Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Remedial and Special Education Effects of a Comprehensive Function-Based Intervention Applied Across Multiple Educational Settings
Candace J. Gann, Jolenea B. Ferro, John Umbreit and Carl J. Liaupsin Remedial and Special Education published online 5 September 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0741932513501088 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities


Additional services and information for Remedial and Special Education can be found at: Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions:

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 5, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013



RSEXXX10.1177/0741932513501088Remedial and Special EducationGann et al.


Effects of a Comprehensive FunctionBased Intervention Applied Across Multiple Educational Settings

Candace J. Gann, MS1, Jolenea B. Ferro, PhD1,2, John Umbreit, PhD1, and Carl J. Liaupsin, EdD1

Remedial and Special Education XX(X) 111 Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013 Reprints and permissions: DOI: 10.1177/0741932513501088

Abstract This study examined the feasibility and effectiveness of a comprehensive function-based intervention applied across multiple inclusive classroom settings. The participant was a middle school student diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome who exhibited chronic off-task behaviors across all academic environments. This study was conducted across two phases: (a) A descriptive functional behavior assessment (FBA) was conducted across all inclusive classroom environments and (b) a single, comprehensive function-based intervention was developed based on the results of the FBA followed by the implementation of a comprehensive function-based intervention in each inclusive classroom environment using a multiple probe design. The comprehensive function-based intervention markedly improved the participants on-task behavior in each classroom setting. Furthermore, social validity ratings by each teacher revealed that the comprehensive, functionbased intervention was preferable to the previously used classroom practices. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. Keywords analysis, behavior, inclusive, classroom, Asperger syndrome, exceptionalities, functional assessment, positive behavior supports, single-subject, research methodology In 1997, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated the use of functional behavior assessment (FBA) and positive behavior supports to address problem behaviors of students served by an individualized education program (IEP) within the public school system (Gresham, Watson, & Skinner, 2001). Since then, FBA procedures have become an integral practice within schools because the resulting interventions have the potential to decrease problem behaviors and build appropriate replacement behaviors. Numerous studies in school settings have supported the effectiveness of function-based intervention (see reviews by Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Fox & Gable, 2004; Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait, 2000; Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004; Lane, Bruhn, Crnobori, & Sewell, 2009; Lane, Cook, & Tankersley, 2013; Lane, Kalberg, & Shepcaro, 2009; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001; Wood, Blair, & Ferro, 2009). These studies have been conducted with students and adults of all ages, with individuals with various disabilities, in a variety of settings and with various problematic behaviors. One limitation of function-based intervention research is that most studies have focused on limited time frames (e.g., 1015 min per day) and particular activities, such as transitions, independent practice, small-group instruction, or whole-group instruction. Assessments and interventions are often restricted to these time periods. Despite impressive results during the selected activities, little is known about the students behavior during the remaining time throughout the school day. A study by Wood, Umbreit, Liaupsin, and Gresham (2007) offered a typical example. These researchers focused only on problem behaviors that occurred during math seatwork because that situation was consistently associated with problem behavior. Every session was 10-min long. Nothing was reported about the students behavior or the need for support during the rest of the school day. In some studies, interventions have been designed for a specific activity within the classroom despite teacher and student reports that problematic behaviors occurred throughout the entire day. In these cases, the intervention has been applied during the time of the greatest concern to the teacher. For example, Nahgahgwon, Umbreit, Liaupsin, and Turton (2010) implemented function-based
1 2

University of Arizona, Tucson, USA University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Corresponding Author: Candace J. Gann, Special Education Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85731, USA. Email:

