Applying Positive Behavioral Support and Functional ...trainland.tripod.com/sugai9.pdf+ 36% of general public school parents fear for the physical safety of their oldest child at school,

Positive Behavioral Support - 1

Technical Assistance Guide 1 Version 1.4.3 (8/28199)

Applying Positive Behavioral Support

and Functional Behavioral

Assessment in Schools

OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support’

???????????????????????????????NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EO”CATlONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

/ CENTER IERIC)

’ The Center is supported by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, withadditional funding from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, US Department of Education(1-13265960003). Opinions exprcss.~~’ herein are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the position of the US Department of Education, and such endorsements should not beinferred.


OSEP Center on Positive Bettavioral Interventions and Supports

George Sugai and Robert H. Horner

University of Oregon

Glen Dunlap and Meme Hieneman

University of South Florida

Timothy J. Lewis

University of Missouri

C. Michael Nelson, Terrance Scott, and Carl Liaupsin

University of Kentucky

Wayne Sailor, Ann P. Turnbull, H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, Donna Wickham,Michael Ruef, and Brennan Wilcox

University of Kansas


Applying Positive Behavioral Support andFunctional

Behavioral Assessment in SchoolsI

Introduction

On June 4, 1997, amendments tothe Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA) became law (P.L. 105-l 7). Theseamendments introduced a number of newconcepts, two of which are particularlyimportant to the education of children whosebehaviors violate school codes of conductand/or are outside personal or interpersonalnorms of acceptable social behavior: (a)positive behavioral support (PBS) and (b)functional behavioral assessment (FBA).Section 614 (d)(3)(B)(i) of P.L. 105-17 statesthat “in the case of a child whose behaviorimpedes his or her learning or that of others,the child’s fEP team must consider, whenappropriate, strategies, including positivebehavioral intervention strategies andsupports, to address that behavior.” Section615 (k)(l)(B)(i) of the law states, “if the localeducational agency did not conduct afunctional behavioral assessment andimplement a behavioral intervention plan forsuch child before the behavior that resultedin the suspension described insubparagraph (A), the agency shall convenean IEP meeting to develop an assessmentplan to address that behavior.” In addition, “ifthe child already has a behavioralintervention plan, the IEP Team shall reviewthe plan and modify it, as necessary, toaddress the behavior” [Section615(k)(l)(B)(ii)]. (FBA and BIP are notrequired in all cases of discipline but,instead, are required only in some clearlyspecified circumstances. For moreinformation on these matters, refer toTechnical Assistance Guideline #2.)

Positive behavioral support and F BAare not new. However, in the context of

IDEA, they represent an important effort toimprove the quality of behavioralinterventions and behavioral supportplanning. As schools organize to meet theserequirements and to build their capacity tomeet the behavioral needs of all students,especially students with disabilities, attentionmust be given to the definitions, features,and uses of PBS and FBA. The purpose ofthis paper is to describe what is meant by“PBS” and “FBA.”

Context

Schools are important environmentsin which children, families, educators, andcommunity members have opportunities tolearn, teach, and grow. For nearly 180 dayseach year and six hours each d ,‘,educators strive to provide students learningenvironments that are stable, positive, andpredictable. These environments have thepotential to provide positive adult and peerrole models, multiple and regularopportunities to experience academic andsocial success, and social exchanges thatfoster enduring peer and adult relationships.

Despite these positive attributes,teachers, students, families, and communitymembers face significant contemporarychallenges (Figure 1). Every year schoolsare being asked to do more with fewerresources. New initiatives to improveliteracy, enhance character, accommodaterapidly advancing technologies, andfacilitate school-to-work transitions areadded to the educator’s workday. Schoolsare being asked to achieve new and moreresults, yet seldom are allowed to ceasework on the growing list of initiatives.

ii


Impact of Challenges

F A suburban high school with 1400 students reported over 2000 office referrals fromSeptember to February of one school year.

c An urban middle school with 600 students reported over 2000 discipline referrals to the officefrom September to May.

c A rural middle school with 530 students reported over 2600 office referrals. 304 students hadat least one referral, 136 students had at least 5 referrals, 34 students had more than 20referrals, and one student had 87 office referrals (Taylor-Greene et al.. 1997).

c In one state, expulsions increased from 426 to 2088 and suspensions went from 53,374 to66,914 over a four year period (Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet).

