Faced with limited resources, schools require tools that increase the accuracy and efficiency of functional behavioral assessment. Yarbrough and Carr (2000) provided evidence that informant confidence ratings of the likelihood of problem behavior in specific situations offered a promising tool for predicting the accuracy of function-based hypotheses developed from staff interviews. The current study evaluated conditions in which a similar rating of informant confidence was effective in predicting the accuracy of functional assessment hypothesis statements. Nine students with problem behavior were identified, and functional behavioral assessment interviews with confidence scores were completed with 58 staff members. Between five and eight adults were interviewed about each student. The adults were selected based on their range of contact with the student (0 to 10+ hours per week) and their self-assessed knowledge about behavioral theory (no knowledge to extensive knowledge). Functional analyses were conducted to assess agreement with functional assessment hypotheses and the predictive value of confidence ratings. Results suggested limitations to the general use of confidence ratings in distinguishing accurate from inaccurate functional hypotheses across school staff with a broad range of contact with the target student. The study did find that informants who were both highly confident and who identified accurate functional assessment hypotheses had significantly higher levels of contact with the student in the target routine than those informants who had low confidence ratings and/or identified an incorrect function for the problem behavior.

No abstract

has a schoolwide behavior support system in place and all of the teaching staff have agreed on schooland classwide expectations for student behavior. In previous years, Mrs. Jenkins has found teaching and acknowledging these behavioral expectations to be sufficient for preventing and minimizing problem behavior in her classroom. However, this year, she has two students, Liza and Ronald, who have continued to engage in disruptive behavior. After trying a number of traditional behavior management techniques (e.g., moving the students' desks, planned ignoring, acknowledging peers for engaging in expected behaviors) with no success, Mrs. Jenkins referred the students for additional behavior support. Although both Ronald and Liza are now receiving additional support that consists of a daily behavioral report card and check-ins with staff at the beginning and end of the school day, their problem behavior has continued. Mrs. Jenkins has become increasingly frustrated with the amount of time that she spends addressing the problem behavior of these two students and feels that it is unfair to the rest of her students that this disruption is compromising their education. Because she does not know what else to do, Mrs. Jenkins has recently started using more punitive (e.g., giving zeros on Ronald's assignments) and exclusionary practices (e.g., sending Liza out of the room) to address the students' problem behavior. Unfortunately, all this has resulted in a decrease in Ronald's academic task completion and even more disruptive behavior from Liza. Mrs. Jenkins is truly at a loss for how to help these students become more successful while also addressing the needs of the 24 other students in her classroom. Scenarios like the one presented above play out all too often every day in classroom settings. Even teachers implementing strong classroom management plans can be challenged by students who are at risk for behavioral disorders. Recurrent problem behavior of students like Liza and Ronald can lead to lost instructional time affecting not only the educational success of students struggling to meet behavioral expectations but also that of their peers (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Sprague & Perkins, 2009). What's more, for teachers like Mrs. Jenkins, high levels of classroom disruption can lead to increased stress and job dissatisfaction (Egyed & Short, 2006) and an increased probability of leaving the teaching profession altogether (Liu & Meyer, 2005). Despite these concerns, general education teachers are being asked to accommodate increasing numbers of students with and at risk for behavior disorders who engage in off-task and disruptive behavior (Hershfeldt, Rosenberg, & Bradshaw, 2010). As such, it has become increasingly necessary for teachers, staff, and administrators to be well equipped with the knowledge and tools to understand student problem behavior and intervene effectively.

No abstract

No abstract