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

2 interventions for three young at-risk students, but only during the specific activity their teachers identified as most problematic. These periods never lasted more than 25 min. Similarly, in a study by Lane, Eisner, Kretzer, and colleagues (2009), researchers completed an FBA on two students whose teachers reported problem behaviors throughout the school day. FBA observations were conducted only during morning activities, and intervention was designed solely based on what was seen at that time. Although the research clearly demonstrates that the function of a behavior may differ across environments and with different individuals, recently, some investigators (e.g., Turton, Umbreit, & Mathur, 2011) have suggested that researchers should examine broader applications of function-based intervention in multiple classes and activities throughout a students day. If a student presents challenging behavior in multiple classes, conducting the FBA and designing the intervention comprehensively across these environments may achieve greater efficiency and impact. This approach would involve identifying relevant antecedents and functions across settings prior to developing intervention plans and, then, developing comprehensive intervention plans that would address relevant antecedents and functions across the environments. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of a comprehensive function-based intervention that encompassed the results of FBA interviews and observations conducted across multiple classroom settings for a middle school student. The study was conducted in two phases. In Phase 1, the first author conducted descriptive FBAs in four different classrooms. Each FBA included structured interviews and direct observations. Data were then reviewed across environments to form a comprehensive function statement regarding the students target behavior in these classes. In Phase 2, the first author and all participating teachers in those classes systematically constructed a comprehensive function-based intervention. This intervention was then implemented sequentially in each classroom.

Remedial and Special Education XX(X) procedures followed university guidelines as defined by the Institutional Review Board. A signed consent was obtained from Coles mother and assent was obtained from Cole prior to the study. Each of Coles teachers also provided signed consent to participate. Cole attended seven periods of instruction daily in a general education classroom in an urban school district located in the Western United States. The school site included students from kindergarten through sixth grade; however, the fifth- and sixth-grade students attended classes in a separate building from the elementary students. Teachers at this level were assigned to teach a subject area rather than a grade level and students attended each subject area class for 50 min. Coles classes included homeroom, a special (e.g., art, music, physical education, computers, or library), reading, language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. Due to failing grades and chronic off-task behaviors displayed in the first few weeks of the school year, Cole had been placed in remedial classes for mathematics, reading, and language arts. In these remedial classes, the fifthgrade curriculum was taught to all fifth and sixth-grade students. Cole received mathematics and language arts instruction at the fifth-grade level even though state assessment scores indicated that he was at the sixth-grade level in each subject. According to teacher reports, Coles grades and behavior had failed to improve in the remedial settings. Furthermore, social skills instruction, included on Coles IEP, was not provided by school staff during the study. The study was conducted across the science, mathematics, reading, and social studies periods. These classes were included because of teacher requests for an intervention to address Coles off-task behaviors. Each class was staffed by one full-time certified regular educator and attended by up to 26 fifth- or sixth-grade students. Coles science and reading teachers had been teaching for more than 12 years and had reached tenure status within the district. His mathematics teacher had previously taught small-group remedial reading and was in her 1st year teaching whole-group elementary mathematics. Finally, his social studies teacher was a 2nd-year teacher within the district. Desks were placed in groups of four for reading, mathematics, and science. Students sat in rows of four in social studies. At the beginning of the study, Cole was segregated from his peers at a desk in the back of each classroom and was not permitted to participate in any group activities with his peers.

Method Participant and Setting

Cole was a White, 11-year-old, sixth-grade male diagnosed with Asperger syndrome by a multidisciplinary team while in the second grade. He was referred to this study due to off-task behaviors that were so disruptive that he was removed from at least one general education classroom a minimum of once per week. When removed, he went to the special education setting to complete a Think Sheet and unfinished assignments in a study carrel. Coles IEP team was also considering removing him from the general education science classroom at the request of his teacher. Consent

Behavioral Definitions
The target behavior was off-task behavior that included playing with objects not related to tasks, talking aloud to peers, blowing on peers, hiding under his desk, lying across

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Gann et al. tables and desks, clapping, and picking at sores and showing the blood to his peers. The replacement behavior was on-task behavior, defined as engagement in assigned tasks and requesting attention in an appropriate manner by (a) raising his hand to obtain teacher attention or (b) using learned social skills (i.e., verbally requesting help, initiating conversations, etc.) to obtain peer attention.

3 Direct observations. Antecedent-behavior-consequence (ABC) observation data were collected by the first author within each of the four classrooms included in this study (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968). Specific antecedent and consequent stimuli that preceded and followed the occurrences of the identified target behavior were recorded. One 30-min observation was conducted in each classroom during typical classroom activities in the following order according to Coles class schedule: reading, social studies, mathematics, and science Identification of function.Data from the interviews and direct observations were sorted and analyzed using the Function Matrix (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). The Function Matrix is a 6-celled visual tool that organizes information into two columns identifying positive or negative reinforcement and three rows identifying specific types of consequences. Specific student and teacher comments obtained during interviews and individual behaviors obtained during ABC observations can be recorded in individual cells to aid in determining the function of a behavior. Reviewing these data, the user first determines whether the student is gaining access to something (positive reinforcement), escaping/avoiding something (negative reinforcement), or both. The user then identifies whether the student is gaining or escaping attention, tangibles/activities, or sensory consequences. The user can then determine function based on which cell or cells contain the greatest amount of data (see Lane, Weisenbach, Little, Phillips, & Wehby, 2006). The Function Matrix allows the identification of multiple functions for a single target behavior (Umbreit et al., 2007).