F In another state, expulsions increased form 855 to 1180 between the 1994-95 and 199596school year (a 200% increase from 1991-92 school year) (Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet).

c Being suspended or expelled school is reported by students is one of the top three school-related reasons for leaving school (Nationai Association of Child ‘vacates, 1998).

+ In one state, 10.7% of students who had been suspended or expelled also were found in thestate’s Department of Juvenile Justice Database; 5.4% of suspended students were arrestedwhile on suspension; and 18.7% were arrested while on expulsion (National Association ofChild Advocates, 1998).

+ 36% of general public school parents fear for the physical safety of their oldest child atschool, and 31% fear for the physical safety of their oldest child while playing in theirneighborhood (Gallup, Elam, & Rose, 1998).

* The general public rated fighting/violence/gangs, lack of discipline, lack of funding, and use 01drugs/dope as the top four biggest problems facing local schools. These same four havebeen in the top 4 for over 15 years (Gallup, Elam, & Rose, 1998).

Figure 1 Impact of Changes

Educators also are being asked to

problem behavior (e.g., aggressive,antisocial, destructive), students withinternalizing problem behavior (e.g., social.

educate an increasingly heterogeneouspopulation of students. An increasingnumber of students in our schools haveEnglish as a second language, limited familysupports, significant learning and/orbehavioral problems, families who facefinancial barriers, and a great need formental health, social welfare, medical, andvocational assistance (Knitzer, 1993;Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch. 1990; Stevens& Price, 1992). Although most attention hasfocused on students with externalizing

withdrawal, depression) also represent animportant concern of families, schools, andcommunities (Kauffman, 1997).

In addition, the challengesassociated with educating students withsevere problem behavior are increasing(Biglan, 1995; Kauffman, 1997; Sprague,Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai & Horner,1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995).Although these students represent only 1 to5% of a school enrollment, often they can


account for more than 50% of the behavioralincidents handled by office personnel. andconsume significant amounts of educatorand administrator time (Taylor-Greene et al.,1997; Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, inpress). Many of these students requirecomprehensive behavioral supports thatinvolve family, school, and communityparticipation (Eber, 7996; Eber & Nelson,1997; Epstein et al., 1993; Walker et al.,1995; Walker et al., 1996).

Many schools lack the capacity toidentify, adopt, and sustain policies,practices and systems that effectively andefficiently meet the needs of all students(Mayer, 1995; Sugai & Homer, 1994, inpress; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Walker etal., 1996). Schools often rely on outsidebehavioral expertise because localpersonnel lack specialized skills to educatestudents with significant problem behaviors.Schoot morale is often low because on-going staff support is limited. Although manystudents have significant social skill needs,social skill instruction is not a conspicuousand systemic component of the school-widecurriculum. Behavioral interventions are notbased on information obtained fromassessments. In general, systems for theidentification, adoption, and sustained use ofresearch-validated practices are lacking.

In sum, the challenges facingeducators are significant and persistent. Ifnot addressed, their impact on students,school personnel, families, and communitymembers can be dramatic. However, theproblem is not that schools lack proceduresand practices to address these challenges.Procedures and practices have beendefined and growing over the past 30 years(Mayer, 1995; Peacock Hill Working Group,1992; Sugai, 1998; Walker, 1995; Walker etal., 1998). The greater problem has beenthat we have been unable to create andsustain the “contextual fit” between what ourprocedures and practices and the featuresof the environments (e.g., classroom,workp lace, home, ne ighborhood,playground) in which the student displaysproblem behavior (Albin, Lucyshyn, Homer,& F lannery, 1996). The systemic solution isto create effective “host environments” thatsupport the use of preferred and effectivepractices (Sugai & Horner, 1994; in press;

Zins & Ponti. 1990). Effective hostenvironments have policies (e.g., proactivediscipline handbooks, proceduralhandbooks), structures (e.g., behavioralsupport teams), and routines (e.g.,opportunities for students to learn expectedbehavior, staff development, data-baseddecision making) that promote theidentification, adoption, implementation, andmonitoring of research-validated practices,

As a society, we are looking toschools to be or become settings where ourchildren learn the skills for successfuladulthood (e.g., IDEA, Goals 200, ImprovingAmerica’s Schools Act) in the context of anincreasingly heterogeneous general studentbody and students with intense patterns ofchronic problem behavior. The growir Jexpectation is that schools will deliversocially acceptable, effective, and efficientinterventions to ensure safe, productiveenv i ronments where norm-v io la t ing behav io ris minimized and prosocial behavior ispromoted. Positive behavioral support andFBA represent important efforts towardachieving these goals.

