Reliability of Frequent Retrospective Behavior Ratings for Elementary School Students with EBD

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.

Using SWPBS Expectations as a Screening Tool to Predict Behavioral Risk in Middle School

“…Likewise, there are few other studies that explore the social validity (Wolf, 1978) and consequential validity (Messick, 1998) of how screening results might be used by behavior support teams for problem solving and developing interventions. The linkage to behavioral interventions such as daily behavior report cards (DBRCs; Burke et al, 2009; Vannest et al, 2010) and check in/out programs (Hawken et al, 2007) is apparent. We organized the data and shared the risk lists to the leadership team coordinating implementation of SWPBS in the middle school that participated in this study.…”

“…Within a SWPBS framework, behavioral expectations may have greater utility when used as a broadband screener by providing school teams with a contextually relevant set of items that can help inform judgments of behavioral risk and responsiveness to school-wide intervention (Burke et al, 2012). When a student is perceived as failing to adhere to the behavioral expectations developed for SWPBS implementation, there is cause for concern and these students may be in need of Tier 2 or Tier 3 behavior interventions (Burke, Vannest, Davis, Davis, & Parker, 2009; Hagan-Burke, Burke, & Sugai, 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan-Burke, 1999–2000; Vannest, Davis, Davis, Mason, & Burke, 2010).…”

The Role of Mental Health Counselors in Promoting School–Family Collaboration Within the Tiered School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (SWPBIS) Model

“…Curriculum-based measurement is typically used to establish benchmarks and annual goals for and to monitor progress toward academic proficiency (Burke, Vannest, Davis, Davis, & Parker, 2009). Similarly, for behavioral goals, this includes determining the effects of function-based intervention plans and monitoring progress through such techniques as direct and frequent retrospective behavior ratings (Burke et al, 2009;Chafouleas, Christ, Riley-Tillman, Briesch, & Cháñese, 2007;Gresham, 2005). When working with the child's parents, the counselor should display an understanding of the parental stress and burden often present when there is a child in the home who is having some form of an emotional or behavioral problem.…”

Electronic Progress Monitoring of IEP Goals and Objectives

“…The electronic version provides the same components and demonstrates effects equal to a paper version while removing the limitation of a paper data collection method (Burke et al, 2009;Burke & Vannest, 2008;Chafouleas et al, 2002;Chafouleas et al, 2005;Chafouleas et al, 2006;. Teachers can create 5-or 7-point scales to monitor IEP goals and objectives, Section 504 plans, or Tier 2 intervention response with just one place to record, view, and analyze student data.…”

“…The electronic Daily Behavior Report Card (e-DBRC©; Vannest, Burke, & Adiguzel, 2006) addresses a limitation of paper-based DBRCs while maintaining their strengths as a potentially evidence-based practice (Burke & Vannest, 2008;Burke, Vannest, Davis, Davis & Parker, 2009;Chafouleas, McDougal, Riley-Tillman, Panahon, & Hilt, 2005;Chafouleas, Riley-Tillman, & McDougal, 2002;Chafouleas, RileyTillman, & Sassu, 2006;.…”