Phase 1: Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedure

A descriptive FBA was conducted across four general education settings to identify the antecedent conditions that set the occasion for Coles target behaviors and consequences that maintained these target behaviors. Data were collected through teacher and student interviews, as well as direct observation in the science, mathematics, reading, and social studies classrooms. Data were then analyzed to identify the function of Coles target behaviors. Teacher interviews. Interviews were completed individually with Coles science, mathematics, reading, and social studies teachers using the Preliminary Functional Assessment Survey (Dunlap et al., 1993), a 22-item survey developed to identify information about the antecedents that occasion and the consequences that maintain challenging student behavior. Specific items provide information about the antecedent conditions under which the behavior is and is not likely to occur, the frequency with which the behavior occurs, the possible influence of skill deficits or medical conditions, and the consequences that may affect the occurrence of the behavior. This interview protocol has been used in many studies to obtain FBA information from teachers and other school staff members (e.g., Banda, Hart, & Kercood, 2012; Blair, Umbreit, Dunlap, & Jung, 2007; Nahgahgwon et al., 2010; Turton et al., 2011). Student interview.The Student Assisted Functional Assessment Interview (Kern, Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1994) was used to interview Cole. This interview includes three sections. First, the student is asked open-ended questions about the conditions under which he or she engages in the problem behavior, what he or she likes about each of the content area courses, and what could be done to improve his or her behavior. Second, the student rates each content area course or school activity using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Finally, the student uses a 3-point Likert-type scale to respond to questions that focus on variables such as task difficulty and the availability of reinforcers. This protocol has been used in many studies to obtain FBA information from students exhibiting problem behaviors (e.g., Banda et al., 2012; Nahgahgwon et al., 2010; Turton et al., 2011).

Descriptive data obtained during teacher and student interviews and direct observations are presented for each method of FBA data collection. Teacher interviews.Each of Coles teachers reported that problem behaviors occurred daily, especially during independent and challenging assignments. His science and mathematics teachers reported that he was off-task consistently throughout the class period, whereas his reading and social studies teachers indicated that he was off-task the most during unstructured class time. Coles mathematics teacher suggested that changes to the daily schedule and routines escalated his behaviors. All four suspected that he engaged in undesired behaviors in class to obtain attention, primarily from his peers. In addition, each felt that he lacked social skill awareness. In reaction to Coles off-task behavior, each of his teachers had assigned him to a seat located in the rear of the classroom. They redirected off-task behavior or

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Positive Reinforcement (Access Something) Attention Teacher Interviews: Redirected or provided peer or teacher assistance with challenging assignments; Engages in behavior to obtain attention, primarily from peers Student Interview: Peers in reading and social studies distract him ABC Data: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.20, 1.22, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 4.1, 4.5

Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

Negative Reinforcement (Avoid Something)


Teacher Interviews: Behaviors occur during independent and challenging assignments; Sent to resource room when behavior escalated; Off task most during unstructured time; Changes to routine and schedule escalated behaviors Student Interview: Prefers classes with less homework ABC Data: 1.1, 1.6, 1.12, 1.13, 1.19, 1.21, 2.2, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 3.12, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6


Figure 1. Function Matrix.

