No abstract

This study is a preliminary examination of the reliability of frequent retrospective teacher behavior ratings. Frequent retrospective behavior ratings are an approach for creating scales that can be used to monitor individual behavioral progress. In this study, the approach is used to progress monitor behavioral individualized education plan goals for 7 students with, or at risk of, emotional and behavioral disorders. Reliability was examined for both quantitative-based and qualitative judgment-based retrospective teacher behavior ratings. Quantitative-based behavior ratings focused primarily on frequency and duration scales, whereas qualitative-based behavior ratings focused on topography and intensity scales. Findings indicated that reliability can be adequately achieved, although there is variability depending on the type of scale. Implications are discussed as they relate to progress monitoring individual behavioral goals and examining responsiveness to intervention.

Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRC) are a common component of many Tier 2 interventions such as check and connect or check-in and check-out. Although considered an effective practice when paired with contingent reinforcement for academic and behavioral change, many teachers may be unaware of how best to use a DBRC with more challenging behaviors or how to incorporate this use in a student's individualized education program (IEP). One solution to time-and resource-expensive paper progress monitoring is to upgrade to an automated DBRC process: Technology can help teachers spend less time monitoring students' behaviors and preparing for meetings to address student progress, provides automated graphs of student behavior over time and records behavior in observable and measurable ways, and enables frequent and positive parent communication.The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2006) envisions a public school system fluent in prevention science, data collection, and progress monitoring in order to best improve outcomes for students with disabilities. One technique for data collection and progress monitoring with applications for intervention across home and school settings is the Daily ). DBRCs have documented effectiveness across format variations, emphasizing a range of target behaviors, reinforcement applications, types of individuals targeted, and levels of parent involvement . Some of the differentiating factors that set DBRC apart from other behavior ratings include frequency (at least daily rating), retrospective rating of behavior (rather than actual counting), and application for reoccurring performance feedback in school and home settings. The dual use as a progress monitoring system and an intervention makes a DBRC a particularly efficient use of teacher time.40 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Background: Motivational interviewing is an effective counselling style for changing lifestyle behaviours. Few studies have examined brief motivational interviewing training for non-healthcare practitioners to deliver motivational interviewing-informed health programs. The purpose of this study was to pilot a brief motivational interviewing workshop on non-healthcare practitioners to deliver a community-based diabetes prevention program. Methods: This pilot study used convenience sampling to obtain seven participants naïve to motivational interviewing who wanted to become diabetes prevention program coaches. Participants attended a two-day motivational interviewing workshop, were then shadowed by an expert coach delivering the diabetes prevention program, and finally, were shadowed by an expert coach and received feedback. The primary outcome was whether coaches were able to maintain a level of at least client-centered motivational interviewing skills for the six months post-training, as assessed by the Motivational Interviewing Competency Assessment (MICA). Two independent coders used the MICA to assess a random selection of participants’ audio recordings of interactions between with diabetes prevention program clients. One session for each client in coaches’ first six months post-training was coded. Motivational interviewing-competency scores were generated using MICA scores for six months. Results: Coaches were 25B2 years old, 71% female, and 43% had less than a bachelor’s degree. Mean motivational interviewing-competency was at a level of client-centered (total MICA score of 3.3a0.24) over six months. The majority (71%) of all sessions were client-centered for all of the MICA categories. Conclusions: This pilot study offers preliminary evidence that non-healthcare practitioners attending a brief motivational interviewing training were able to deliver a client-centered level of motivational interviewing in a community-based diabetes prevention program up to six months post-training without the use of any booster training sessions. This suggests that the training used within this study may be sufficient to train future non-healthcare practitioner diabetes prevention program coaches in the community.