Increasingly. efforts to establishschool-linked service arrangements forchildren and families are appearing aroundthe country (Sailor, 1996). These modelshave been tested and described innumerous schools (Adelman & Taylor, 1997;Dryfoos, 1997: Kagan, Goffin, Golub, &Pritchard, 1996; Schorr, 1997). In Kentucky,for example, efforts have been made toestablish school-linked services in thecontext of state-wide school reform (Illback,Nelson, & Sanders, 1998; Kearns, Kleinert,Farmer, Warlick. Lewis, & Williams, in press;Kleinert, Kearns, & Kennedy, in press). Morerecently, these school, family, andcommunity partnerships have beendescribed under the “community schools”rubric (Benson & Harkavy, 1996; Lawson &Briar-Lawson, 1998).

These comprehens ive systems-change initiatives are designed to create aseamless web of supports and services that“wrap around” children and families and tobring an end to the current fragmentationand categorical separation of school agencydirected programs. These systems-changeefforts create a gateway through which to


integrate PBS methods into the culture ofthe school and to extend effective andcoordinated participation in the behavioralsupport plan to family members andcommunity agency personnel (Sailor, 1996;in press).

Definition and Features of PositiveBehavioral Support in Schools

Optimizing the capacity of schoolsto address schooi-wide, classroom, andindividual problem behavior is possible inthe face of current challenges, but only ifworking policies, structures, and routinesemphasize the identification, adoption, andsustained use of research-validatedpractices In recent years, PBS has beenemerging as an approach to enable schoolsto define and operationalize these structuresand procedures. Newjournals (e.g., Journalof Positive Behavioral Intervention),technical assistance centers (e.g., BeachCenter, Center on Positive BehavioralInterventions and Supports), and personnelpreparation programs have established PBSas the focus of &heir purpose and activities.

Definition

Positive behavioral support is ageneral term that refers to the application ofpositive behavioral interventions andsystems to achieve socially importantbehavior change. PBS was developedinitially as an alternative to aversiveinterventions used with students withsignificant disabilities who engaged inextreme forms of self-injury and aggressicn(Durand & Carr, 1985: Meyer & Evans,1989). More recently, the technology hasbeen applied successfully with a wide rangeof students, in a wide range of contexts(Carr et al., in press; Horner, Albin, &

Sprague, 19Xx), and extended from anintervention approach for individual studentsto an intervention approach for entireschools (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee. 1996;Coivin, Kame’enui & Sugai, 1993; Lewis,Colvin, & Sugai. in press; Lewis, Sugai &Colvin, 1998; Taylor-Greene, et al., 1997;Todd. Horner, Sugai & Sprague, in press).

Positive behavioral support is not anew intervention package, nor a new theoryof behavior, but an application of abehaviorally-based systems approach toenhancing the capacity of schools. families,and communities to design effectiveenvironments that improve the fit or linkbetween research-validated practices andthe environments in which teaching andlearning occurs. Attention is focused oncreating and sustaining school environmentsthat improve lifestyle results (personal.health, social, family, work, recreation, etc.)for all children and youth by making problembehavior less effective, efficient, andrelevant, and desired behavior morefunctional. In addition, the use of culturallyappropriate interventions is emphasized.Haring and De Vault (1996) indicate thatPBS is comprised of (a) “interventions thatconsider the contexts within which thebehavior occurs,” (b) “interventions thataddress ihe functionality of the problembehavior,” (c) “interventions that can bejustified by the outcomes,” and (d)“outcomes ihat are acceptable to theindividual, the family, and the supportivecommunity” (p. 116).

Features

At the core, PBS is the integration of(a) behavioral science, (b) practicalinterventions, (c) social values, and (d) asystems perspective (Figure 2).

Positive Behavioral Support ” 7

Behav io ra l Sc ience Practicat Interventions

F Human behavior is & Functionalaffected by behav iora lbehav iora l , bio- assessments arebehavioral, social, used to developand physical behavior supportenv i ronmenta l plans.factors.

c Interventions+ Much of human emphas i ze

behavior is env i ronmenta lassociated with redesign,un in tent iona l cur r i cu lumlearning redesign, &opportunities. removing rewards

that inadvertently& Human behavior is main ta in prob lem

learned and can be behav ior .changed.

