Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions: WWC Intervention Reports, Slides of Functional Analysis

Download Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions: WWC Intervention Reports and more Slides Functional Analysis in PDF only on Docsity! Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 1 What Works Clearinghouse™ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WWC Intervention Report A summary of findings from a systematic review of the evidence Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance December 2016 Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Description1 Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is an individualized prob- lem-solving process for addressing student problem behavior. An assessment is conducted to identify the purpose or function of a student’s problem behavior. This assessment process involves col- lecting information about the environmental conditions that precede the problem behavior and the subsequent rewards that reinforce the behavior. The information that is gathered is then used to identify and implement individualized interventions aimed at reducing problem behaviors and increasing positive behaviors. Accordingly, the studies evaluating FBA examine different FBA-based interventions identified for each student. FBA-based interventions can be used to address diverse problem behaviors, such as disruptive and off-task behaviors, noncompliance, and inappropriate social interactions. Research2 The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified 17 studies of FBA- based interventions that both fall within the scope of the Children Identi- fied With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance topic area and meet WWC pilot single-case design standards. No studies meet WWC group design standards. Seven studies meet pilot single-case design standards without reservations, and 10 studies meet pilot single-case design stan- dards with reservations. Together, these single-case design studies included 39 children between 5 and 18 years old who are identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance.3 Report Contents Overview p. 1 Intervention Information p. 3 Research Summary p. 4 Effectiveness Summary p. 5 References p. 6 Research Details for Each Study p. 30 Outcome Measures for Each Domain p. 55 Findings Included in the Rating for Each Outcome Domain p. 58 Single-Case Design Findings in a Domain Not Included in the Effectiveness Rating p. 63 Endnotes p. 66 Rating Criteria p. 68 Glossary of Terms p. 70 This intervention report presents findings from a systematic review of functional behavioral assessment-based interventions conducted using the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, version 3.0, and the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance review protocol, version 3.0. Threshold to include single-case design evidence in WWC effectiveness ratings All single-case design experiments presented in the same research article are characterized as one study. Results from single- case design studies contribute to the WWC effectiveness rating for an outcome domain only if the studies with outcomes in that domain meet a set of threshold criteria, reflecting replication across different studies, research teams, and cases. Specifically, these criteria are: (1) at least five studies that examine the intervention must meet WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations or meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations, and (2) the single-case design studies must be conducted by at least three different research teams with no overlapping authorship at three different institutions, and (3) the combined number of cases (i.e., participants, classrooms) must total at least 20. For more information, please refer to the Pilot Single-Case Design standards in Appendix E of the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 3.0) Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 2 WWC Intervention Report The results from single-case design studies only affect the WWC effectiveness rating for an outcome domain if the studies with outcomes in that domain collectively meet a set of threshold criteria. (See the box above for the ratio- nale behind this threshold and a description of the criteria.) The evidence from single-case design studies of FBA-based interventions on children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance reaches the required threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for two outcome domain(s)—school engagement and problem behavior. The evidence from the single-case design studies for FBA-based interventions does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for one outcome domain—social-emotional competence.4 There were no studies that meet standards in the 13 other domains, so this intervention report does not report on the effectiveness of FBA-based interventions for those domains.5 (See the Effectiveness Summary on p. 5 for further description of all domains.) Effectiveness FBA-based interventions were found to have potentially positive effects on school engagement and potentially positive effects on problem behavior for children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance based on evidence from single-case design studies. The evidence from the single-case design studies for FBA-based inter- ventions does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for the social-emotional competence domain. Table 1. Summary of findings from single-case design studies6 Outcome domain Number of studies Number of research teams Number of casesa Rating of effectiveness Percentage of SCD experiments demonstrating a positive effect (#) Percentage of SCD experiments demonstrating a negative effect (#) School engagement 15 7 32 Potentially positive effects 74% (24/34) 0% (0/34) Problem behavior 8 5 21 Potentially positive effects 68% (17/25) 0% (0/25) Social-emotional competence 3 2 4 na na na Table Notes: In single-case design research, a case, such as a student or classroom, is the unit of intervention administration and data analysis. An experiment is the examination of a single outcome measure repeatedly within and across different phases defined by the presence or absence of the intervention. There may be multiple experiments for a case if more than one outcome is examined, for example. All experiments within a research article comprise one single-case design study. For the social-emotional competence domain, the rating of effectiveness and percentage of single-case design experiments demonstrating a positive and negative effect are not applicable (na) because the studies with out- comes in this domain do not meet the threshold criteria to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings. SCD = single-case design. a In this intervention report, each case was a single student as opposed to a group of students, such as a classroom. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 5 Effectiveness Summary WWC Intervention Report The WWC review of FBA-based interventions for the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance topic area includes student outcomes in 16 domains: alphabetics, communication/language competencies, com- munity, general reading achievement, math achievement, problem behavior, reading comprehension, reading fluency, school engagement, science achievement, self-care/daily living, self-determination, social-emotional competence, social studies achievement, vocational/occupational, and writing achievement. The 17 studies of FBA-based interventions that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards reported findings in three of the 16 domains: (a) school engagement, (b) problem behavior, and (c) social-emotional competence. Effec- tiveness ratings of FBA-based interventions on children identified with or at risk for an emotional disturbance are presented for two of the three domains (school engagement and problem behavior). The findings from the social- emotional competence domain do not meet the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings in this report.12 For a more detailed description of the rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies and extent of evidence criteria, see the WWC Rating Criteria on p. 67. In each of these studies, FBA was used by researchers and school staff to identify the function of at least one stu- dent’s problem behavior and select an intervention for each child. Accordingly, the FBA-based interventions for each student did vary. Summary of effectiveness for the school engagement domain Table 3. Rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies for the school engagement domain Rating of effectiveness Criteria met Potentially positive effects Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence. Across the 34 single-case design experiments for the school engagement domain, 25 experiments (74%) documented a positive effect and 0 experiments documented a negative effect. Fifteen studies that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with or without reservations reported findings in the school engagement domain. Author-reported findings for each study are reported in Appendix A. The results of the WWC’s visual analysis of each single-case design experiment are reported in Appendix C. Across the 34 single-case design experiments, 25 experiments (74%) documented a positive effect, and no single-case design experiments documented a negative effect. This results in a rating of potentially positive effects for the school engagement domain. Summary of effectiveness for the problem behavior domain Table 4. Rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies for the problem behavior domain Rating of effectiveness Criteria met Potentially positive effects Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence. Across the 25 single-case design experiments for the problem behavior domain, 17 experiments (68%) documented a positive effect and 0 experiments documented a negative effect. Eight studies that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with or without reservations reported findings in the problem behavior domain. Author-reported findings for each study are reported in Appendix A. The results of the WWC’s visual analysis of each single-case design experiment are reported in Appendix C. Across the 25 single-case design experiments, 17 experiments (68%) documented a positive effect, and no single-case design experiments documented a negative effect. This results in a rating of potentially positive effects for the problem behavior domain. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 6 WWC Intervention Report References Studies that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations Christensen, L., Young, K. R., & Marchant, M. (2004). The effects of a peer-mediated positive behavior support pro- gram on socially appropriate classroom behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(3), 199–234. Hagan-Burke, S., Gilmour, M. W., Gerow, S., & Crowder, W. C. (2015). Identifying academic demands that occasion problem behaviors for students with behavioral disorders: Illustrations at the elementary school level. Behavior Modification, 39(1), 215–241. Hansen, B. D., Wills, H. P., Kamps, D. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (2014). The effects of function-based self-man- agement interventions on student behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(3), 149–159. doi:10.1177/1063426613476345 Additional source: Hansen, B. D. (2011). The effects of function-based self-management interventions. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 72(4-A), 1257. Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 7–19. Lane, K. L., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau, A. C., Merwin, M. T., & Bergman, W. A. (2007a). Function-based interventions for students who are nonresponsive to primary and secondary prevention efforts. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 169–183. Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. H. (2007b). Designing, implementing, and evaluating func- tion-based interventions using a systematic, feasible approach. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2), 122–139. Losinski, M. L., Maag, J. W., Katsiyannis, A., & Ryan, J. B. (2015). The use of structural behavioral assessment to develop interventions for secondary students exhibiting challenging behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(2), 1–26. Additional source: Losinski, M. L. (2013). Examining the use of structural analysis to develop interventions for students exhibiting challenging behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data- base. (UMI No. 1437005624) Studies that meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations Christensen, L., Renshaw, T. L., Caldarella, P., & Young, J. R. (2012). Training a general educator to use function- based support for students at risk for behavior disorders. Education, 133(2), 313–335. Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Childs, K. E., Wilson, D., White, R., & Vera, A. (1995). Improving the con- duct of students with behavioral disorders by incorporating student interests into curricular activities. Behav- ioral Disorders, 20(4), 221–237. Davis, D. H., Fredrick, L. D., Alberto, P. A., & Gama, R. (2012). Functional communication training without extinction using concurrent schedules of differing magnitudes of reinforcement in classrooms. Journal of Positive Behav- ior Interventions, 14(3), 162–172. doi:10.1177/1098300711429597 Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Clarke, S., Kern, L., & Childs, K. E. (1995). Modifying activities to produce functional outcomes: Effects on the problem behaviors of students with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 20(4), 248–258. Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The effects of multi-component, assessment- based curricular modifications on the classroom behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(4), 481–500. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 7 WWC Intervention Report Janney, D. M., Umbreit, J., Ferro, J. B., Liaupsin, C. J., & Lane, K. L. (2013). The effect of the extinction pro- cedure in function-based intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(2), 113–123. doi:10.1177/1098300712441973 Additional source: Janney, D. M. (2009). A component analysis of function-based intervention: the role of the extinction pro- cedure. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3352975) Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (2001). Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using individualized curricular modifications. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 239–247. Kern, L., Starosta, K. M., Bambara, L. M., Cook, C. R., & Gresham, F. R. (2007). Functional assessment-based inter- vention for selective mutism. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2), 94–108. Mustian, A. L. (2011). The comparative effects of function-based versus nonfunction-based interventions on the social behavior of African American students. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 757196704) Nahgahgwon, K. N., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C. J., & Turton, A. M. (2010). Function-based planning for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(4), 537–559. Studies that do not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards14 Adams, P. N. (1997). Utilizing behavioral diagnostics to reduce disruptive behavior in public school settings with children and adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 58(7-B), 3913. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements. Barreras, R. B. (2008). An experimental analysis of the treatment validity of the social skills deficit model for at-risk adolescents. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3332602) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demon- strate an intervention effect. Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 387–397. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Dwyer, K., Rozewski, D., & Simonsen, B. (2012). A comparison of function-based replacement behaviors for escape-motivated students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 115–125. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention. Ellis, J., & Magee, S. K. (1999). Determination of environmental correlates of disruptive classroom behavior: Integra- tion of functional analysis into public school assessment process. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(3), 291–316. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. C. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assess- ments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity dis- order. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(1), 65–78. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the eligible outcomes do not meet WWC requirements. Glenn, J. H., & Waller, R. J. (2007). Reducing irresponsible talking out during class in a 7th grade student with an emotional/behavioral disorder. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(6), 2. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because there are insufficient data to evaluate the attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 10 WWC Intervention Report Bergstrom, M. K. (2003). Efficacy of school-based teams conducting functional behavioral assessment in the gen- eral education environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06A), 139-1968. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Biniker, K. L., & Pindiprolu, S. S. (2008). Functional assessment based intervention plans in alternative educational settings in the USA: A case study. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 9(1), 68–77. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Blair, K. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of positive behavior support to address the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(2), 68–79. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Blair, K. C., Lee, I., Cho, S., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Positive behavior support through family–school col- laboration for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(1), 22–36. doi:10.1177/0271121410377510 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C. S. (1999). Using functional assessment and children’s preferences to improve the behavior of young children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24(2), 151–166. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Educa- tion and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 67–80. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher-conducted trial-based functional analyses as the basis for intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 208–218. doi:10.1002/jaba.21 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly III, E. J., Ervin, R. A., & Ward, P. (2002). Facilitating teacher inquiry through data-based behav- ioral consultation and functional assessment in a special education classroom. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 21(4), 31–39. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Boyajian, A. E., DuPaul, G. J., Handler, M. W., Eckert, T. L., & McGoey, K. E. (2001). The use of classroom-based brief functional analyses with preschoolers at-risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychol- ogy Review, 30(2), 278–293. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Briere III, D. E., & Simonsen, B. (2011). Self-monitoring interventions for at-risk middle school students: The impor- tance of considering function. Behavioral Disorders, 36(2), 129–140. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J. (1995). An approach to functional assessment and analysis of disruptive behavior in regular education classrooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 10(2), 151–164. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J. (1997). The use of functional analysis to develop peer interventions for disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 65–76. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Brownell, K. (1995). Functional assessment and analysis of behavior as a process for identifying an appropri- ate intervention for the challenging behavior of a preschool child. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Department of Special Education). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Burke, M. D. (2001). An examination of function-based instructional and antecedent interventions for elementary students with escape-maintained problem behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08A), 200-2725. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 11 WWC Intervention Report Butler, L. R., & Luiselli, J. K. (2007). Escape-maintained problem behavior in a child with autism: Antecedent func- tional analysis and intervention evaluation of noncontingent escape and instructional fading. Journal of Posi- tive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 195–202. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Calderhead, W. J. (2003). Effects of interspersed math problems on the task engagement of middle school stu- dents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(11A), 86-4008. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Cameron, M. (2006). Managing school discipline and implications for school social workers: A review of the literature. Children & Schools, 28(4), 219–227. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Campbell, A., & Tincani, M. (2011). The Power Card strategy: Strength-based intervention to increase direction fol- lowing of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 240–249. doi:10.1177/1098300711400608 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Carter, D. R., & Horner, R. H. (2007). Adding functional behavioral assessment to First Step to Success: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 229–238. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Additional source: Carter, D. R., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Adding function-based behavioral support to First Step to Success: Inte- grating individualized and manualized practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(1), 22–34. doi:10.1177/1098300708319125 Cautilli, J., Harrington, N., Gillam, E. V., Denning, J., Helwig, I., Ettingoff, A., ... Angert, A. (2004). Do children with multiple patterns of problem behavior improve? The effectiveness of an intensive bio-behaviorally oriented school-based behavioral health program. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 1(1), 74–93. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ848680.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Chait, A. M. (2003). Comparison of descriptive functional assessment instruments to experimental functional analy- ses for children with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(9-B), 4354. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Chen, P. (2005). The use of functional analysis to test the accuracy of teachers’ hypothesized behavior functions based on differing amounts of information (Master’s thesis, University of Washington). The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Chitiyo, M. S. (2005). Functional/structural analysis: A brief review of functional assessment studies conducted with people with challenging behaviours. International Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 102–110. http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ846939.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Choi, H. (2000). The effects of functional assessment and treatment on problem behaviors of one student with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11A), 169-4336. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Chorpita, B. F., Albano, A. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). A systematic replication of the prescriptive treatment of school refusal behavior in a single subject. Journal of Behavior Therapy an Experimental Psychia- try, 27, 281–290. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Cihak, D., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2007). Use of brief functional analysis and intervention evaluation in pub- lic settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(2), 80–93. The study is ineligible for review it does not use an eligible design. Cipani, E. (2002). An historical view of the clinical and research base of functional analysis. Teacher Educator, 37(4), 231–253. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 12 WWC Intervention Report Cohen Friedenthal, D. (2009). School personnel establishing functional communication training based on a func- tional analysis with autistic students in a public school setting to reduce problem behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69(12-B), 7796. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Cole, T., Daniels, H., & Visser, J. (2012). The Routledge International companion to emotional and behavioural difficul- ties. London; New York, NY: Routledge. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Colvin, G., & Scott, T. M. (2015). Managing the cycle of acting-out behavior in the classroom (Second edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Conroy, M. A., Boyd, B. A., Asmus, J. M., & Madera, D. (2007). A functional approach for ameliorating social skills deficits in young children with autism spectrum disorders. Infants & Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, 20(3), 242–254. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Conroy, M. A., & Stichter, J. P. (2003). The application of antecedents in the functional assessment process: Existing research, issues, and recommendations. Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 15–25. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Cooper, L., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., & Donn, L. K. (1990). Using parents as therapists to evaluate appropriate behavior of their children: Application to a tertiary diagnostic clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 285–296. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D. P., Thursby, D., Plagmann, L. A., Harding, J., Millard, T., & Derby, M. (1992). Analysis of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 823–840. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Cooper, T. L. (2004). Conducting school-based functional behavioral assessments: A practitioner’s guide (book). Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(5), 315. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Cowick, B. S. (1996). Functional assessment: Development and evaluation of a comprehensive treatment program for youth with mild disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(08A), 138-3454. (AAG9703373) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Cullain, R. E. (2000). The effects of social stories on anxiety levels and excessive behavioral expressions of elemen- tary school-aged children with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(07A), 157-2383. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Davey, B. J., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2005). A practical approach to functional behavioral assessment in a public (state supported) school: Successes and limitations. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 10(4), 255–268. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Davis, C., & Fox, J. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment and students with autism spectrum disorders: Roots, now, and the future. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(4), 202–204. The study is ineli- gible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Dolezal, D. N., & Kurtz, P. F. (2010). Evaluation of combined-antecedent variables on functional analysis results and treatment of problem behavior in a school setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(2), 309–314. http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ889222.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Dufrene, B. A., Doggett, R. A., Henington, C., & Watson, T. S. (2007). Functional assessment and intervention for disruptive classroom behaviors in preschool and Head Start classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 368–388. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 15 WWC Intervention Report that work. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Greer, B. D., Neidert, P. L., Dozier, C. L., Payne, S. W., Zonneveld, K. L., & Harper, A. M. (2013). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior in early education classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 289–295. doi:10.1002/jaba.l0 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Gresham, F. M., McIntyre, L. L., Olson-Tinker, H., Dolstra, L., McLaughlin, V., & Van, M. (2004). Relevance of functional behavioral assessment research for school-based interventions and positive behavioral support. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25(1), 19–37. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2003.04.003 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Hammill Institute on Disabilities. (2009). Systematic instruction in early childhood special education. Austin, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Hammill Institute on Disabilities. (2014). Research to practice in early intervention. Austin, TX: Author; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Hammond, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Rooker, G. W., Fritz, J. N., & Bloom, S. E. (2013). Effects of fixed versus random con- dition sequencing during multielement functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 22–30. doi:10.1002/jaba.7 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Hansen, B. D., & Wadsworth, J. P. (2015). Effects of an antecedent intervention on repetitive behaviors of a child with autism. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 37(1), 51–62. doi:10.1080/07317107.2015.1000235 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Hart, J. E. (2003). African American learners and six-hour emotional disturbance: Investigating the roles of con- text, perception, and worldview in the overrepresentation phenomenon. Available from ProQuest Disserta- tions and Theses database. (UMI No. 3103561) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Hausman, N., Kahng, S., Farrell, E., & Mongeon, C. (2009). Idiosyncratic functions: Severe problem behavior maintained by access to ritualistic behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 77–87. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Hazel, C. (2005). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment. Psy- chology in the Schools, 42(2), 217–218. doi:10.1002/pits.20056 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Heathfield, L. T. (1992). The effects of functional analysis assessment on the development of behavior support plans for individuals with developmental disabilities; 0171. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(10A), 127-3478. (AAG9305208) The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Heckaman, K., Alber, S., Hooper, S., & Heward, W. L. (1998). A comparison of least-to-most prompts and progres- sive time delay on the disruptive behavior of students with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(2), 171–201. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Heckaman, K., Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, A. (2000). Functional assessment-based intervention research on students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 25(3), 196–210. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Heick, P. F. (2005). Integrating curriculum-based assessment within functional behavioral assessment: Examin- ing the effects of instructional match on academic performance and classroom behavior during independent reading assignments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(03A), 123-879. (AAI3167056) The study is ineli- gible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Hoch, J., & Symons, F. J. (2007). Matching analysis of socially appropriate and destructive behavior in developmen- tal disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(3), 238–248. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 16 WWC Intervention Report Hoff, K. E., Ervin, R. A., & Friman, P. C. (2005). Refining functional behavioral assessment: Analyzing the separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during ongoing classroom routines. School Psy- chology Review, 34(1), 45–57. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen, H. G., Green, G., & Stanislaw, H. (2005). A comparison of intensive behav- ior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(4), 359–383. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Hughes, M. A. (2003). Self-operated auditory prompting systems with verbal prompt matched to function for the reduction of behavior in public community settings for students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Dis- sertation Abstracts International, 64(06A), 98-2042. (AAI3095174) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Hughes, M. A., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. L. (2006). Self-operated auditory prompting systems as a function- based intervention in public community settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(4), 230–243. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Humphreys, T. G. (2003). The effectiveness of a multi-gated teacher questionnaire in developing a functional hypothesis for problem behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University). The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Humphries, M. L., & Keenan, K. E. (2006). Theoretical, developmental & cultural orientations of school-based pre- vention programs for preschoolers. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9(2), 135–148. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224–236. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Johnson, J. C. (2007). An investigation of the perceptions of special education teachers concerning their role in writing and implementing the functional behavioral assessment process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(07A), 125-2895. (AAI3274694) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Johnston, S. S., & O’Neill, R. E. (2001). Searching for effectiveness and efficiency in conducting functional assessments: A review and proposed process for teachers and other practitioners. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(4), 205–214. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Jones, A. S. (2008). Effects of positive behavior support training on children’s maladaptive behavior, parenting skills, and parental support of families with children with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young Univer- sity). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Jordan, N., Leon, S. C., Epstein, R. A., Durkin, E., Helgerson, J., & Lakin-Starr, B. L. (2009). Effect of organizational climate on youth outcomes in residential treatment. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 26(3), 194– 208. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Kant, A. R., & March, R. E. (2004). Effective strategies for addressing challenging behavior in schools. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 1(3), 3–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kates-McElrath, K., Agnew, M., Axelrod, S., & Bloh, C. L. (2007). Identification of behavioral function in public schools and a clarification of terms. Behavioral Interventions, 22(1), 47–56. doi:10.1002/bin.230 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Katsiyannis, A., Conroy, M., & Zhang, D. (2008). District-level administrators’ perspectives on the implementation of functional behavior assessment in schools. Behavioral Disorders, 34(1), 14–26. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1990). A preliminary analysis of a functional model of assessment and treatment for school refusal behavior. Behavior Modification, 14(3), 340–366. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 17 WWC Intervention Report Kemler, S. C. (2007). Training high school staff on functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and behavioral interven- tion plans (BIPs). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(10A), 211-4254. (AAI3287777) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kern, L., Gallagher, P., Starosta, K., Hickman, W., & George, M. (2006). Longitudinal outcomes of functional behav- ioral assessment-based intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(2), 67–78. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kern, L., Hilt, A. M., & Gresham, F. (2004). An evaluation of the functional behavioral assessment process used with students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 440–452. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kircher, K. L. S. (2009). Functional behavioral assessment in schools: Teacher knowledge, perspectives, and dis- cipline referral practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(04A), 280-1242. (AAI3354430) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kirk, J. F. (2009). A comparison of traditional and function-based token systems. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(12-A), 4686. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Clements, A., Paden, A. R., & Dickes, N. R. (2011). Functional assessment of instructional variables: Linking assessment and treatment. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1059–1077. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Kurtz, P. F., Chin, M. D., Rush, K. S., & Dixon, D. R. (2008). Treatment of challenging behavior exhibited by chil- dren with prenatal drug exposure. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(6), 582–594. doi:10.1016/j. ridd.2007.05.007 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lalli, J. S., Casey, S. D., & Kates, K. (1997). Noncontingent reinforcement as treatment for severe problem behavior: Some procedural variations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 127–137. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Lane, K. L., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Spencer, J. L., & Kalberg, J. R. (2007). Teaching elementary school educators to design, implement, and evaluate functional assessment-based interventions: Successes and challenges. Preventing School Failure, 51(4), 35–46. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Lane, K. L., Eisner, S. L., Kretzer, J., Bruhn, A. L., Crnobori, M., Funke, L., … Casey, A. (2009). Outcomes of func- tional assessment-based interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in a job-share setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 573–604. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Shepcaro, J. C. (2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based inter- ventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Excep- tional Children, 75(3), 321–340. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lane, K. L., Smither, R., Huseman, R., Guffey, J., & Fox, J. (2007). A function-based intervention to decrease disrup- tive behavior and increase academic engagement. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3-4(4- 1), 348–364. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ805537.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Lane, K. L., Umbreit, J., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (1999). A review of functional assessment research with stu- dents with or at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1, 101–111. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Little, M. A., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. (2006). Illustrations of function-based interven- tions implemented by general education teachers: Building capacity at the school site. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 29(4), 549–571. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Lang, R., Davis, T., O’Reilly, M., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., Sigafoos, J., … Regester, A. (2010). Functional analysis and treatment of elopement across two school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 113–118. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 20 WWC Intervention Report garten (PIRK[R]). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(3), 767–782. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, A. S. (2003). An analysis of early career California special education teachers’ views on functional behavioral assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03A), 96-859. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K. (2005). Academic, behavioral, and functional predictors of chronic problem behavior in elementary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(07A), 117-2493. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K. (2006). Academic, behavioral, and functional predictors of chronic problem behavior in elementary grades. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 66(7-A), 2493. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K., Borgmeier, C., Anderson, C. M., Horner, R. H., Rodriguez, B. J., & Tobin, T. J. (2008). Technical ade- quacy of the Functional Assessment Checklist: Teachers and Staff (FACTS) FBA interview measure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(1), 33–45. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading skills and function of prob- lem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 131–147. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Mcloughlin, C. S. (2010). An exploratory case-study research report incorporating service learning. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 53–64. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ893712.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Meyer, E. A., Hagopian, L. P., & Paclawskyj, T. R. (1999). A function-based treatment for school refusal behavior using shaping and fading. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(6), 401–410. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Meyer, K. A. (1996). The functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by children in elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(08A), 114-3393. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Meyer, K. A. (1999). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(2), 229–232. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Miller, J. H. (2005). Disruption in the preschool classroom: A functional assessment based approach (Doctoral dis- sertation, Vanderbilt University). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., & Kumar, K. (2005). Instructional adaptation in the management of escape-maintained behavior in a classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 216–223. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Moore, T. R., Tervo, R. C., McComas, J. J., Rivard, P. F., & Symons, F. J. (2009). Longitudinal functional analysis of problem behavior during an atypical neuroleptic medication cross-over evaluation for an adolescent with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 105–119. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Moreno, G. (2011). Addressing challenging behaviours in the general education setting: Conducting a teacher- based functional behavioural assessment (FBA). Education, 3-13, 39(4), 363–371. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Moreno, G., Wong-Lo, M., & Bullock, L. M. (2014). Assisting students from diverse backgrounds with challenging behaviors: Incorporating a culturally attuned functional behavioral assessment in prereferral services. Prevent- ing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(1), 58–68. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 21 WWC Intervention Report Msall, M. E., Tremont, M. R., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (2001). Functional assessments of preschool children: Optimizing developmental and family supports in early intervention. Infants and Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Jour- nal of Special Care Practices, 14(1), 46–66. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Mueller, M. M., & Ajamu, N. (2007). State of the science in the assessment and management of severe behavior problems in school settings: Behavior analytic consultation to schools. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(2), 176–202. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ801197.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Mueller, M. M., & Kafka, C. (2006). Assessment and treatment of object mouthing in a public school classroom. Behavioral Interventions, 21(2), 137–154. doi:10.1002/bin.201 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Mueller, M. M., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Moore, J. W. (2005). Towards developing a classroom-based functional analysis condition to assess escape-to-attention as a variable maintaining problem behavior. School Psychol- ogy Review, 34(3), 425–431. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Mullen, C. M. (2001). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students: A qualitative study of the assessment process in a multicultural environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(01B), 94-597. (AAI3003080) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Murdock, S. G., O’Neill, R. E., & Cunningham, E. (2005). A comparison of results and acceptability of functional behavioral assessment procedures with a group of middle school students with emotional/behavioral disor- ders (E/BD). Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(1), 5–18. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Murphy, C. P. (2010). An investigation of the relative effectiveness of function-based and non-function-based behavioral interventions. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(11-A), 4180. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Neef, N., & Northup, J. (2007). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), Functional analysis in clinical treatment (pp. 87–110). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Neely, L., Rispoli, M., Gerow, S., & Ninci, J. (2015). Effects of antecedent exercise on academic engagement and stereotypy during instruction. Behavior Modification, 39(1), 98–116. doi:10.1177/0145445514552891 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Neilsen, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment in early education settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(2), 115–131. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Ness, J. B. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An empirically-based investigation of the possibility of a broadened cognitive science view. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(02A), 126-490. (AAI3165925) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Newcomer, L. L. (2003). Functional assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and treatment validity and the effectiveness of function-based interventions compared to non-functional interventions. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(12-A), 4274. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Newcomer, L. L., & Lewis, T. J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliabil- ity and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 168–181. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Nielsen, S. L. (2001). Extending positive behavioral support to young children with challenging behavior. Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 62(10A), 131-3347. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 22 WWC Intervention Report Nordness, P. D., Swain, K. D., & Haverkost, A. (2012). A screening matrix for an initial line of inquiry. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(4), 245–251. doi:10.1177/1053451211424597 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Northup, J., Broussard, C., Jones, K., George, T., Vollmer, T. R., & Herring, M. (1995). The differential effects of teacher and peer attention on the disruptive classroom behavior of three children with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 227–228. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Northup, J., Fusilier, I., Swanson, V., Huette, J., Bruce, T., Freeland, J., … Edwards, S. (1999). Further analysis of the separate and interactive effects of methylphenidate and common classroom contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(1), 35–50. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Northup, J., & Gulley, V. (2001). Some contributions of functional analysis to the assessment of behaviors associ- ated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the effects of stimulant medication. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 227. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Northup, J., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Kelly, L., Sasso, G., & DeRaad, A. (1994). The treatment of severe behavior problems in school settings using a technical assistance model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 33–47. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Olympia, D., & Larsen, J. (2005). Functional behavioral assessment: An emerging component of best school prac- tices for ADHD. ADHD Report, 13(5), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2009). Teacher involvement in the development of function-based behaviour interven- tion plans for students with challenging behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 6–25. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Edrisinha, C., & Andrews, A. (2005). An examination of the effects of a classroom activity schedule on levels of self-injury and engagement for a child with severe autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35(3), 305–311. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Packenham, M., Shute, R., & Reid, R. (2004). Truncated functional behavioral assessment procedure for children with disruptive classroom behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1), 9–25. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Park, K. L. (2010). Using structural analysis in head start classrooms: Antecedent-based interventions for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humani- ties and Social Sciences, 71(3-A), 825. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Parker, M., Skinner, C., & Booher, J. (2010). Using functional behavioral assessment data to infer learning histo- ries and guide interventions: A consultation case study. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(1), 24–34. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ896233.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Patterson, S. T. (2009). The effects of teacher-student small talk on out-of-seat behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 167–174. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Payne, L. D. (2006). Functional behavioral assessment: Basing intervention on function in school settings. Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 67(08A), 116-2941. (AAI3228803) The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Payne, L. D., Scott, T. M., & Conroy, M. (2007). A school-based examination of the efficacy of function-based inter- vention. Behavioral Disorders, 32(3), 158–174. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 25 WWC Intervention Report Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., … Allaire, A. (1992). Use of descrip- tive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 809–821. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Schwartz, I. S., Boulware, G., McBride, B. J., & Sandall, S. R. (2001). Functional assessment strategies for young children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(4), 222–227, 231. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Scott, T. M., Alter, P. J., & McQuillan, K. (2010). Functional behavior assessment in classroom settings: Scaling down to scale up. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(2), 87–94. doi:10.1177/1053451210374986 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Scott, T. M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., & DeShea, L. (2004). Using functional behavior assessment in general education settings: Making a case for effectiveness and efficiency. Behavioral Disor- ders, 29(2), 189–201. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Scott, T. M., DeSimone, C., Fowler, W., & Webb, E. (2000). Using functional assessment to develop interventions for challenging behaviors in the classroom: Three case studies. Preventing School Failure, 44(2), 51–56. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Scott, T. M., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., & McIntyre, J. (2005). Team-based functional behavior assessment as a proactive public school process: A descriptive analysis of current barriers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(1), 57–71. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Conroy, M., & Payne, L. D. (2005). An examination of the rela- tion between functional behavior assessment and selected intervention strategies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 205–215. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Shumate, E. D., & Wills, H. P. (2010). Classroom-based functional analysis and intervention for disruptive and off- task behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(1), 23–48. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Silverman, M. K., Stratman, K. F., & Smith, R. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in schools using functional assessment. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 25(4), 307–325. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Simmons, M., Arnold, M., & Carson, J. (1993). Instruction for effective teaching and behavior management. Reading Improvement, 30, 157–160. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Skinner, J. N., Veerkamp, M. B., Kamps, D. M., & Andra, P. R. (2009). Teacher and peer participation in functional analysis and intervention for a first grade student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(2), 243–266. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Slifer, K. J., & Amari, A. (2009). Behavior management for children and adolescents with acquired brain injury. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(2), 144–151. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Smalley, K. A. (2002). Strategies and barriers in facilitating social supports with individuals who present challenging behaviors, as a means to produce behavioral change. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(2-A), 559. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Smith, C. (2011). The effectiveness of function-based classroom interventions using functional behavior assessments and an in-school suspension program. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(10-A), 3621. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 26 WWC Intervention Report Snell, M. E., Voorhees, M. D., & Chen, L. (2005). Team involvement in assessment-based interventions with prob- lem behavior: 1997–2002. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(3), 140–152. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Stage, S. A., Cheney, D., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C., & Flower, A. (2012). Three validity studies of the daily progress report in relationship to the Check, Connect, and Expect intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven- tions, 14(3), 181–191. doi:10.1177/1098300712438942 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Stahr, B., Cushing, D., Lane, K., & Fox, J. (2006). Efficacy of a function-based intervention in decreasing off-task behavior exhibited by a student with ADHD. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(4), 201–211. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992). Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspec- tives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Stoiber, K. C., & Gettinger, M. (2011). Functional assessment and positive support strategies for promoting resil- ience: Effects on teachers and high-risk children. Psychology in the Schools, 48(7), 686–706. doi:10.1002/ pits.20587 The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Fitts, M. (2007). Functional assessment and positive support strategies: Case illus- tration of process and outcomes. Early Childhood Services: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Effectiveness, 1(3), 165–179. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Stoiber, K. C., & Vanderwood, M. L. (2008). Traditional assessment, consultation, and intervention practices: Urban school psychologists’ use, importance, and competence ratings. Journal of Educational and Psy- chological Consultation, 18(3), 264–292. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Stokes, J. V., & Luiselli, J. K. (2010). Functional analysis and behavioral coaching intervention to improve tackling skills of a high school football athlete. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4(2), 150–157. The study is ineli- gible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Storey, K., Lawry, J. R., Ashworth, R., Danko, C. D., & Strain, P. S. (1994). Functional analysis and intervention for disruptive behaviors of a kindergarten student. Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 361–370. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Storm-Smith, C. A. (2006). A study of the present practices of public schools in southern California in the use of functional behavioral assessment and functional analysis assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(03A), 187-900. (AAI3212498) The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Strickland-Cohen, M. K., & Horner, R. H. (2015). Typical school personnel developing and implementing basic behavior support plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(2), 83–94. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Sturmey, P. (2001). The functional analysis checklist: Inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 14(2), 141–146. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Sugai, G. M., & Horner, R. H. (2000). Special issue: Functional behavioral assessment. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 8(3). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Sutton, J. P., & Walker, S. C. (1999). A diagnostician’s primer on functional behavioral assessment. Diagnostique, 25(1), 45–57. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Swaggart, B. L. (1997). Factors that contribute to the type and the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the occurrence of self-injurious behavior in school-aged children and adults with developmental disabilities: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(11A), 566-4236. (AAG9817106) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 27 WWC Intervention Report Swarts, L. (2001). The influence of research-based systems/strategies on alternative education program safety. Dis- sertation Abstracts International, 62(12A), 241-4020. (AAI3038766) The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Swoszowski, N. C. (2010). Function-based responding to Check In/Check Out for students with emotional and behavioral disorders in a residential facility (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University). The study is ineli- gible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Tang, J., Patterson, T. G., & Kennedy, C. H. (2003). Identifying specific sensory modalities maintaining the stereo- typy of students with multiple profound disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(6), 433–451. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2003.02.001 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Tarbox, J., Wilke, A. E., Najdowski, A. C., Findel-Pyles, R. S., Balasanyan, S., Caveney, A. C.…Tia, B. (2009). Com- paring indirect, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of challenging behavior in children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 21(6), 493–514. doi:10.1007/s10882-009-9154-8 The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Taylor, J., & Miller, M. (1997). When timeout works some of the time: The importance of treatment integrity and func- tional assessment. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 4–22. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Taylor, J. C., & Carr, E. G. (1992). Severe problem behaviors related to social interaction. 1: Attention seeking and social avoidance. Behavior Modification, 16, 305–335. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Taylor, J. C., & Romanczyk, R. G. (1994). Generating hypotheses about the function of student problem behavior by observing teacher behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 251–265. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Taylor, J. C., Sission, L. A., McKelvey, J. L., & Trefelner, M. F. (1993). Situation specificity in attention-seeking prob- lem behavior. A case study. Behavior Modification, 17(4), 474–497. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Thoder, V. J., Hesky, J. G., & Cautilli, J. D. (2010). Using reliable change to calculate clinically significant progress in children with EBD: A BHRS program evaluation. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(1), 45–66. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ896235.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Tincani, M. (2011). Preventing challenging behavior in your classroom: Positive behavior support and effective classroom management. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Turton, A. M., Umbreit, J., & Mathur, S. R. (2011). Systematic function-based intervention for adolescents with emo- tional and behavioral disorders in an alternative setting: Broadening the context. Behavioral Disorders, 36(2), 117–128. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Turton, A., & Rayner, S. (2007). Behaviour intervention for a student with Tourette’s syndrome: A case study. Emo- tional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12(4), 333–348. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible design. Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment and intervention in a regular classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 20(4), 267–278. The study is ineligible for review because it is out of the scope of the protocol. Umbreit, J., & Blair, K. (1997). Using structural analysis to facilitate treatment of aggression and noncompliance in a young child at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 75–86. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 30 WWC Intervention Report Appendix A.1: Research details for Christensen et al. (2004) Christensen, L., Young, K. R., & Marchant, M. (2004). The effects of a peer-mediated positive behavior support program on socially appropriate classroom behavior. Education and Treatment of Chil- dren, 27(3), 199–234. Setting The study was conducted in an urban elementary school. The school’s student population was 53% Caucasian, 40% Hispanic, and 7% other ethnicity; 67% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. Eduardo’s intervention took place in a third-grade general education classroom with 23 students.15 Study sample The study sample included two 8-year-old boys, Eduardo and Justin, who were determined to be at risk for an emotional and behavioral disorder. Eduardo demonstrated high rates of disrup- tive and off-task behavior in the classroom. He had recently arrived at the school from Ecuador, but spoke English and no longer qualified for English as a second language services. He per- formed below grade level in math and reading and received daily tutoring in those subjects. The experiment for Justin did not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it does not include at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three dif- ferent points in time; thus, this experiment is not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness. Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures, including a teacher interview, observa- tions conducted across different academic subject times, identification of problem behaviors and alternative positive behaviors, and a survey to identify potential reinforcers, determined that Eduardo’s problem behavior was caused by the lack of attention he received in his class- room. Specifically, there was a low rate of reinforcement, especially attention-based reinforce- ment by the teacher and peers, for appropriate behavior. The study examined the effects of an individualized FBA-based intervention called Positive Behavior Support that was directly aligned to Eduardo’s needs and included self-monitoring, peer and teacher support and atten- tion, and reinforcement for appropriate behavior, using tokens and praise. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design. During the baseline/withdrawal condition, there was no formal behavior management system in place in the classroom. Observations revealed that the teacher would occasionally praise students or call out to the class that they were doing well. Consequences for inappropriate behavior were inconsistent. Outcomes and measurement The outcome was the percentage of intervals with socially-appropriate classroom behavior which falls under the school engagement domain. For a more detailed description of this out- come measure, see Appendix B. Results from the one experiment with an outcome in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 31 WWC Intervention Report Support for implementation Eduardo’s classroom teacher was trained by a behavior specialist, who presented an overview of the intervention plan and the role of the peer partner. The teacher also learned about the process for providing reinforcement and praise. Eduardo’s teacher then trained the student pair (Eduardo and his peer) in her class, through two 1-hour sessions. A training checklist was used by the teacher to verify the mastery of items. Maintenance There was no maintenance phase. Author-reported findings The study authors found that the FBA-based intervention increased Eduardo’s socially appro- priate classroom behavior. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards Without Reservations. Appendix A.2: Research details for Hagan-Burke et al. (2015) Hagan-Burke, S., Gilmour, M. W., Gerow, S., & Crowder, W. C. (2015). Identifying academic demands that occasion problem behaviors for students with behavioral disorders: Illustrations at the ele- mentary school level. Behavior Modification, 39(1), 215–241. Setting The study took place in a public elementary school in a suburban area. It was a Title I school with grades pre-K through fifth grade. At least 90% of students in the school received free or reduced-price lunch; the ethnicity of the school population was 71% African American, 20% Hispanic, 4% multi-racial, 3% Caucasian, and 2% Asian American. The intervention sessions took place in the participants’ special education classrooms. Study sample Two students were referred to the school’s behavior support team for problem behaviors that were associated with academic performance. The first student, Freddy, was a first-grade (age 7) Hispanic student with a behavior disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Freddy spent approximately one-third of the school day in a special education classroom receiving social behavior support, along with academic support for reading and math. The second student, Clay, was a third-grade (age 9) African-American student with a behavior disorder. His special education services were provided 90 minutes per day and included social behavior support, along with academic support for reading, spelling, and math. Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for each student included interviewing the participants’ teachers, examining records of discipline referrals, and conducting direct obser- vations in the students’ general and special education classrooms. After coding the direct observation data and identifying potential triggers, the researchers conducted a structural analysis for each participant to determine the contextual variables (e.g., classroom climate) associated with each student’s behaviors. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 32 WWC Intervention Report The researchers determined that Freddy was most likely to exhibit decreased task engage- ment during circle time, when activities used a choral response format with fast-paced instruc- tion, as opposed to an independent work setting, where his task engagement was higher. As a result, the FBA-based intervention that was developed used slow-paced instruction during circle time. The researchers held constant the choral group leader, the length of each session, and the approximate number of peers present. They asked the teacher to only praise or give affirmation statements to Freddy after each session had ended. For Clay, the researchers examined his behavior across four content areas and determined that independent math work with unknown multiplication facts was associated with his decreased task engagement. The FBA-based intervention that was developed provided Clay with a worksheet consisting of multiplication problems using known facts. The length of ses- sions, number of problems per worksheet, and total number of digits per worksheet were con- trolled; order effects were controlled by counterbalancing conditions. The researchers made sure that the teacher was blind to which condition was in effect and asked the teacher to use the same interaction level and type as she typically would when Clay was engaged in indepen- dent academic work. Comparison The study used an alternating treatment design for both participants. Freddy’s alternating treatment design compared the effect of using slow-paced instruction (FBA-based interven- tion) to fast-paced instruction (comparison). Clay’s alternating treatment design compared the effect of using known multiplication problems (FBA-based intervention) with unknown multipli- cation problems (comparison). The FBA conducted prior to intervention documented that both participants engaged in high levels of baseline problem behavior during specific times in the academic day. Outcomes and measurement The outcome for both students was appropriate task engagement, which falls within the school engagement domain. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B. The study also measured the percentage of math problems Clay solved correctly; this outcome is not eligible for review, as it does not pertain to the overall purpose of the study (i.e., examining the effect of FBA procedures in developing interventions to improve academic task engagement), but instead measures intervention fidelity. Results from the two experiments with outcomes in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Support for implementation The researchers observed Freddy’s teacher to document that she followed the correct pace. They also asked Freddy’s teacher to follow a prescribed way to deliver praise, but they did not describe how they trained her. The researchers instructed Clay’s teacher to maintain the same level of interactions she typically had with Clay during independent work across both conditions. Maintenance There was no maintenance phase. Author-reported findings The study authors found that the FBA-based interventions increased appropriate task engage- ment for Freddy and Clay. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards Without Reservations.16 Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 35 WWC Intervention Report Comparison The study used one multiple baseline design experiment across three subjects. The baseline condition consisted of normal classroom practice without self-monitoring. Students mostly completed independent work, although teachers would also sometimes lecture; a classroom- wide behavior management system was in place, and good behavior was rewarded with points that could be exchanged for prizes. Normal instruction included shortening required work for Eddie. His teachers believed that shortening work had reduced Eddie’s tantrums, but he still did not complete his work. Outcomes and measurement The study’s outcome was on-task behavior, which falls in the school engagement domain. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B. Results from the one experiment with an outcome in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Support for implementation Not reported. Maintenance There was an 8-week follow-up phase, with four data points in each classroom. The pro- cedures were the same as the intervention stage, except that self-monitoring was phased out, and Eddie was monitored for on-task behavior during 5-minute intervals, rather than the 1-minute intervals used in the intervention. The data patterns during the follow-up phase were similar to the patterns in the intervention phase in each classroom. Author-reported findings The study authors found that the FBA-based intervention increased Eddie’s on-task behavior. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards Without Reservations. Appendix A.5: Research details for Lane et al. (2007a) Lane, K. L., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau, A. C., Merwin, M. T., & Bergman, W. A. (2007a). Function-based interventions for students who are nonresponsive to primary and secondary prevention efforts: Illustrations at the elementary and middle school levels. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 169–183. Setting The study took place in an eighth-grade science class in a rural Tennessee school district. The district subscribed to a full inclusion model, and the schools used a three-tiered model of Positive Behavior Support (PBS). Study sample Two students were part of the study sample. Aaron was a 14-year-old male in eighth grade who had antisocial behavior and was at risk for an emotional and behavioral disorder clas- sification. In the classroom, Aaron was highly noncompliant and also demonstrated impaired relationships with peers, a negative attitude, many problem behaviors, and poor academic achievement. Aaron had received special education services since fourth grade for a learning disability in written expression. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 36 WWC Intervention Report The other student in the study sample was Claire; the authors used a changing criterion design to study the effects of FBA and the resulting FBA-based intervention on Claire’s social- emotional outcome (classroom participation). This experiment meets WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations; however, the social-emotional competence domain does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings in this report, so her experiment is not described in Appendix C. For a more detailed description of Claire’s experiment, see Appendix D.12 Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures, including teacher and parent interviews, behavior rating scales completed by teachers, and direct observations, determined that Aaron engaged in noncompliance to increase teacher attention and escape assigned tasks. Aaron’s FBA-based intervention involved providing him with a checklist of tasks to complete when responding to questions or assignments shown on the classroom work board. The teacher and special education aide in Aaron’s classroom gave positive reinforcement only after Aaron had successfully completed the work board assignment and the checklist. When Aaron exhibited the target behavior, the teacher or assistant gave a verbal redirect lasting no longer than 2 seconds; all other attention was withheld until Aaron had completed his work board assignment and checklist. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for Aaron. The baseline/withdrawal sessions took place in Aaron’s classroom and consisted of regular classroom practices. Outcomes and measurement Aaron’s outcome is the percentage of intervals in which he demonstrated compliance with the teacher, which falls under the school engagement domain. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B. The study also measured the social validity of the intervention via student and teacher rat- ings. These outcomes are not presented in the report because they do not fall under a domain specified in the protocol. Results from the one experiment with an outcome in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Support for implementation Researchers provided Aaron’s teacher with training about the specific components of the intervention, including the reinforcements, and how each of the components was to be imple- mented correctly. Aaron’s teacher agreed to provide the checklist each day and sign the checklist following Aaron’s completion of tasks. Maintenance For Aaron, maintenance data were collected 7 weeks after intervention completion. At that time, Aaron’s teacher had discontinued the use of Aaron’s checklist and restructured the work board activity for the entire class. She continued to give Aaron extra points for successful completion of work board assignments but did not give him opportunities to choose peers for group work and did not record whether she only gave him attention for compliant behavior. There was a downward trend in Aaron’s compliance, and it was at a level similar to the withdrawal phase. Author-reported findings The study authors found that the FBA-based intervention increased Aaron’s compliance with the teacher. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards Without Reservations.19 Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 37 WWC Intervention Report Appendix A.6: Research details for Lane et al. (2007b) Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. H. (2007). Designing, implementing, and evalu- ating function-based interventions using a systematic, feasible approach. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2), 122–139. Setting The study took place in an inclusive public school in Tennessee. Charlie was in a first-grade classroom that was taught by a teacher who had 6 years of experience and a master’s degree. Margaret was in a second-grade classroom that was taught by a first-year teacher with a bachelor’s degree. Study sample Two students were part of the study sample. Charlie was a 7-year-old student who was at risk for emotional and behavioral problems, according to his teacher’s assessment on the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). He did not receive special education services at the time of the study. Another participant, Margaret, only had measured outcomes in the social-emotional com- petence domain. The social-emotional competence domain does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings in this report, so her experi- ment is not described in Appendix C. For a more detailed description of Margaret’s experi- ment, see Appendix D.12 Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures, including teacher and parent interviews, direct observations, and behavioral rating scales, suggested that Charlie engaged in off-task behavior to attract teacher and peer attention and escape from nonpreferred activities. The resulting FBA-based interventions involved: a) teaching the student a replacement behavior; b) restructuring the environment, if needed; or c) restructuring the contingencies surrounding the behavior. If Charlie succeeded in only demonstrating off-task behaviors that were within the daily limit (initially four, then increased to eight per day) and completed all of his assignments with 100% accuracy, he was allowed access to additional activities, such as a weekly trip to the library. Charlie’s teacher would praise his positive behavior throughout the day, and send notes to his parents about his performance which allowed them to provide positive reinforce- ment at home. When Charlie engaged in off-task behavior, the teacher gave brief verbal redi- rection and placed a tally mark on the chalkboard. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for Charlie. During the baseline/withdrawal ses- sions, regular classroom practices were implemented in a 90-minute period in the morning. In that period, students were to complete three “center” assignments, while the teacher met with each reading group for 30 minutes. Students sat in groups of four and were allowed to talk quietly if they needed help completing the assignments. If a student exhibited negative behavior, the student had to “move their star” that was visible by the classroom; as the stars moved downward, privileges were lost. Outcomes and measurement The outcome for Charlie was off-task behavior, which falls under the school engagement domain. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B. Results from the one experiment with an outcome in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 40 WWC Intervention Report Author-reported findings The study authors found that both FBA-based interventions—peer separation and teacher proximity—were associated with some increases in academic engagement, but peer sepa- ration had a larger impact. The author findings varied by student. For Alexandra, the study authors found that both peer separation and teacher proximity were associated with an increase in academic engagement, but peer separation had a larger impact. For Brenda, the study authors found that peer separation was associated with an increase in academic engagement, but teacher proximity had no positive effect on academic engagement. For Han- nah, the study authors found that peer separation and teacher proximity were both associated with an increase in academic engagement. For Larry, the study authors found that peer sepa- ration was associated with an increase in academic engagement, but that teacher proximity was associated with a slight decrease in academic engagement. The study authors found that both FBA-based interventions—peer separation and teacher proximity—were associated with decreases in all four students’ disruptive behavior, but peer separation had a larger impact. The author findings varied by student. For Alexandra, the study authors found that both peer separation and teacher proximity were associated with a decrease in disruptive behavior, but peer separation had a larger impact. For Brenda, the study authors found that both peer separation and teacher proximity were associated with a decrease in disruptive behavior. For Hannah, the study authors found that peer separation was associated with a large decrease in disruptive behavior, and teacher proximity was associ- ated with a slight decrease in disruptive behavior. For Larry, the study authors found that peer separation was associated with a large decrease in disruptive behavior and teacher proximity was associated with a slight decrease in disruptive behavior. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards Without Reservations. Appendix A.8: Research details for Christensen et al. (2012) Christensen, L., Renshaw, T. L., Caldarella, P., & Young, J. R. (2012). Training a general educator to use function-based support for students at risk for behavior disorders. Education, 133(2), 313–335. Setting The study took place in a Title I elementary school in a suburban area of Utah. Approximately 74% of the students in the school were Caucasian, 22% were Hispanic, and 4% identified as other ethnic groups. Both participants were taught in a general education classroom in by a fourth-grade teacher who had a bachelor’s degree in elementary education. Study sample The study includes three students who were identified by their teacher as being at risk for behavioral disorders. Amy was a fourth-grade Caucasian female student who performed above grade level in reading and mathematics. José was a fourth-grade Puerto-Rican/Caucasian male student who performed at grade level in reading and mathematics. Both students were at risk for future academic difficulties because of frequent disengagement from academic tasks. The single-case design experiment for an additional student, Cameron, does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because data are only presented for two phases; therefore, there is not an attempt to demonstrate the effect of the intervention three times. As a result, this experiment is not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 41 WWC Intervention Report Intervention Following training provided by the research staff, the teacher carried out a functional behav- ioral assessment (FBA), which included direct observations of the students. The teacher then developed FBA-based interventions for both students. Amy’s intervention involved self- management training, extra teacher attention, and the use of tokens she could exchange for extra reading time, if she stayed seated and worked on assigned material. José’s intervention involved giving him tokens that he could exchange for extra recess time, if he demonstrated on-task behavior while completing assigned material; the teacher reviewed expectations with José and explained that she would give him tokens if his self-management improved. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for both students. During the baseline/withdrawal condition for each student, teachers taught their classes as usual. Outcomes and measurement Amy’s outcome was off-task behavior and José’s outcome was on-task behavior; both out- comes fall under the school engagement domain. Amy and José’s teacher and three under- graduate students (referred to as “independent observers”) collected the observational data for all phases; the WWC visual analysis focused on the data collected by the independent observers. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Christensen et al. (2012) also measured the teacher’s function-based support knowledge. This outcome is not presented in the report because it does not fall under a domain specified in the protocol. Results from the two experiments with outcomes in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Support for implementation The teacher received FBA training which involved group instruction, independent readings, applied activities, and individual consultation. The group instruction was the main component of training and consisted of four 1-hour training sessions conducted after school. The teacher, upon completing initial training, served as the primary interventionist with continued support. Maintenance There was no maintenance phase for José. Amy’s teacher systematically reduced the interven- tion during two maintenance phases. Amy’s off-task behavior during these phases was similar to her behavior during the first and second intervention phases. Author-reported findings The study authors found that the FBA-based interventions decreased Amy’s off-task behavior and increased José’s on-task behavior. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards With Reservations. Reason for study rating: The experiments for Amy and José used reversal-withdrawal designs and there were fewer than five data points in at least one phase; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), these experiments meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 42 WWC Intervention Report Appendix A.9: Research details for Clarke et al. (1995) Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Childs, K. E., Wilson, D., White, R., & Vera, A. (1995). Improv- ing the conduct of students with behavioral disorders by incorporating student interests into cur- ricular activities. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 221–237. Setting The study took place in two classrooms at a public elementary school. Ahmad was in a kinder- garten classroom for students with severe emotional disturbance (SED). The classroom con- tained eight children and was staffed by a teacher and a full-time aide; Ahmad’s study took place during language arts lessons. Juan and Shane were in a class for students who exhibited SED and included eight to nine children, a teacher, and an aide. Their grade-level was not reported. Study sample Four students were part of the study sample. Ahmad was 5 years old and Juan and Shane were 11. All three students had been diagnosed as having an SED. Ahmad’s teacher reported that his most problematic behaviors at school were aggression, noncompliance, property destruction, inability to maintain task engagement, and leaving his area without permission. Juan’s disruptive behaviors included noise making, talking out, property destruction, exces- sive off-task behavior, and noncompliance. At the time of the study, Juan was taking Imipra- mine. In addition to SED, Shane was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; he demonstrated excessive off-task behavior, an inability to complete assignments, property destruction, and noncompliance. The single-case design experiments for an additional student, Arnold, are not eligible for this review because he did not have an emotional disturbance, but had instead received a diag- nosis of autism. As a result, Arnold’s single case design experiments are not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness. Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for each student included interviews with teachers, other adults, and students, followed by direct observations. Based on the results, researchers developed FBA-based interventions that involved incorporating students’ interests in the curriculum. Ahmad’s intervention involved replacing standard alphabet letter worksheet pictures with pictures of cars and motorcycles. Juan’s intervention involved replacing the content of cursive sentences he was to copy from a handwriting workbook with content from Nintendo game booklets. The first phase of Shane’s intervention was identical to Juan’s, but later phases also involved presenting the assignments in smaller increments (one sentence at a time) and permitting him to copy directly onto the handwriting sheet. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for all three students. The baseline/withdrawal condition consisted of identical assignments as the intervention, without the curricular modi- fications. The classroom staff utilized their business-as-usual behavior management system throughout all phases of the study, whereby appropriate behavior was reinforced with tokens that were exchangeable for rewards on a weekly basis. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 45 WWC Intervention Report Outcomes and measurement The study’s two outcomes were time on task, which falls under the school engagement domain, and inappropriate behavior, which falls under the problem behavior domain. Time on task was not measured for Todd. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. For Todd and Mary, there were two or fewer data points in one of the baseline phases for their outcome measures. These cases would typically not meet WWC pilot single-case design stan- dards for a reversal-withdrawal design because of the lack of data points; however, the review protocol allows phases to be shortened if extended baseline phases pose serious ethical and procedural concerns. Because baseline phases for Todd and Mary were cut short due to self- injurious and aggressive behavior (described in the original study or confirmed by the authors), Todd and Mary’s designs meet standards with reservations. The study also measured the number of times the students gave the break card to their teacher; this outcome is ineligible for review because it is considered to be a part of the inter- vention (and as such, was only measured and relevant during the intervention phases). The study also measured the social validity of the intervention, which does not fall under a domain specified in the protocol. Results from the two experiments with outcomes in the school engagement domain are presented in Appendix C.1. Results from the three experiments with outcomes in the problem behavior domain are presented in Appendix C.2. Support for implementation Teachers received training from the researchers before the FBA and implementation of the intervention. The training consisted of a review and practice of the procedures until they were performed with 100% accuracy. Researchers were also present during all study phases to provide support to teachers. Maintenance During additional maintenance phases for Eli and Mary, both students experienced gradual reduction of the reinforcement. Specifically, there was an increasing delay of when they would receive a reward for displaying the alternate behavior. Mary had a delay ranging from 5 to 20 seconds in five additional phases; two of these phases also included group instruction with a paraprofessional or substitute paraprofessional. Mary’s inappropriate behavior during these phases was consistent with her intervention data, and her time on task increased dramati- cally during these additional phases. Eli had a thinning phase with a delay of 60 seconds that occurred after the ABAB design; both outcomes from the additional phases were consistent with his intervention data. Author-reported findings The study authors reported that the FBA-based intervention increased time on task for Eli, had no effect on Mary’s time on task, and decreased inappropriate behaviors for Eli, Mary, and Todd. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards With Reservations. Reason for study rating: In each of the study’s reversal-withdrawal experiments, there were fewer than five data points in at least one phase; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), these experiments meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 46 WWC Intervention Report Appendix A.11: Research details for Dunlap et al. (1995) Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Clarke, S., Kern, L., & Childs, K. E. (1995). Modifying activities to produce functional outcomes: Effects on the problem behaviors of students with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(4), 248–258. Setting The study took place in a school in Florida. The sessions were conducted in a separate room by an aide who was familiar with the students. A behavior management system was in place in the classroom. Study sample Three students were part of the study sample. Jill was 13 years old and had multiple disabilities, including severe emotional disturbance, mild mental retardation, schizophrenia, and attention deficit disorder. The study reported outcomes for two additional students, Jary and Natalie. The single-case design experiment for Jary is not eligible for this review because he was not diagnosed with an emotional disturbance, but was instead diagnosed as having autism and an intellectual dis- ability. Natalie’s study design did not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because there were fewer than three data points in at least one phase of her reversal-withdrawal design experiment. As a result, their single case design experiments are not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness. Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures included interviews with teachers, followed by direct observations. Based on the FBA, an intervention was developed that retained instructional objectives but modified curricular activities to better align with Jill’s interests. The FBA-based intervention consisted of writing captions onto a blank sheet of lined paper that were related to photographs that she had taken earlier in the week. The instructional objective was to demonstrate the correct use of letter formation and spacing in handwriting. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design. Jill’s baseline/withdrawal condition consisted of regular instruction and copying words from a handwriting book onto a blank sheet of lined paper. Outcomes and measurement The study included on-task behavior, which falls into the school engagement domain, and the percentage of intervals in which the student displays problem behavior, which falls in the problem behavior domain. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. The study also measured student productivity, interest, and happiness. Student productivity is not presented in the report because the study authors did not provide visual analysis from the single-case design experiments, so these experiments do not meet review requirements. Inter- est and happiness do not fall under a domain specified in the protocol. Results from the one experiment with an outcome in the school engagement domain are presented in Appendix C.1. Results from the one experiment with an outcome in the problem behavior domain are presented in Appendix C.2. Support for implementation Not reported. Maintenance There was no maintenance phase. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 47 WWC Intervention Report Author-reported findings The study authors reported that the FBA-based intervention produced a small increase in Jill’s on-task behavior when first introduced and a large increase in on-task behavior when the inter- vention was re-introduced. They also reported a small decrease in problem behavior when the FBA-based intervention was first introduced to Jill, extremely high levels of problem behavior when the intervention was withdrawn, and a large decrease in problem behavior when the inter- vention was re-introduced; they characterized these results as demonstrating improvement in Jill’s behavior. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards With Reservations. Reason for study rating: There were fewer than five data points in at least one phase for both of Jill’s outcomes; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), these experiments meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. Appendix A.12: Research details for Dunlap et al. (1996) Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The effects of multi-component, assessment-based curricular modifications on the classroom behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6(4), 481–500. Setting The study took place in classrooms serving students with an emotional and behavioral disor- der (EBD) at a public elementary school in a large southeastern US city. Ann and Michael were in the same classroom, which was served by one teacher and one aide. Gizelle was in a differ- ent classroom that was also served by one teacher and one aide. The study was conducted during English classes for Michael and Gizelle and during handwriting sessions for Ann. Study sample Three students were part of the study sample. All three students had been labeled “severely emotionally disturbed” by officials in their school. Each student exhibited problem behaviors and lack of task engagement prior to the study. Michael and Ann were 7 years old, and Gizelle was 9 years old. Michael and Ann were in the same classroom, although Michael was consid- ered second-grade status, while Ann was first-grade status. Gizelle was in the fourth grade. Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures included a review of records; interviews with teachers, students, and parents; and classroom observations. Based on the FBA, a multi- component, curricular intervention was designed for each student. The FBA-based intervention packages for all three students included elements of choice— Michael and Gizelle were allowed to choose from a menu of worksheets, and Ann was allowed to choose what words she would trace on a worksheet. Michael’s intervention also included dividing each longer assignment into two shorter assignments, and the font size of all printed materials was increased. For Gizelle, worksheets were modified by highlighting certain words to draw attention to them, adding pictures to clarify instructions, and adjusting worksheets to a lower reading level that was more consistent with her ability level; longer assignments were also divided into two shorter assignments. Ann’s intervention gave her the opportunity to select food items from a mock grocery store, after tracing food names on four different worksheets. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for all three students. The baseline/withdrawal condition consisted of normal classroom activities without modifications. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 50 WWC Intervention Report Appendix A.14: Research details for Kern et al. (2001) Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (2001). Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using individualized curricular modifications. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 239–247. Setting The study took place at two public elementary schools in self-contained classrooms for stu- dents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Both classrooms had 8–10 students, a teacher, and a paraprofessional. The study sessions took place during a journal activity for Art and handwriting activities for Benjamin. All classroom management procedures, including a point system providing awards for different behaviors, remained constant across all phases of the study. Study sample Two students were part of the study sample. Both students were 11 years old and in the fifth grade. Art was diagnosed as having an emotional disturbance. He had poor task engage- ment and peer relations and demonstrated disruptive behavior and frequent noncompliance. Benjamin was diagnosed as having an emotional and behavioral disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He displayed frequent disruptive behaviors and poor task engagement and peer relations. Intervention Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for both students included direct obser- vations of students and structured interviews with teachers, other school staff, and students. Based on the FBA, researchers hypothesized that problem behavior would decrease and task engagement would increase for both students if they could complete their work in a preferred writing medium. It was also hypothesized that Benjamin’s behavior would improve if his inter- ests were incorporated into his tasks. Art’s FBA-based intervention involved using a preferred writing medium, a portable laptop computer, during journal assignments in which he could write about either a topic provided by the teacher or one of his own choosing. Benjamin’s FBA-based intervention required him to neatly copy four to five sentences from a photocopied handwriting sheet onto a blank sheet of paper. In the intervention condition, the handwriting sheets consisted of copies of pages from a Sega Genesis game booklet. For Benjamin, the study authors also examined another FBA-based intervention that involved giving him the choice of one of three media with which to complete his spelling assignments; the experiment used an ABACDC design for this comparison and does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it did not include at least three attempts to demon- strate an intervention effect at three different points in time. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for both students. During the baseline/withdrawal condition, Art used traditional paper and pencil during journal assignments rather than a laptop. Art’s journal assignment required that he write about either a topic provided by the teacher or one of his own choosing. He was required to complete this assignment in a composition note- book. Benjamin was assigned sentences from a handout including topics such as dinosaurs, funny poems, or the solar system for his writing assignments. His daily assignment was to neatly copy four to five sentences from a photocopied handwriting sheet onto a blank sheet of paper. In all other ways, the assignments were identical to those in the intervention condition. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 51 WWC Intervention Report Outcomes and measurement The study’s eligible outcomes are task engagement, which falls under the school engagement domain, and disruptive behavior, which falls under the problem behavior domain. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. For Art, the study also examined a work productivity outcome—measured as the number of words written per minute—but this outcome does not fall under a domain specified in the protocol. Results from the two experiments with outcomes in the school engagement domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.1. Results from the two experiments with outcomes in the problem behavior domain are presented in Appendix C.2. Support for implementation Not reported. Maintenance There was no maintenance phase. Author-reported findings The study authors reported that the FBA-based interventions increased task engagement and decreased disruptive behavior for Art and Benjamin. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards With Reservations. Reason for study rating: For both students’ reversal-withdrawal experiments, there were fewer than five data points in at least one phase; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), these experiments meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. Appendix A.15: Research details for Mustian (2011) Mustian, A. L. (2011). The comparative effects of function-based versus nonfunction-based interven- tions on the social behavior of African American students. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3422674) Setting The study took place in two fifth-grade general education classrooms in an urban public elementary school in a metropolitan district in the southeastern United States. Teachers in both classrooms used a token economy system to encourage class participation and overall appropriate classroom behavior. The school population was 64% African American and 18% White, with Hispanic and other races making up the remainder. Approximately 86% of the students received free or reduced-priced lunch. Study sample Four students were part of the study sample. The study included two 11-year-old African- American male students (Todd and Alan) who were at risk for an emotional and behavioral disorder. Two additional students were dropped partway through their functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) due to minimal instances of problem behaviors. The author reported that both students had begun taking medication during the course of the FBA, which likely explains the diminishment of their problem behaviors. These students are not included in the WWC review of this study or included in the ratings of effectiveness, as graphical analysis of their outcome data was not presented. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 52 WWC Intervention Report Intervention FBA procedures for both students included direct observations and interviews with teachers. The FBA process resulted in largely identical FBA-based interventions for both participants. A laminated schedule card was provided to each student during the intervention periods (a small group or whole class reading period). The student was trained to use the card as a reference, as well as a timed reminder system to record his behavior, leading to self-initiated breaks from the reading activity. Alan’s desk was also relocated so he was in close proximity to his teacher and farther away from peers. Todd received ten sessions of the intervention, which were 40 minutes in length. Alan received seven total sessions of the intervention, which were 30 min- utes in length. Comparison The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for both students. The baseline/withdrawal con- dition consisted of normal classroom practice, including encouragement and basic reminders to the whole class about on-task behavior. Students were prevented from taking breaks, as opposed to the break system used in the intervention. Outcomes and measurement The primary outcome measure was off-task problem behavior, which falls in the problem behavior domain. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B. Mustian (2001) also measured self-management behavior; this outcome was measured during intervention phases only and thus does not meet WWC review requirements. Results from the two experiments with outcomes in the problem behavior domain are pre- sented in Appendix C.2. Support for implementation Teachers received approximately 12 hours of training on FBA procedures. The training was divided into four modules. After completion of each module, teachers were required to com- plete that portion of the FBA with the students in the study. Once completed, the teachers worked with study personnel to craft a behavioral intervention plan for the students. Maintenance There was no maintenance phase. Author-reported findings The study author found that the FBA-based interventions decreased off-task problem behavior for Todd and Alan. The results of WWC’s corresponding visual analysis are presented in Appendix C. WWC study rating Meets WWC Pilot Single-Case Design Standards With Reservations. Reason for study rating: For both students’ reversal-withdrawal experiments, there were fewer than five data points in at least one phase; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), these experiments meet WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 55 WWC Intervention Report Appendix B: Outcome measures for each domain School engagement Academic engagement The percentage of 10-second intervals in which the student displayed academic engagement, which included attending to assigned materials and sitting or standing in the specified area. Academic engagement was measured by watching video recordings of 10-minute observation periods during class (as cited in Losinski et al., 2015). Appropriate task engagement The percentage of 10-second intervals in which the student displayed appropriate task engagement for the entire interval, with no problem behaviors observed. Appropriate task engagement for Freddy included looking at the teacher or class materials, raising a hand for permission to speak, limiting comments to the relevant topic, and attempting to respond. For Clay, appropriate task engagement included providing written responses to math problems (irrespective of accuracy) and looking at the teacher while directions were given (as cited in Hagan-Burke et al., 2015).a Compliance with teacher The percentage of 15-second intervals in which the student displayed compliant behavior for the entire interval. Compliant behavior was aligned with the assigned activity listed on the board, including pulling out binder, look- ing up at the board, copying the question on the board, looking at notes or textbook for the answer, and raising hand to request teacher’s attention. Each session typically lasted 5–10 minutes, from the time that class began