offered teacher or peer assistance with challenging assignments. When off-task behavior escalated, Coles teachers sent him to the resource room. His reading teacher reported that this occurred on a weekly basis in her class, and the science, mathematics, and social studies teachers sent him to the resource room an average of 3 times per month. Student interviews. According to Cole, he enjoyed his science class the most but reported that he was in trouble most often because he giggles a lot. He further reported that his peers in reading and social studies distracted him the most. Although he felt he was distracted in reading, he also felt that he had the fewest behavior problems in that class. When asked what he liked and disliked about various subjects, he reported that he most enjoyed the classes with the least homework and the greatest number of handson activities. Direct observations.During the four observations, Cole engaged in a total of 67 off-task behaviors. Seventy-six

percent of behaviors resulted in either peer (54%) or teacher (22%) attention. In every case in which a peer ignored Coles behavior (22%), he successfully obtained peer attention through other means. In 40% of these instances, he used an appropriate social interaction. The remaining 24% of the behaviors resulted in escape from classroom assignments. Identification of function. Behaviors were coded according to observation and behavior number. Because observations in reading were conducted first, all behaviors displayed in reading begin with one, followed by a decimal point and a number corresponding to an observed behavior. For example, the third behavior observed in Coles reading class would be coded as 1.3. Information directly provided by teachers and the student during interviews was also entered into the corresponding cells. Once sorted into the Function Matrix (see Figure 1), the interview and observation data indicated that the primary function of Coles off-task and disruptive behaviors in each setting was to obtain attention, specifically from peers.

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Gann et al.
Table 1. Intervention Elements Present Prior to Implementation According to Class. Intervention Element Social skills instruction Social skills practice Social opportunities Easy reference expectations List of daily tasks Modify task and teaching pace Hands-on activities Self-monitoring Frequent praise Brief redirection Peers ignore off-task behavior Science Mathematics Reading

Social Studies X 1/11





Phase 2: Function-Based Intervention

In Phase 2, the FBA data were combined to design a comprehensive function-based intervention, which was then implemented in each of Coles general education classrooms.

Intervention Design
Based on the information collected during the interviews and observations, it was determined that Cole was not able to perform the on-task replacement behaviors of appropriately obtaining teacher or peer attention and engaging in the assigned tasks. In addition, some effective practice elements were present in some classes but not in others. For example, the science teacher used hands-on instruction on a daily basis while the social studies teacher did not (see Table 1 for a list of the best practice elements present in each classroom). Some elements of effective instruction needed to be instituted in each classroom setting. Effective practice elements appropriate for Coles intervention were selected based on prior antecedent variables and effective instruction evidence from FBA research (cf. Conroy & Stichter, 2003; Kern, Choutka, & Sokol, 2002). Because both the questions of the Decision Model were answered no, the intervention was designed using Methods 1 and 2: Teach the Replacement Behavior and Improve the Environment. Because this intervention was to be comprehensively applied across the four classrooms, all four of the teachers worked with the first author during a single collaboration session to develop the intervention, and all elements were included in a comprehensive Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). Coles likes and dislikes based on responses given during the Student Assisted Functional Assessment Interview were also considered. For example, the amount of homework was decreased and hands-on activities were increased across each of the classes included in the study. In addition, Cole was frequently paired with preferred peers identified during the interview for in-class activities and social skill lessons. Details of the intervention are included in Table 2.

The Function-Based Intervention Decision Model (Umbreit et al., 2007) was used to determine the intervention most appropriate for Cole. This Model begins the interventiondevelopment process by posing two questions: (a) Can the student perform the replacement behavior? and (b) Do the antecedent conditions represent effective practice? The answers to these questions lead to four possible outcomes. Each outcome identifies which of the three intervention methods, individually or combined, is appropriate for a given situation. If the student cannot perform the replacement behavior, but the antecedent conditions represent effective practice, then Method 1Teach the Replacement Behavioris used. If the student can perform the replacement behavior but the antecedent conditions do not represent effective practice, then Method 2Improve the Environmentis used. If the answer to both the questions is no, then both the methods must be applied. Finally, if the answer to both the questions is yes, then Method 3Adjust the Contingenciesis used. Each intervention method has three common components: Antecedents are adjusted to increase the likelihood of the replacement behavior, reinforcement is provided when the replacement behavior occurs, and reinforcement is withheld (extinction) when the target behavior occurs. The intervention methods differ in the ways specific antecedent and consequent variables are manipulated to address the presenting problems (Umbreit et al., 2007).