.I. Teaching is acentral behaviorchange tool.

Lifestyle Outcomes

c Behavior changemust be sociallysignificant,comprehens ive ,durable, & relevant.

4 The goal of PBS isenhancement o fliving and learningoptions.

+ PBS procedures aresocially and culturallyappropr iate.Applications occur inleast restrictivenatural settings.

+ Research-validated practicesare emphasized.

+ The fit betweenprocedures andvalues of students,families, educatorsmust be contextuallyappropr iate.

* Interventiondecisions aredata-based.

i Non-aversiveinterventions (nopain, tissue damage,or humiliation) areused.

Figure 2 Foundations and Features of Positive Behavioral Support

1

Systems Perspect ive

The quality & durability of Isuppks are related directlyto the levei of supportprovided by the hostenv i ronment .

The implementation ofpractices and decisions arepolicy-driven.

Emphasis is placed onprevention & the sustaineduse of effective practices.

A team-based approach toproblem solving is used.

Active administrativeinvolvement is emphasized.

Multi-systems (district,schookwide, nonc lass room,classroom, individual student,family, community) arecons idered.

A continuum of behaviorsupports is emphasized.


Behavioral science. An existingscience of human behavior links thebehavioral, cognitive, bio-physical,deve lopmenta l , and phys ica l -env i ronmenta lfactors that influence how a person behaves(Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Bijou & Baer,1978; Schwartz, 1989; Wolery, Bailey, &Sugai, 1988). Of particular interest arefactors that affect the development anddurability of disruptive and dangerousbehaviors (Biglan, 1995; Kauffman, 7997;Mayer, 1995; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion,1992; Walker et al., 1995). To a greatextent, when these behaviors are observedin our schools, they can be traced tounintentional behavioral student, peer,and/or teacher exchanges (Gunter, Denny,Jack, Shores, & Nelson, 1993; Sasso, Peck,Garrison-Harrell, 1998; Shores, Gunter, &Jack, 1993; Shores, Jack, Gunter, Ellis,DeBriere, & Wehby, 1993).

Although learning and teachingprocesses are complex and continuous andsome behavior initially is not learned (e.g.,bio-behavioral), key messages from thisscience are that much of human behavior islearned, comes under the control ofenvironmental factors, and can be changed.The strength of the science is that problembehaviors become more understandable,and as our understanding grows, so doesour ability to teach more socially appropriateand functional behavior. The PBS approachis founded on this science of humanbehavior. Different procedures andstrategies are applied at different levels, butthe fundamental principles of behavior arethe same.

Practical interventions. Thescience of human behavior has led to thedevelopment of practical strategies forpreventing and reducing problem behavior(e.g., Albert0 & Troutman, 1999; Cooper,Heron, & Heward, 1987; Kerr & Nelson,1998; Koegel, Koegel, & Dunlap, 1996;Reichle & Wacker, 1993; Woiery, Bailey, &Sugai, 7988). Although implementationdetails vary across age groups, contexts,and behavior, PBS interventions havecommon features. Foremost among thesefeatures is the application of FBA, butequally important are emphases onenvironmental redesign (changing aspectsof the setting), curriculum redesign (teaching

new skills), modification of behavior(teaching and changing student and adultbehavior), and removing rewards thatmaintain problem behaviors (Carr et al.,1994; Luiselli & Cameron, 1998; O’Neill etal., 1997).

Positive behavioral supportprocedures emphasize assessment prior tointervention, manipulation of antecedentconditions to reduce or prevent thelikelihood that a problem behavior will occur,development of new social andcommunication skills that make problembehaviors irrelevant, and careful redesign ofconsequences to eliminate factors thatmaintain problem behaviors and toencourage more acceptab le rep lacementsocial skills and behaviors. Positivebehavioral support is an approach thatemphasizes teaching as a central behaviorchange tool, and focuses on replacingcoercion with environmental redesign toachieve durable and meaningful change inthe behavior of students. As such, attentionis focused on adjusting adult behavior (e.g.,routines, responses, instructional routines)and improving learning environments (e.g.,curricular accommodations, socialnetworks).

