Secondary Prevention Efforts at the Middle School Level: An Application of the Behavior Education Program

Lane, Kathleen Lynne; Capizzi, Andrea M.; Fisher, Marisa H.; Ennis, Robin Parks

doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0002

Cited by 36 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Average social validity ratings in the 6 studies using the BEP Acceptability Questionnaire were high (on a 6-point Likert-type scale), including likelihood of recommending CICO (M = 5.02, SD = 0.61), CICO being worth the time and effort (M = 4.98, SD = 0.54), ease of implementation (M = 4.79, SD = 0.57), improvements in problem behavior (M = 4.39, SD = 0.42), and improvements in appropriate behavior (M = 4.13, SD = 0.57). Studies using other tools also reported that stakeholders perceived CICO to be an acceptable and effective intervention (e.g., M = 64 on the 15-item IRP, approximately corresponding to average ratings of 4.25 on a 6-point Likert-type scale, in Lane et al, 2012).…”

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Empirical Support for Check-In Check-Out

Wolfe

Pyle

Charlton

et al. 2015

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tier 2 interventions play an important role within the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework, bridging the gap between schoolwide Tier 1 interventions and individualized Tier 3 supports. Check-in Check-out (CICO) is a promising Tier 2 intervention for addressing mild problem behavior and potentially preventing the need for more intensive supports. In this systematic review, we synthesize the characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes of 15 single-subject studies and one group design study examining CICO. The results suggest that CICO can be considered an evidence-based practice for students with problem behavior maintained by adult attention. Versions of CICO that were modified to address other functions (e.g., obtain peer attention, escape from tasks) demonstrated strong effects, but there were not a sufficient number of studies for modified CICO to qualify as an evidence-based practice. We discuss the implications of this review for practitioners as well as future research on CICO.

show abstract

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Empirical Support for Check-In Check-Out

Wolfe

Pyle

Charlton

et al. 2015

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Hunter et al (2014) and Simonsen et al (2011) stated students' daily goals were established by averaging the previous 3 days of students' scores on the daily report card. Lane, Capizzi, Fisher, and Ennis (2012) stated, "the actual goals established [were] based on the student's initial performance levels" (p. 63). In 21 studies, students received reinforcement, such as praise (e.g., Hawken & Horner, 2003) or tickets (e.g., Mong et al, 2011) when they met their goals.…”

Section: Cico Variationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students' progress was graphed in two studies (Lane et al, 2012;Simonsen et al, 2011). In terms of outcomes, a functional relation between CICO (or variations) and dependent variables was reported by authors in 4 of 15 single-subject studies, indicating increases in daily report card ratings (Campbell & Anderson, 2008;Dart et al, 2014;Lane et al, 2012) and academic engagement (Campbell, Rodriguez, Anderson, & Barnes, 2013), and decreases in problem behaviors such as disruption (Campbell & Anderson, 2008;Campbell et al, 2013). In one singlesubject study, a functional relation was discussed by authors who indicated one could not be established due to the limitation of the design (i.e., AB design; Swoszowski, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2013).…”

Section: Cico Variationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in CICO, the daily point goal may be based on an average of the prior week's performance, which are data regularly collected as part of the intervention (e.g., Hunter et al, 2014;Simonsen et al, 2011). This individualization is important because it may not make sense for all students receiving CICO to start off at a standard goal of 80%, but rather, some students may need to start lower than 80% and gradually increase the goal over time (e.g., Lane et al, 2012). However, given 15% of a school's population may require an intervention such as CICO (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008), individualizing goals within CICO may pose a practical issue when a large number of students are participating.…”

Section: Independent Variable and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Goal-Setting Interventions for Students with Behavior Problems: A Systematic Review

Bruhn

McDaniel

Fernando

2016

Behavioral Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students with persistent behavior problems, including those with or at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders, often struggle to be self-regulated learners. To improve self-regulation skills, numerous strategies have been suggested, including goal setting. Whereas goal setting has focused mostly on academic and life skills, behavioral goal setting has received less attention, particularly in terms of determining best practices for effective goal setting in school-based interventions. Thus, the purpose of this review was to examine the existing literature on interventions using behavioral goal setting alone and behavioral goal setting as part of a multicomponent intervention for students with persistent behavior problems. Findings from 40 studies are discussed in terms of participants, setting, design, measures, intervention components, and outcomes with a specific focus on directions for future research and implications for practice.▪ The term "self-determination" has been used to describe a multitude of behaviors and beliefs that help people live independent, self-directed lives (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). Carter, Lane, Crnobori, Bruhn, and Oakes (2011) reviewed the literature on self-determination interventions aimed at improving this broad group of metacognitive skills for students with and at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD). Interventions in their review focused on a range of skills, including making choices and decisions, problem-solving activities, goal setting, promoting self-advocacy skills, self-awareness, self-knowledge, self-assessment, and self-regulation. The most commonly studied self-determination strategy, according to their review, was self-regulation.

show abstract

“…Finally, DBRC data are used to monitor the student's response to CICO to facilitate data-based decisions such as continuing intervention, modifying intervention, or beginning maintenance by systematically removing intervention components. CICO has been shown to be effective in reducing problem behaviors and increasing academic engagement in a variety of populations (e.g., elementary school students, middle school students, high school students) as measured by office discipline referrals (ODRs; Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007;Filter et al, 2007;Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007;Hawken, O'Neill, & MacLeod, 2011;March & Horner, 2002), DBRC points (Lane, Capizzi, Fisher, & Ennis, 2012;McCurdy et al, 2007), and direct observation (Campbell & Anderson, 2011;March & Horner, 2002;Miller, Dufrene, Sterling, Olmi, & Bachmeyer, 2014;Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011). Also, teachers, school counselors, and school psychologists have implemented CICO with high integrity (Filter et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%