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Table 2. Function-Based Intervention. Method Elements Adjust the antecedent conditions so that new behaviors are learned and aversive conditions are avoided (Method 1)

Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

Intervention Components Provide social skills instruction in requesting peer attention in an appropriate manner as well as in task engagement. Provide opportunities prior to each class period for Cole to practice learned social skills. Provide opportunities within each class period for Cole to engage in appropriate teacher and peer interactions such as small-group activities, contributing to discussions and requesting assistance Provide classroom expectations for easy reference. Provide a list of daily tasks. Modify tasks and teaching pace to Coles academic level by providing a task analysis of daily tasks. Set a reinforcement schedule through self-monitoring that includes positive social reinforcement from teachers and opportunities for Cole to interact with his peers based on task engagement, raising his hand, and requesting peer attention in an appropriate manner. Provide frequent teacher praise (68 times per class period) for appropriate behavior. Provide brief redirection and maintain task. Coach peers to ignore inappropriate behaviors.

Adjust the antecedent conditions so that the conditions that set the occasion for the target behavior are eliminated and the replacement behavior is more likely to occur (Method 2) Provide appropriate reinforcement for the replacement behavior

Withhold the consequence that previously reinforced the behavior.

Intervention Implementation
Even though the teachers included in this study were collaboratively involved in the intervention design, they were trained in the individual intervention elements separately after baseline data had been collected. The first author independently trained each teacher prior to intervention implementation in his or her classroom. Training procedures began with an explanation of the overall intervention and a typed BIP was provided. The individual elements of the intervention were then taught using modeling, provision of example and nonexamples, and opportunities to practice. Teachers were encouraged to provide praise for appropriate behavior at the end of each self-monitoring interval to ensure that Cole was receiving praise between 6 and 8 times per class period. The first author assisted in creating and displaying classroom expectations and tasks and provided sample lesson plans based on Coles academic level and preferred activity format. These lessons included opportunities within each class for Cole to engage in teacher and peer interactions. Opportunities to engage in social interactions included small-group activities, large-group discussions, and questioning techniques. Finally, peers were instructed by their teachers to ignore Coles off-task behaviors. Individual teachers provided ongoing reminders to peers, as necessary, or moved peers who were not able to ignore Coles behavior. The first author provided social skill instruction 3 times a week for 20-min sessions outside the general education classroom for 3 weeks. The amount of time for social skill instruction was based on the time allotted in

Coles IEP. A peer was included in social skill lessons addressing peer interactions for 10 min of each session to allow Cole to practice learned social skills. Social skills were taught by discussing the need for the skill, modeling how and when to use the skill using examples and nonexamples, practicing using the skill independently and with peers, receiving feedback on how well he was using the skill, and continuing practice and support throughout the intervention (Goodwin, 1999; Umbreit et al., 2007). Social skills taught included when and how to request teacher attention (i.e., raising hand, asking questions, or sharing stories), when and how to request peer attention (i.e., conversation starters, continuing conversation, ending conversation, selecting peer partners, or working in a group), and how to be engaged in academic tasks (i.e., necessary materials, listening to lectures, or completing independent work). The first author designed the self-monitoring system used in each general education setting. All behaviors monitored by Cole were agreed on by each of the participating teachers. These behaviors included having his materials, sitting in his assigned area, having a cleared desk, working on his assignment or listening to a speaker, raising his hand, and remaining on topic when working on small-group assignments. Cole was provided a self-monitoring sheet and MotivAider prior to each class. The MotivAider was set to vibrate in 5-min intervals. Cole placed a checkmark in each box at the end of each interval corresponding to behaviors he was exhibiting. He was taught to self-monitor his behavior in each general education setting through modeling, guided practice, and independent practice.

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Gann et al.

7 Mathematics class100% of sessions; average 98% agreement Reading class50% of sessions; average 97% agreement Social Studies class33% of sessions; average 92% agreement IOA data were collected for a minimum of 36% (range = 36%42%) of intervention sessions as follows: Science class36% of sessions; average 91% agreement Mathematics class42% of sessions; average 97% agreement Reading class38% of sessions; average 98% agreement Social Studies class38% of sessions; average 94% agreement Treatment integrity IOA data, collected for the same percentage of sessions in each class, averaged 100%.

A multiple-probe design across settings (Horner & Baer, 1978; Murphy & Bryan, 1980) was used. A minimum of three data points were collected for baseline in each class. During this condition, typical classroom activities and behaviormanagement practices were in place. Intervention began in science on Day 4, in mathematics on Day 8, in reading on Day 17, and in social studies on Day 20. The order of implementation was determined by the teachers based on the severity of Coles behavior and the greatest need for intervention in each class. The intervention was first implemented in the class in which the most severe behavior occurred. Data were collected 3 days per week and a minimum of eight data points were collected during intervention in each class.