Educators, parents, and communityagents must “work smarter” (Kameenui &Carnine, 1998) by using time more efficientlyand strategically selecting instructional andbehavioral strategies for which clearevidence of their effectiveness exists.Working smarter means using what worksfor all students, not just those with learningand behavioral difficulties (Delpit, 1995). ThePBS approach emphasizes theidentification. adoption, and sustained use ofpractices that have been research-validated.For students with serious antisocialbehaviors, a number of recent meta-analyses and descriptive literature reviewssupport the use of strategies that can beapplied by educators in schoolenvironments, especially, (a) contextually-targeted social skills instruction, (b)academic and curricular restructuring, and(c) behaviorally-based interventions(Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1996; Kavale,Forness. 1999; Lipsey, 1991, 1992; Lipsey 81Wilson, 1993; Tolan & Guerra, 1994). Othermore specific research-validated practices


include FBAs, direct instruction, and otherapplied behavior analytic strategies (Carr etal., in press).

Finally, the PBS approachemphasizes the use of data collection andanalysis to inform decision making (e.g.,direct behavioral observations, curriculum-based measurement). A variety of datasources (e.g., office discipline referrals,attendance and tardy reports, and academicprogress) are collected through a range ofmethods (e.g., archival review, interviews,direct observations) and from.multiplesources (Le., students, family members,educators, community members). In additionto behavioral factors, assessments considercognitive, bio-physical, developmental, andphysical-environmental factors to assist inunderstanding problem behavior and inguiding the development of comprehensivebehavioral support plans. Collectively, thesedata can be used to determine the student’scurrent level of functioning, the impact of theintervention on problem behavior, and/orimprovements in other lifestyle results (e.g.,family, work, recreation). With on-going datacollection, intervention and instructionalmodifications can be made in a timelymanner .

Social values. Positive behavioralsupport emphasizes consideration of socialvalues in both the results expected frombehavioral interventions and the strategiesemployed in delivering the interventions, Acentral PBS tenet is that behavior changeneeds to be socially significant. Behaviorchange should be (a) comprehensive in thatall relevant parts of a student’s day (before,during, and after school) and importantsocial contexts (home, school,neighborhood, and community) are affected,(b) durable in that the change lasts for longtime periods, and (c) relevant in that thereduction of problem behaviors andincreases in prosocial behaviors affect livingand learning opportunities (academic,family, social, work). The goal of PBS ismore than the control of problem behavior: italso includes the enhancement of the livingand learning options available to the studentand to his or her peers and family (Risiey,1996; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996).

Social values are also important indefining acceptable types of interventionprocedures. Positive behavioral supportemphasizes the importance of proceduresthat are socially and culturally appropriate.The contextual fit between interventionstrategies and the values of families,teachers, schools, support personnel, andcommunity agency personnel may affect thequality and durability of support efforts(Albin, 1998; Sailor, 1996). No interventionshould cause pain, tissue damage, orhumiliation to children and their families.Finally, careful consideration is given tolifestyle outcomes that go beyond simplebehavior reduction and enhancement. Thedevelopment of behavioral support plansand the evaluation of their effects considerthe student’s current and future quality of lifein all setthgs and circumstances. Koegel,Koegel, and Dunlap (1996, p. xiv) add that“interventions should strive to enhance aperson’s competencies and access todesirable environments, socialcircumstances, and activities” and “allpeople should be treated with respect anddignity and that interventions must thereforerefrain from interactions that are degrading,humiliating, or pain inducing.”

Systems impact. PBS is ofparticular importance for schools given theemphasis on behavioral “systems” as wellas individual children. A systemsperspective provides support for theadoption and sustained use of effectiveschool practices (Sugai & Horner, 1994, inpress). Without a systems approach,identification of practices is limited,adoptions are incomplete, and attention toschool initiatives to address discipline isepisodic and short term (e.g., 18-24 months)(Sugai & Horner, in press: Zins & Ponti,1990) .

PBS imp lementa t ions cons idermultiple contexts: community, family, district,school, classroom, nonclassroom (e.g.,cafeteria, hatlways, bus, playground, parkinglot), and individual. Efforts are policy-drivento ensure accountability, maximum positiveresults, participation in and progress throughthe general curriculum, and effective andefficient communications. In addition, aproactive (positive and preventative)perspective is maintained along three levels:


(a) PRIMARY: reducing the number of newcases of problem behavior, (b)SECONDARY: reducing the number ofcurrent cases of problem behavior, and (c)TERTIARY: reducing the intensity andcomplexity of current cases (Walker et al.,1996). A team-based approach is applied toprogram assessment, development, andproblem solving (Adefman & Taylor, 1997;Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 7997). Thisapproach enables input from multiplesources, broader expert knowledge base,and improved sustainability over time.

