Practices for Teachers of Students With Emotional Disturbance
|KIMBERLY CROSLAND (University of South Florida), Rose Iovannone (University of South Florida/Florida Mental Health), Diana Ginns (University of South Florida), Jennifer Wolgemuth (University of South Florida)|
As the number of school-aged students receiving IEP services for Emotional Disabilities (ED) increase, the need for well-trained teachers of students with ED also increases. Teachers of students with ED have higher rates of burnout, stay in the profession fewer years, and experience higher rates of stress compared to teachers of students with other special education disabilities. Furthermore, individuals with ED encounter poorer post-secondary outcomes than those with other disabilities including higher rates of drop-out, substance abuse, and incarceration as well as lower rates of graduation and employment. Successfully ameliorating the challenging behaviors of students with ED while enrolled in schools is essential for reversing the negative outcomes. However, research reports that teachers of students with ED do not consistently use evidence-based strategies, or if used, need support in implementation. This presentation will present outcomes from the first year of a three year federally funded grant to develop a modular based intervention process for implementing evidence based behavioral strategies class-wide for students with ED. A theoretical description of the MOTIVATED framework will be presented along with a description of class-wide modules. Outcomes from themes that emerged from initial focus groups with key stakeholders (teachers, administrators, and students) will be presented that will address barriers and enhancers to implementing behavioral interventions class-wide for students with ED.
A Modular Approach for Autism Programming in Schools: Coaching Fidelity and Expanding to Telehealth
|ROCKY HAYNES (University of South Florida - Tampa), Ryan J. Martin (May Institute)|
Although there are established evidence-based interventions for students with autism, they are often not implemented as intended in school settings. Multiple factors impact school implementation including lack of resources, inadequate training, and transfer of research-based interventions to classrooms. Modular Approach to Autism Programming in Schools (MAAPS) is a collaborative, team-based framework that guides school teams to select and implement evidence-based interventions, utilizing a modular approach that customizes specific interventions to best address individual student needs. This presentation will provide an overview of the social validity and coaching fidelity data from implementation of MAAPS within schools across three states. There will be a particular focus on coaching fidelity data with discussion about how to adjust school consultation to a telehealth model based on the transition in this study from in-person to virtual coaching. Future consideration will be discussed about how to reach rural schools using a telehealth virtual model to assist them with implementing a modular approach to support students with autism.
Using the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce Model to Improve Classroom Behavior
|JENNIFER M. HODNETT (University of South Florida), Andrea Nicole Zuniga (University of South Florida), Catia Cividini-Motta Cividini (University of South Florida)|
The Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) model has been utilized to both decrease student problem behaviors and increase appropriate behaviors (Dunlap, Iovannone, Wilson, Kincaid, & Strain, 2010). The PTR model is a 5-step teaming approach to identify critical components that enhance the success of Tier 3 individualized behavior supports. PTR is a standardized, function-based model that incorporates the principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). The current study utilized the systematic approach of the PTR model to conduct a functional behavior assessment (FBA) of the disruptive behaviors of a first-grade student. Then, following the PTR model, the researchers collaborated with stakeholders on the development of an individualized behavioral support plan and teacher training. The intervention resulted in a reduction in disruptive behavior, increase in academic engagement, and teacher implementation fidelity was high throughout the intervention. A discussion of how both school psychologists and behavior analysts worked together to support the student will also be described.
Choice vs. Reinforcement for Decreasing Disruptive Behavior for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
|Sara Hordges (University of South Florida), Kimberly Crosland (University of South Florida), JESSE DEPAOLO (University of South Florida)|
As the number of students with developmental disabilities increases in schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2017a), so does the need for effective interventions within school settings. Both antecedent and consequence interventions have been conducted within schools in attempts to decrease maladaptive behaviors and increase appropriate behaviors in relation to academics. Providing choices and reinforcement have demonstrated empirical evidence that both interventions were successful in creating positive behavior change in students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). This study compared the use of an antecedent-based intervention (i.e., activity choice) versus a consequence-based intervention (e.g., differential reinforcement without extinction) to determine which of the behavior management strategies produced a more effective behavior change for three students with or at risk of EBD. A non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants with an alternating treatments design was used. The feasibility for teachers to implement the interventions in their classrooms was also evaluated. Results indicated that both interventions were effective in increasing on-task behavior for all participants, although activity choice demonstrated a slightly higher effect for two of the three participants. Both interventions resulted in high levels of treatment fidelity by the teachers.