On-task behavior was measured using 15-s whole-interval recording for 20 min. At the end of each interval, a plus was scored if the replacement behavior occurred throughout the interval. A minus was scored if the target behavior occurred at any time during the interval. Because the replacement behavior was incompatible with the target behavior, only replacement (on-task) behaviors were reported. Intervention treatment integrity data were collected concurrently during every intervention session using different procedures. Elements such as providing social skill instruction and opportunities to practice learned social skills, displaying classroom expectations, providing a list of daily tasks, and modifying tasks to Coles academic level were evaluated using a checklist. Treatment integrity data for providing praise was collected using event recording. Treatment integrity for all the remaining intervention components was measured using a 30-s whole-interval recording procedure. At the end of each interval, a plus was scored only if all intervention components applicable during the interval were implemented correctly.

Social Validity
An author-developed Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire (TSQ) was completed by each of the teachers prior to baseline and following intervention to assess whether the intervention elements in place at the time were perceived to be warranted, acceptable, appropriate, and effective for the classroom in question. The questionnaire included 10 items, each rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (see Table 3).

Coles on-task behavior in science averaged 31% (range = 16%44%) of the intervals during baseline (see Figure 2) and increased steadily to an average of 87% (range = 65% 100%) of intervals when the intervention was implemented. There were no overlapping data points between baseline and intervention conditions. Treatment integrity levels followed intervention data trends with levels averaging 95% (range = 79%100%) of intervals. In mathematics, the baseline level averaged 26% (range = 18%41%) of intervals on-task. By the 2nd day of intervention, on-task behavior increased from an initial level of 69% to 89% and remained steady at an average of 91% (range = 69%100%) of intervals on-task with no overlapping data points between baseline and intervention conditions. Treatment integrity remained high across all intervention sessions with an average of 99% (range = 90%100%) of intervals. During reading, on-task behavior averaged 31% (range = 20%44%) of intervals on-task during baseline. During

Interobserver Agreement (IOA)

A second observer independently collected on-task behavior and treatment integrity data to assess IOA. The second observer was trained during two data collection sessions to ensure IOA percentages met or exceeded 85% agreement. The percentage of IOA was determined by dividing the number of agreements (i.e., intervals scored identically) by the total number of intervals and then multiplying the result by 100% (Kazdin, 1982). IOA data were collected for a minimum of 33% (range = 33%100%) of baseline sessions as follows: Science class33% of sessions; average 94% agreement

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Table 3. Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

Please rate the intervention implemented with your student by circling the corresponding number describing your level of agreement with each statement. 1Strongly disagree 4Slightly Agree 2Disagree5Agree 3Slightly disagree6Strongly agree 1. My students problem behavior was severe enough to warrant a behavior intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. This was an appropriate intervention for my student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. This intervention was effective in increasing my students time on task. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. I was willing to use this intervention in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. This intervention did not result in any negative side effects for my student. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. This intervention was a good way to handle my students problem behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. I liked the components of the intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. This intervention was effective in decreasing my students problem behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. The intervention quickly improved my students behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. My students behavior was more like a well-behaved peer after using the intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Comments:

intervention, on-task levels immediately increased to, and remained steady at, an average of 95% (range = 93% 98%) of intervals for the remainder of the study with no overlapping data points between the baseline and intervention conditions. Treatment integrity averaged 99% (range = 95%100%). In social studies, on-task levels averaged 32% (range = 18%48%) of intervals during baseline. When intervention was implemented, on-task levels increased to an average of 94% (range = 88%100%) of intervals and remained steady with no overlapping data points across conditions. Treatment integrity levels closely followed on-task levels with an average of 98% (range = 93%100%). The teachers social validity ratings on the TSQ averaged 15 (out of 60; range = 1938) for baseline conditions and 58.8 (range = 5760) for the intervention. Coles science teacher rated preintervention practices with a score of 19 and rated intervention practices with a score of 57. The mathematics teachers ratings were 38 for baseline conditions, compared with 60 for the intervention. The reading teacher rated preintervention strategies with a score of 19 and the function-based intervention with a score of 59. Finally, the social studies teacher provided a rating of 22 during baseline, compared with a score of 59 following intervention. The average satisfaction increase from pre- to post-intervention across all the four teachers was 34.5 (range = 2240) points. The greatest score increases were seen on the questionnaires completed by the veteran teachers in science (+38) and reading (+40).