At all levels in the system, activeadministrator support and participation arerequired. Without strong leadership fromschool administrators, program efforts oftenare inefficient, incomplete, and ineffective(Colvin & Sprick, 1999). Similarly, whenproblem behavior is chronic and intense,

comprehensive linkages with other humanservice agencies (e.g., juvenile justice andcorrections, mental/public health, child andfamily services) are considered (Eber, 1996;Eber & Nelson, 1997; Epstein et al., 1993;Walker et al., 1995; Walker et al., 1996).

Taken as a whole, a systemsperspective to PBS provides a continuum ofbehavioral support (Figure 3) in whichprevention is emphasized and intensity ofproblem behavior and context is considered.As a continuum, four change elementscharacterize PBS: (a) change of systems(policies, structures, routines), (b) change ofenvironments, (c) change of student andadult (parent, teacher, staff) behavior, and(d) change in appreciation of appropriatebehavior in all involved individuals (student,staff, family, etc.).

Students with /rChron i c / I n tenseProb lem Behav ior(1 - 7%)

irStuden ts A t -R i skfor Prob lemBehav ior(5-l 5%)

/rStudents withoutSer ious Prob lemBehav iors(80 -90%)


Tertiary Prevention(Ind iv idua l StudentSys tem)

\

Secondary Prevent ion . .57 UPInterxxtions(A t -R i sk Sys tem)

Universallnter\Lenrians(Schoo l -Wide Sys temClass room Sys tem)

Ail Students in School

Figure 3 Continuum of Behavioral Support

Functional Behavior Assessment-based Behavior Support Planning

Among the most important changesin applied behavioral analysis in the past 20years has been the development of FBA(special issue, Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1994). The development ofpositive behavioral interventions and plansthat are guided by FBA is the foundation onwhich the PBS approach is delivered. Acentral message from this advancement isthat the design of successful behaviorchange interventions requires identificationof the events that reliably predict andmaintain problem behaviors (Carr, 1994;Horner, 7994; O’Neill et al., 1997; Repp,1994; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, 8. Hagan, 1998).Historically, problem behaviors have beenviewed as residing within a child, and thediagnostic emphasis has been on the type ofproblem behavior or the link with disabilitytype (i.e., within the individual). Although alltypes of information may be useful in thedesign of effective support, the currentemphasis is on careful documentation of thepredicting and maintaining eventsassociated with problem behaviors.

Although useful in guiding decisionmaking at all levels, the FBA approach is thecornerstone of systems that address theeducational programming of students whodisplay the most significant and challengingproblem behavior. These students requirebehavior support plans that are specialized,individualized, and high intensity. Suchplans must be based on information aboutthe nature of the problem behavior and theenvironmental context in which the problembehavior is observed. The FEA approachprovides a systematic and informed meansby which targeted interventions can bedeveloped and monitored.


Functional assessment is not newfor it can be found in a variety of disciplines(e.g., vocational education, physical therapy,chemistry, physics). However, in education,in particular, special education, functionalassessment had its beginning in the 1960’sin applied behavior analysis (Bijou & Baer,1961; 1978; Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1368:Bijou et al., 1969). Initially, research strtdiesand applied applications of the functionalassessment technology demonstrated thevalue of defining variables maintaining aproblem behavior prior to constructing anintervention (Carr, 1977; Carr & Durand,1985; lwata, et al., 1982; Repp & Horner,1999; Touchette, Ma’cDonald, & Langer,1985). Although most of this work has beenconducted with individuals with severedevelopmental and intellectual disabilities(Blakeslee, Sugai, & Gruba, 1993; Lohrman-O’Rourke et al., 1999), a growing body ofresearch and applications focuses onindividuals with normal intellectualfunctioning (e.g., emotional and behavioraldisorders, learning disabilities) (e.g.,Broussard & Northrup, 1995; Dunlop, Kern-Dunlap. Clarke, and Robbins, 1991; Dunlapet al., 1993; Dunlap et al., 1996; Kern et al.,1994; Lewis & Sugai, 1993, 1996a, 199633;Umbreit, 1995; Voimer & Northrup, 1996).

In this section, we provide anoverview of FBA, including definition andoutcomes, defining features, and majorsteps, especially in relation to behaviorsupport development and planning.