to the time the teacher indicated that it was time to transition to a new activity (as cited in Lane et al., 2007a). Desirable behavior The percentage of 10-second intervals with observed desirable behavior. Data were collected in 15-second intervals, where 10 seconds were used for observations and 5 seconds were used for recording the information. Examples of desirable behavior were following teacher instructions; looking at the appropriate place, such as at materials or the teacher; or appropriate vocalizations. Nonoccurrence of desirable behavior was scored if the student failed to be engaged for a period exceeding 3 consecutive seconds. Sessions for Arnold and Ahmad lasted as long as it took for the student to complete the assigned task, with a limit of 15 minutes. Sessions for Juan and Shane, who were studied simultaneously, lasted for 7 minutes, with observations alternating every minute between the two students (as cited in Clarke et al., 1995). Off-task behavior Off-task behavior was measured in two studies, but the measurement and definition of the outcome varied: The percentage of 1-minute intervals, per session, in which the student displayed off-task behavior, such as walking around, reading when not assigned to do so, and not paying attention. All observation sessions lasted approximately 15 minutes (as cited in Christensen et al., 2012).a The rate of off-task behavior during a 60-minute observation session. The teacher collected data daily using event recording, and occurrences were converted to a rate. Off-task behavior included speaking to peers, teachers, or others without permission, and being out of the assigned area or involved in tasks other than those assigned by the teacher (as cited in Lane et al., 2007b). On-task behavior On-task behavior was measured in multiple studies, but the measurement and definition of the outcome varied: The percentage of 1-minute intervals, per session, in which the student displayed on-task behavior, such as working on assigned material. All observation sessions lasted approximately 15 minutes (as cited in Christensen et al., 2012).a The percentage of 10-second intervals with observed on-task behavior. Data were collected in 15-second intervals, where 10 seconds were used for observations and 5 seconds were used for recording the information. Examples of on-task behavior were following teacher instructions and looking at the appropriate place, such as at materials or the teacher (as cited in Dunlap et al., 1995 and Kern et al., 1994). The percentage of total session time that the student was observed to be on task. Examples of on-task behavior included attending to assigned materials, raising hand to request teacher’s attention, remaining in seat, and waiting for teacher instruction. The duration of on-task behavior was entered only after the behavior had occurred for at least 3 seconds (as cited in Hansen et al., 2014).a The percentage of 15-second intervals in which on-task behavior was observed and off-task behavior was not observed. Examples of on-task behavior included remaining in seat, looking at the teacher or class materials, and following teacher instructions. Off-task behavior included leaving seat during instruction, having conversations with the teacher that were not relevant to classwork, calling out responses without being called on, putting away supplies needed for the task, slumping in chair, using objects to make noise, and refusing to finish an assignment. Sessions lasted 10 minutes for Hugo and Tomas and 15 minutes for Eric (as cited in Janney et al., 2013).a The percentage of 30-second intervals in which on-task behavior was observed. Examples of on-task behavior included remaining in assigned seat or area and raising hand before asking for help (as cited in Nahgahgwon et al., 2010). Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 56 WWC Intervention Report Socially-appropriate classroom behavior The percentage of 10-second intervals in which the student displayed socially-appropriate behavior for the entire interval. Socially-appropriate classroom behavior included paying attention, completing work, reading aloud, answering questions, appropriately obtaining teacher attention, and complying with instructions. The length of observation sessions ranged from 23 to 36 minutes (as cited in Christensen et al., 2004). Task engagement Task engagement was measured in two studies, but the measurement and definition of the outcome varied: The percentage of 10-second intervals with observed task engagement. Data were collected in 15-second intervals, where 10 seconds were used for observations and 5 seconds were used for recording the information. Students were considered engaged if they were looking at assigned materials during independent work or were looking at the teacher during verbal instruction (as cited in Dunlap et al., 1996). The percentage of 10-second intervals (for Art) or 15-second intervals (for Benjamin) during which the student was engaged for 70% of the time, where engaged was defined as working on an assigned activity in accordance with the teacher’s instructions. This included attending to materials during written or manipulative assignments or having eyes on the teacher during lecture or verbal instruction (as cited in Kern et al., 2001).a Time on task The percentage of time the student was on task and engaged in seatwork, during a 10–15 minute session (as cited in Davis et al., 2012).a Problem behavior Disruptive behavior Disruptive behavior was measured in multiple studies, but the measurement and definition of the outcomes varied: The percentage of 10-second intervals with observed disruptive behavior. Data were collected in 15-second intervals, where 10 seconds were used for observations and 5 seconds were used for recording the information. Disruptive behavior was defined as any behavior that interfered with classroom activities, including aggression, talking without staff permission, vocal or nonvocal noise-making, leaving seat without permission, property destruction, and noncompliant behavior, which was defined as failing to follow instructions within 5 seconds (as cited in Clarke et al., 1995). The percentage of 10-second intervals with observed disruptive behavior. Data were collected in 15-second intervals, where 10 seconds were used for observations and 5 seconds were used for recording the informa- tion. Disruptive behavior was defined individually for each student, based on their prior behavior issues. For Michael, disruptive behavior included property destruction, speaking negatively to an adult, speaking without the teacher’s permission, and not staying in his seat. For Gizelle, disruptive behaviors included property destruction, speaking negatively to an adult, and speaking without the teacher’s permission. Ann’s disruptive behaviors included aggression, not staying in her seat, not following instructions (after 5 seconds), speaking negatively to an adult, and property destruction (as cited in Dunlap et al., 1996). The frequency of disruptive behavior occurrences per minute. Examples of disruptive behavior included talking at inappropriate times and making noises with mouth, materials, or motor movements. At least 3 seconds without the disruptive behavior had to occur for two behaviors to be considered separate (as cited in Hansen et al., 2014).a The frequency of disruptive behaviors per minute (for Benjamin) and the percentage of 10-second intervals with observed disruptive behavior (for Art). Disruptive behavior was defined as any occurrence of nonvocal noise, talking out when not related to the assigned task, vocalizing profanity or negative content, leaving the work area without permission, or exhibiting noncompliant behavior (as cited in Kern et al., 2001).a The percentage of 10-second intervals in which the student displayed disruptive behavior, which included making inappropriate noises, pushing or touching others, and taking other students’ belongings. Disruptive behavior was measured by watching video recordings of 10-minute observation periods during class (as cited in Losinski et al., 2015). Inappropriate behavior The frequency of inappropriate behaviors during a 10–15 minute session. Inappropriate behavior was defined individually for each student. Todd’s inappropriate behavior was defined as screaming, throwing, hitting, crying, yelling, refusing to move, and picking at the skin on his hands. Mary’s inappropriate behavior was defined as forcefully hitting others. Eli’s inappropriate behavior was defined as leaving the classroom, turning over furniture, and physical aggression toward staff (as cited in Davis et al., 2012).a Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 57 WWC Intervention Report Off-task problem behavior The percentage of off-task problem behaviors observed during 1-minute intervals. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number of intervals with occurrences of off-task behavior by the total number of intervals, multi- plied by 100. Off-task behavior was defined individually for each student. Todd’s off-task problem behavior was defined as playing with objects within reach, humming or singing aloud, talking to self or others about non-task related topics, and not looking at the teacher or instructional materials for 3 seconds or more. Alan’s off-task problem behavior was defined as playing with hair or objects within reach, constant body movement, talking to self or others about non-task related topics, being out of seat, and not looking at the teacher or instructional materials for 3 seconds or more (as cited in Mustian, 2011).a Problem behavior The percentage of 10-second intervals with observed problem behavior. Data were collected in 15-second intervals, where 10 seconds were used for observations and 5 seconds were used for recording the information. Problem behaviors included aggressive behavior, inappropriate talk-outs and touching, noncompliance, and leaving classroom or running around (as cited in Dunlap et al., 1995). a The authors collected inter-assessor agreement (IAA) data in each phase and on at least 20% of all sessions, but it is not clear if IAA data were collected during 20% of the data points in each condition. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 60 WWC Intervention Report c For Davis et al. (2012), the training phase is considered to be a part of the first functional communication training (FCT) intervention phase for the purposes of WWC visual analyses, as it was part of the functional behavioral assessment (FBA)-based intervention. After combining the training phase and first FCT phase into one phase, the visual analysis for each student/outcome focuses on the first four phases (ABAB). Mary had five additional phases following the ABAB design that are not included in the visual analysis. Eli also had an additional phase (after the ABAB design) with a 60-second delay that is not included in the visual analysis. These phase changes are not of interest for this review because they do not compare the effect of an FBA-based intervention to a non-FBA-based intervention, but rather compare two FBA-based interventions. d For Dunlap et al. (1995), WWC visual analysis focused only on the first four phases (ABAB) that met WWC standards with reservations; in the second intervention phase, visual analy- ses focused on the first four data points before the baseline probe point. e For Hagan-Burke et al. (2015) there were only four data points per condition for Clay, as opposed to five, so his design meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. f Hansen et al. (2014) used an ABCBCDC design for three students across two outcomes. The WWC visual analyses focused only on the BCBC phases of the reversal-withdrawal design (self-monitoring vs. FBA-based intervention plus self-monitoring [FBSM]). However, the study did provide data on additional phases: an initial baseline period, a phase of function- based consequences (FBC), and an additional FBSM phase. The design for the comparison between FBSM and FBC is not of interest for purposes of the WWC visual analyses because it does not compare the effect of an FBA-based intervention to a non-FBA-based intervention, but rather compares two FBA-based interventions. This comparison also does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it has just two attempts to demonstrate an effect. For Ben, there were fewer than five data points in one phase, so his design meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. g Janney et al. (2013) used an ABABCB design for all three students. The WWC’s visual analysis focused on the ABAB portion of the design; the CB phase change is not of interest for this review because it does not compare the effect of an FBA-based intervention to a non-FBA-based intervention. h In Lane et al. (2007a), there were fewer than five data points in one phase, so this design meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. i For Lane et al. (2007b), phases B1 and B2 were combined to form the first intervention phase, for the purposes of WWC visual analyses, as the FBA-based intervention was used in both of these phases. j For Losinski et al. (2015), Hannah’s experiment for the comparison between the Teacher proximity and comparison conditions was characterized as providing No evidence following WWC visual analysis. The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 3.0) characterizes experiments as providing Moderate evidence when the experiment has at least three demonstrations of an effect and at least one demonstration of a non-effect. However, in the case of alternating treatment designs, the data must also demonstrate no clear effects in the opposite direction and an overall mean level difference for each condition in order to be characterized as providing Moderate evidence. Hannah’s experiment showed at least one effect in the opposite direction, so it was characterized as providing No evidence. Table C.2: Single-case design findings for the problem behavior domain Study characteristics WWC summary Intervention effects Outcome measure Sample size (case) Age(s) Design type Evidence level Total demonstrated Total attempted Clarke et al. (1995) Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Ahmad) 5 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Juan) 11 Reversal-withdrawal No evidence 0 5 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Shane) 11 Reversal-withdrawal No evidence 1 5 Davis et al. (2012)a Inappropriate behavior (reduction) 1 (Eli) 18 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Inappropriate behavior (reduction) 1 (Mary) 8 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Inappropriate behavior (reduction) 1 (Todd) 17 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Dunlap et al. (1995)b Problem behavior (reduction) 1 (Jill) 13 Reversal-withdrawal No evidence 2 3 Dunlap et al. (1996) Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Michael) 7 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Gizelle) 9 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Ann) 7 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Page 61 WWC Intervention Report Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Study characteristics WWC summary Intervention effects Outcome measure Sample size (case) Age(s) Design type Evidence level Total demonstrated Total attempted Hansen et al. (2014)c Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Isaac) 12 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Jeremiah) 7 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Ben) 9 Reversal-withdrawal No evidence 1 3 Kern et al. (2001) Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Art) 11 Reversal-withdrawal No evidence 0 3 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Benjamin) 11 Reversal-withdrawal No evidence 2 3 Losinski et al. (2015)d Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Alexandra, Peer separation) 13 Alternating treatment Strong (+) 8 8 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Brenda, Peer separation) 13 Alternating treatment Strong (+) 8 8 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Hannah, Peer separation) 13 Alternating treatment Moderate (+) 6 8 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Larry, Peer separation) 14 Alternating treatment Moderate (+) 7 8 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Alexandra, Teacher proximity) 13 Alternating treatment Moderate (+) 4 6 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Brenda, Teacher proximity) 13 Alternating treatment Strong (+) 5 5 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Hannah, Teacher proximity) 13 Alternating treatment No evidence 3 5 Disruptive behavior (reduction) 1 (Larry, Teacher proximity) 14 Alternating treatment No evidence 3 5 Mustian (2001)e Off-task problem behavior (reduction) 1 (Todd) 11 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 6 6 Off-task problem behavior (reduction) 1 (Alan) 11 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) 3 3 Table Notes: The WWC does not calculate effect sizes for single-case design research. Characterizations of Strong and Moderate evidence, based on WWC visual analysis, indicate that the experiment demonstrated an effect of the intervention. Characterizations of No evidence indicate that the experiment did not provide at least three demonstrations of an intervention effect in the same direction. + = a positive (favorable) effect in the desired direction. a For Davis et al. (2012), the training phase is considered to be a part of the first functional communication training (FCT) intervention phase for the purposes of WWC visual analyses, as it was part of the functional behavioral assessment (FBA)-based intervention. After combining the training phase and first FCT phase into one phase, the visual analysis for each student/outcome focused on the first four phases (ABAB). Mary had five additional phases following the ABAB design that are not included in the visual analysis. Eli also had an additional phase (after the ABAB design) with a 60-second delay that is not included in the visual analysis. These phase changes are not of interest for this review because they do not compare the effect of an FBA-based intervention to a non-FBA-based intervention, but rather compare two FBA-based interventions. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 62 WWC Intervention Report b For Dunlap et al. (1995), WWC visual analysis focused only on the first four phases (ABAB) that met WWC standards with reservations; in the second intervention phase, visual analy- ses focused on the first four data points before the baseline probe point. c Hansen et al. (2014) used an ABCBCDC design for three students across two outcomes. The WWC visual analyses focused only on the BCBC phases of the reversal-withdrawal design (self-monitoring vs. FBA-based intervention plus self-monitoring [FBSM]). However, the study did provide data on additional phases: an initial baseline period, a phase of function-based consequences (FBC), and an additional FBSM phase. The design for the comparison between FBSM and FBC is not of interest for purposes of the WWC visual analyses because it does not compare the effect of an FBA-based intervention to a non-FBA-based intervention, but rather compares two FBA-based interventions. This comparison would also not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it has just two attempts to demonstrate an effect. For Ben, there were fewer than five data points in one phase, so his design meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. d For Losinski et al. (2015), Hannah and Larry’s experiments for the comparison between the Teacher proximity and comparison conditions were characterized as providing No evidence following WWC visual analysis. The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 3.0) characterizes experiments as providing Moderate evidence when the experiment has at least three demonstrations of an effect and at least one demonstration of a non-effect. However, in the case of alternating treatment designs, the data must also demonstrate no clear effects in the opposite direction and an overall mean level difference for each condition in order to be characterized as providing Moderate evidence. Both cases showed at least one effect in the opposite direction, so they were characterized as providing No evidence. e For Mustian (2001), the author used an ABABCBC design to examine the effect of both the FBA-based (B phase) and non-FBA-based (C phase) interventions on student behavior. The sequence of the interventions were modified for Alan, who received the non-FBA-based intervention (C phase) before the FBA-based intervention (B phase) (ACACBCB). The descrip- tions provided in the original study indicate little substantive difference between the non-FBA-based intervention and the baseline condition. Thus, for the purposes of the WWC visual analysis, Alan’s baseline phases and non-FBA-based intervention phases are both treated as baseline phases, and compared to Alan’s FBA-based intervention phases. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 65 WWC Intervention Report Table D.3: Single-case design findings for the social-emotional competence domain Study characteristics WWC summary Outcome measure Sample size (case) Age(s) Design type Evidence level Kern et al. (2007)a Independent vocal responses 1 (Beatriz, math) 13 Changing criterion Strong (+) Independent vocal responses 1 (Beatriz, reading) 13 Changing criterion Strong (+) Independent vocal responses 1 (Beatriz, science) 13 Changing criterion Strong (+) Prompted vocal responses 1 (Beatriz, math) 13 Changing criterion No evidence Prompted vocal responses 1 (Beatriz, reading) 13 Changing criterion No evidence Prompted vocal responses 1 (Beatriz, science) 13 Changing criterion No evidence Independent vocal responses 1 (Sean, language arts) 11 Changing criterion No evidence Prompted vocal responses 1 (Sean, language arts) 11 Changing criterion No evidence Spontaneous initiations 1 (Sean, language arts) 11 Changing criterion No evidence Lane et al. (2007a) Participation during an academic task 1 (Claire) 7 Changing criterion No evidence Lane et al. (2007b)b Negative social interactions (reduction) 1 (Margaret) 7 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) Positive social interactions 1 (Margaret) 7 Reversal-withdrawal Strong (+) Table Notes: The WWC does not calculate effect sizes for single-case design (SCD) research. Characterizations of Strong and Moderate evidence, based on WWC visual analysis indicate that the experiment demonstrated an effect of the intervention. Characterizations of No evidence indicate that the experiment did not provide at least three demonstrations of an intervention effect in the same direction. + = a positive (favorable) effect in the desired direction. The evidence from the SCD studies on FBA does not reach the threshold to include SCD evidence in the effectiveness ratings for the social-emotional competence domain. a In Kern et al. (2007), Beatriz’s changing criterion designs were nested within a multiple baseline design across classes, but the WWC review focuses separately on the three changing criterion designs instead of the multiple baseline design, as the study authors primarily discussed the results from the changing criterion design. The WWC rating would be the same regardless of which design was reviewed. b In Lane et al. (2007b), Margaret’s design had fewer than five data points in one phase, so her experiment meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 66 Endnotes 1 The descriptive information for this intervention was obtained from Gresham et al. (2001); Hanley et al. (2003); and Iwata et al. (1994). Further verification of the accuracy of the descriptive information for this intervention is beyond the scope of this review. Full citations: Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 156–172; Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 147–185; Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209. 2 The literature search reflects documents publicly available by December 2015. The studies in this report were reviewed using the Standards from the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 3.0), and the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance topic area review protocol (version 3.0). The evidence presented in this report is based on available research. Findings and conclusions may change as new research becomes available. 3 All single-case design experiments within a research article comprise one single-case design study. 4 For the social-emotional competence domain, there are three studies (fewer than the five required), two different research teams with no overlapping authorship (fewer than the three required), and four cases (fewer than the 20 required). 5 Please see the Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance review protocol (version 3.0) for a list of all the outcome domains. 6 For criteria used in the determination of the rating of effectiveness for single-case design studies, see the WWC Rating Criteria on p. 68. 7 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Free Press. 8 Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., White, R., & Falk, G. D. (1993). Functional analysis of class- room variables for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275–291. 9 Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. E. (1994). Student-assisted functional assessment interview. Diagnostique, 19(2-3), 29–39. 10 O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. 11 Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based interventions: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 12 The results from single-case design studies are not used to report an intervention effectiveness rating for an outcome domain unless the studies collectively meet the threshold criteria described on p. 68. The evidence from the single-case design studies on FBA does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for the social-emotional competence domain. 13 In single-case design research, a case, such as a student or classroom, is the unit of intervention administration and data analy- sis. A single-case design experiment is the examination of a single outcome measure repeatedly within and across different phases defined by the presence or absence of the intervention. There may be multiple experiments for a case if more than one outcome is examined, for example. All experiments within a research article comprise one single-case design study. 14 When there is more than one single-case design experiment in a publication that does not meet WWC pilot single-case design stan- dards, the citation list reports the disposition code that applies to the majority of single-case designs in that publication. Some single- case designs within a given publication might not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards for reasons other than the one listed in the citation list. 15 Single-case design studies typically assign participants a pseudonym; we use the pseudonyms provided by study authors in this report so that WWC ratings can be easily mapped to the correct single-case design in the original study. 16 The experiment for one of the students (Clay), had only four data points per condition, so this experiment meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. 17 Tapp, J. T., Wehby, J. H., & Ellis, D. (1995). MOOSES: A multi-option observation system for experimental studies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27, 25–31. 18 The experiment for one of the students (Ben) used a reversal-withdrawal design with four phases and fewer than five data points in one phase; because all phases have at least three data points, the experiments for both of Ben’s outcomes meet pilot single- case design standards with reservations. WWC Intervention Report Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 67 WWC Intervention Report 19 The experiment for Aaron used a reversal-withdrawal design with four phases and fewer than five data points in two of the phases; because all phases have at least three data points, the experiment meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. The experiment used with the other student, Claire, meets WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations; however, the social-emotional competence domain does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings in this report, so her experiment is described in Appendix D. 20 The experiment for one of the students (Margaret) used a reversal-withdrawal design with four phases and fewer than five data points in one of the phases; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), this experiment meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reservations. 21 Margaret’s study used a reversal-withdrawal design with four phases and fewer than five data points in one of the phases; because all phases had at least three data points (rather than five), the design meets WWC pilot single-case design standards with reserva- tions. The experiment used with the other student (Charlie), meets WWC pilot single-case design standards without reservations and is described in Appendix C. Recommended Citation U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2016, December). Children Identified With or At Risk for an Emotional Disturbance topic area intervention report: Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 70 WWC Intervention Report Glossary of Terms Alternating treatment design A single-case design experiment that repeatedly introduces and withdraws the intervention(s); each phase only lasts one or two sessions. Attrition For group design research, attrition occurs when an outcome variable is not available for all participants initially assigned to the intervention and comparison groups. The WWC consid- ers the total attrition rate and the difference in attrition rates across groups within a study. For single-case design research, attrition can occur when an individual fails to complete all required phases of a study or the case is a group and individuals attrite from the group. Baseline In a single-case design experiment, baseline is the condition when participants are not receiving the intervention. Case A case is the unit of intervention administration and data analysis in a single-case design experi- ment. A case may be a single participant or a cluster of participants like a classroom. Clustering adjustment In group design research, if intervention assignment is made at a cluster level and the analysis is conducted at the student level, the WWC will adjust the statistical significance to account for this mismatch, if necessary. Confounding factor A confounding factor is a component of a study that is completely aligned with one of the study conditions, making it impossible to separate how much of the observed effect was due to the intervention and how much was due to the factor. Design The design of a study is the method by which intervention and comparison groups were assigned (group design) or the method by which a dependent variable was repeatedly and systematically measured before, during, and after the active manipulation of an indepen- dent variable (single-case design). Domain A domain is a group of closely related outcomes. Effect size The effect size is a measure of the magnitude of an effect. The WWC uses a standardized measure to facilitate comparisons across group design studies and outcomes. Eligibility A determination of whether a study falls within the scope of a review protocol and uses a causal design. Equivalence A demonstration that the analysis sample groups are similar on observed characteristics defined in the review area protocol. Extent of evidence An indication of how much evidence from group design studies supports the findings. The criteria for the extent of evidence levels are given in the WWC Rating Criteria on p. 68. Fidelity Fidelity indicates the extent to which the intervention, as implemented, replicates the inter- vention’s design. Improvement index Along a percentile distribution of individuals, the improvement index represents the gain or loss of the average individual due to the intervention, using findings from group design research. As the average individual starts at the 50th percentile, the measure ranges from –50 to +50. Intervention An educational program, product, practice, or policy aimed at improving student outcomes. Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 71 WWC Intervention Report Glossary of Terms Intervention report A summary of the findings of the highest-quality research on a given program, product, practice, or policy in education. The WWC searches for all research studies on an interven- tion, reviews each against design standards, and summarizes the findings of those that meet WWC design standards. Maintenance probes In single-case design research, maintenance probes measure outcomes after the interven- tion has ended. Multiple baseline design A single-case design that staggers the introduction of the intervention to different cases or to the same case over different settings. Multiple comparison adjustment When a group design study includes multiple outcomes or comparison groups, the WWC will adjust the statistical significance to account for the multiple comparisons, if necessary. Multiple probe design A variation on the multiple baseline single-case design that features intermittent pre-inter- vention data collection. Phase In single-case design research, phases are the consecutive sessions when a case receives or does not receive the intervention. Quasi-experimental design (QED) A quasi-experimental design (QED) is a research design in which study participants are assigned to intervention and comparison groups through a process that is not random. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experiment in which eligible study participants are randomly assigned to intervention and comparison groups. Rating of effectiveness For group design research, the WWC rates the effectiveness of an intervention in each domain based on the quality of the research design and the magnitude, statistical signifi- cance, and consistency in findings. For single-case design research, the WWC rates the effectiveness of an intervention in each domain based on the quality of the research design and the consistency of demonstrated effects. The criteria for the ratings of effectiveness are given in the WWC Rating Criteria on p. 68. Reversal-withdrawal design A single-case design that introduces the intervention twice and withdraws the intervention once (also known as an ABAB design). The design may be extended by adding additional baseline and/or intervention phases. Single-case design (SCD) experiment A research approach in which an outcome variable is measured repeatedly within and across different conditions that are defined by the presence or absence of an intervention. Standard deviation The standard deviation of a measure shows how much variation exists across observations in the sample. A low standard deviation indicates that the observations in the sample tend to be very close to the mean; a high standard deviation indicates that the observations in the sample tend to be spread out over a large range of values. Statistical significance Statistical significance is the probability that the difference between groups is a result of chance rather than a real difference between the groups. The WWC labels a finding statistically significant if the likelihood that the difference is due to chance is less than 5% (p < .05). Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions December 2016 Page 72 WWC Intervention Report Glossary of Terms Substantively important A substantively important finding is one that has an effect size of 0.25 or greater, regardless of statistical significance. Systematic review A review of existing literature on a topic that is identified and reviewed using explicit meth- ods. A WWC systematic review has five steps: 1) developing a review protocol; 2) searching the literature; 3) reviewing studies, including screening studies for eligibility, reviewing the methodological quality of each study, and reporting on high quality studies and their find- ings; 4) combining findings within and across studies; and, 5) summarizing the review. Threshold to include single-case design evidence For single-case design studies to contribute to the evidence rating, there must be a suf- ficient combination of participants, authors, and studies that meet evidence standards. The criteria for the threshold to include single-case design evidence are given in the WWC Rat- ing Criteria on p. 68. Visual analysis A visual analysis reviews the pattern of outcome data in a single-case design experiment to determine whether a positive effect, negative effect, or no effect is demonstrated between the intervention and the outcome. Please see the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 3.0) for additional details.