The results of this study support the use of a FBA technique in which information is collected across multiple settings

and combined to develop and implement a single, comprehensive function-based intervention within each of the settings. Information gathered in four middle school classrooms identified positive reinforcementpeer attention as the function of the challenging behavior for a participant diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. The function-based intervention that was developed incorporated social skills instruction, classroom best practices, positive reinforcement, and extinction. As a result, the participants on-task behaviors improved in each of the four classes. Furthermore, the program successfully obviated the need to remove him from the classroom. At recess, he began playing with peers rather than walking the perimeter of the playground. In addition, because his grades improved, he was not scheduled for remedial classes for the following year. Though the additional placement and social information is promising, it must be noted that this evidence is anecdotal and direct causal conclusions cannot be drawn on the relation between these instances and the intervention. These findings extended previous research on functionbased intervention in several important ways. First, there are currently no known studies that focus on using a single comprehensive function-based intervention across multiple school environments. The type of procedure used in this study could be beneficial in aligning teachers and settings as it relates to behavior change. Furthermore, this type of function-based intervention would maintain consistency in behavioral expectations throughout multiple environments for students who need such structures to succeed. The components of this study were conducive to a comprehensive intervention. The use of classroom best practices and adequate reinforcement are strategies that can easily be implemented across settings and have generalizable benefits for diverse student needs if tailored appropriately.

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Gann et al.

9 varying ages would further verify the results. Second, the function of the target behavior was the same in all classrooms, which facilitated the development of a single, comprehensive function-based intervention. It is currently unclear how the intervention and results would have differed if different functions were identified in different classrooms. Third, the intervention was implemented in some settings, most notably in math, following an upward trend or a data point with an increased on-task behavior. Ideally, the intervention would not have started until an additional leveled or decreasing data point was collected. There was also a lack of follow-up and maintenance data because the school year ended with the conclusion of the study. Additional long-term data collection would provide a stronger measure of intervention success. Teachers were involved in the development of the function-based intervention and, therefore, were aware of the intervention elements that would be integrated into their classroom after baseline. This was a positive element of the intervention; however, this increased the chance that a teacher might implement intervention components prior to intervention implementation. Fortunately, it appears that this did not occur, as baseline levels remained low prior to implementation of the intervention. Furthermore, the first author did not observe any changes to environmental elements prior to intervention. Treatment integrity levels were inconsistent at the beginning of implementation in science, resulting in a lower percentage of on-task behavior. The science teacher struggled more than the other teachers with briefly redirecting Cole when he was off-task. As a result, the first author provided additional instruction in how to employ extinction procedures. Ignoring the target behavior and reinforcing the replacement behavior was modeled prior to allowing time for guided and independent practice. Once extinction procedures improved within the science classroom, on-task levels improved quickly to acceptable levels. The teachers who participated were willing to collaborate in the design and implementation of the intervention. Without their willingness and cooperation, a successful result would have been unlikely. In addition, Coles peers were willing to participate in the intervention during social skills instruction, social opportunities, and extinction procedures. If his peers had not been willing to participate, the intervention may not have been as successful. Finally, an author-adapted scale was used to assess social validity. The use of a social validity scale with known validity and reliability would have provided a better comparison with other studies in this area.

Figure 2. Effect of functional intervention applied across settings.

Second, the use of a function-based intervention across settings supported this students continued inclusion in the regular education setting (Skinner, Veerkamp, Kamps, & Andra, 2009). Cole was allowed to remain in the general education classrooms as a result of the effectiveness of the intervention. Having the teachers collaborate to create a comprehensive intervention enabled the participant to be successful within each general education classroom. Finally, a team-based approach is supported through the use of a comprehensive intervention across multiple settings (Jolivette, Barton-Arwood, & Scott, 2000; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2003). Teachers were able to collaborate regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention and support each other in managing this participants on- and off-task behaviors.

Certain factors limit the interpretation and generalization of the results. First, this study included a single participant, although one who was similar to participants in other FBA studies. Additional studies with multiple participants of

Future Research
Future research should examine the use of comprehensive function-based intervention across multiple settings. This

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

10 work should investigate the effects of the approach with multiple students of different ages and disability categories, in different settings, and with students who exhibit differing problem behaviors. This study included only academic settings at an intermediate level. Additional school settings for future research should include special classes (e.g., art, music, and physical education), lunch, recess, counselor time, and so on. Furthermore, settings outside of the school environment might be examined as challenging behaviors often occur in home and community environments. This studys findings support the use of conducting a FBA across multiple academic settings to develop a single, comprehensive function-based intervention. In addition, the study provided support for a classroom-based model of function-based assessment and intervention that was feasible and acceptable to teachers. Future research is encouraged to examine the potential of this method in providing behavioral support across multiple classroom settings. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Remedial and Special Education XX(X)

(Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 143162). New York, NY: Guilford. Goodwin, M. W. (1999). Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and how to teach them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 2933. Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavior assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30, 156172. 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. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 196210. Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189196. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 14011485. Jolivette, K., Barton-Arwood, S., & Scott, T. M. (2000). Functional behavioral assessment as a collaborative process among professionals. Education & Treatment of Children, 23, 298313. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kern, L., Choutka, C. M., & Sokol, N. G. (2002). Assessmentbased antecedent interventions used in natural settings to reduce challenging behavior: An analysis of the literature. Education & Treatment of Children, 25, 113130. Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. (1994). Studentassisted functional assessment interview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 19, 2939. 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 & Treatment of Children, 27, 440452. Lane, K. L., Bruhn, A. L., Crnobori, M. L., & Sewell, A. L. (2009). Designing functional assessment-based interventions using a systematic approach: A promising practice for supporting challenging behavior. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Policy and practice: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 22, pp. 341370). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Lane, K. L., Cook, B. G., & Tankersley, M. (Eds.), (2013). Research-based strategies for improving outcomes in behavior. Boston, MA: Pearson. Lane, K. L., Eisner, S. L., Kretzer, J., Bruhn, A. L., Crnobori, M., Funke, L., & Casey, A. (2009). Outcomes of functional assessment-based interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in a job-share setting. Education & Treatment of Children, 32, 573604. Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Shepcaro, J. C. (2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based interventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Exceptional Children, 75, 321340. Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Little, M. A., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. (2006). Illustrations of function-based interventions implemented by general education teachers: Building capacity at the school site. Education & Treatment of Children, 29, 549571.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Banda, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kercood, S. (2012). Decreasing disruptive vocalizations of a student with high-functioning autism across three general education classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 56, 104109. Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175191. Blair, K., Umbreit, J., Dunlap, G., & Jung, J. (2007). Promoting inclusion and peer participation through assessment-based intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 134147. Conroy, M. A., & Stichter, J. P. (2003). The application of antecedents in the functional assessment process. Journal of Special Education, 37, 1525. Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., & Falk, G. (1993). Preliminary functional assessment survey (Unpublished document). Tampa: Division of Applied Research and Educational Services. University of South Florida. Fox, J., Conroy, M., & Heckaman, K. (1998). Research issues in functional assessment of the challenging behaviors of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 2633. Fox, J. J., & Gable, R. A. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013

Gann et al.
Murphy, R. J., & Bryan, A. J. (1980). Multiple-baseline and multiple probe designs: Practical alternatives for special education assessment and evaluation. Journal of Special Education, 14, 325335. 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 & Treatment of Children, 33, 537559. Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Stichter, J. P., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282296. Scott, T. M., Liaupsin, C. J., Nelson, C. M., & Jolivette, K. (2003). Ensuring student success through team-based functional behavior assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 1621. 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 & Treatment of Children, 32, 243266. Turton, A. M., Umbreit, J., & Mathur, S. R. (2011). Systematic function-based intervention for EBD adolescents in an alternative setting: Broadening the context. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 117128. Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavior assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Wood, B. K., Blair, K. C., & Ferro, J. B. (2009). Young children with challenging behavior: Function-based assessment and intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 6878. Wood, B. K., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). A treatment integrity analysis of function-based intervention. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 105120.

Downloaded from by guest on September 7, 2013