De f in i t i on and Resu l t s

We define FBA as a systematicprocess of identifying problem behaviorsand the events that (a) reliably predictoccurrences and non-occurrence of thosebehaviors and (b) maintain the behaviorsacross time, The purpose of gathering thisinformation is to improve the effectiveness,relevance, and efficiency of behaviorsupport plans (Carr et al., 1997; Foster-Johnson & Duntap, 1993; Horner, 1994;O’Neill et al., 1997; Sugai, Horner, &Sprague, 1999; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, &Hagan, 1998; Tilly et al,, 1998). Specifically,if we can identify the conditions under whichproblem behavior is likely to occur(triggering antecedents and maintainingconsequences), we can arrange


environments in ways that occurrences ofproblem behavior can be reduced and teachand encourage behaviors that can replaceprob lem behav ior .

A number of procedures exist forconducting a FBA (Center for EffectiveCollaboration and Practice, 1998). but wemaintain that any professionally appropriateassessment, at minimum, should concludewith three main results. The first ishypothesis statements that include three keyfeatures: (a) operational definitions of theproblem behavior(s), (b) descriptions of theantecedent events that reliably predictoccurrence and nonoccurrence of theproblem behavior, and (c) descriptions of theconsequence events that maintain theproblem behavior(s). The second is directobservation data supporting thesehypotheses, The third FBA result is abehavior support plan. The importance ofthe link between hypotheses that arederived from FBAs and the development ofcomprehensive behavior support plans mustbe emphasized. Behavior support plansprovide a summary of interventionmanipulations in four areas: (a) setting eventstrategies, (b) antecedent strategies, (c)behavior teaching strategies, and (d)consequence strategies. In addition, a

comprehensive behavior support planprovides implementation scripts that detail(a) who does what strategies when, where,how often, and why; (b) how emergency orcrisis situations will be handled; and (c) howimplementation and effectiveness will bemoni tored.

In sum, FBA is not a set of forms orstatic products. it is a prol:ess ofunderstanding behavior in the context inwhich it is observed and of guiding thedevelopment of positive behavior&interventions that are relevant, effective, andefficient. FBA is a best and preferredpractice for all challenging behavior, not justfor behavioral events that result insuspensions or other disciplinary actions.

Steps of the Functional BehavioralAssessment and Behavior SupportPlann ing Process

In this section, an overview of thesix main steps involved in conducting anFBA and developing behavior support plansis provided (see Figure 4). Additionalguidelines for implementing the process areavailable in O’Neill et al. (1997); Sugai,Lewis-Palmer, and t-lagan (1998); and Tiilyet al. (1998).

Positive Behavioral Support - 7 4

Step1. Co l lec t i n fo rmat ion.egarding conditions underNhich problem behavior is & islot observed & moreappropriate behavior is*equired.2. DeveioD testable(manipulable) hypotheses.3. Collect direct observationinformation.4. Design behavior support -plans.

5. Deve lop imp lementa t ionscripts.

6. Collect information oneffectiveness & efficiency ofbehavior support plan &redesign based on evaluationin fo rmat ion

Too ls /ProceduresArchival review, analysisof routines, interviews,direct observation

Team analysis ofinformation from Step 1Direct observations

Team deve lopment

Team deve lopment

Team deve lopment

fevents, triggering antecedents,problem behavior response classes, ’main ta in ing consequences

Verified summary statements

Specification of (a) desired andacceptable alternative behavior, (b)antecedent strategies andmanipulations, (c) consequencestrategies and manipulations, (d)strategies for teaching desired andacceptable alternative behavior, & (e)setting event/establishing operationstrateqies and manipulationsScripts that specify how, when,where, etc. behavior support plan tobe implemented & by whomData on student progress & planimp lementa t ion , & redes ign /updatedplan

Figure 4 Overview of Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavioral Support planning


Step One. Using archival review,analysis of routines, interviews, and/or directobservations, information is gatheredregarding the conditions under which the (a)problem behavior is and is not observed and(b) more appropriate behavior is required.Attention is focused on four primary factors:(a ) SETT ING EVENTS/ESTABL ISHINGOPERATIONS that make the problembehavior worse (e.g., diet, medicalconditions/illness, sleep, fatigue, socialconflicts), (b) ANTECEDENT EVENTS thatpredictably precede and trigger or occasionproblem behavior (e.g.. task demands,instruction, peer/adult requests), (c)PROBLEM BEHAVIORS that as a responseclass or set are maintained by a commonfunction or outcome (e.g., attention,escape/avo idance) . and (d)CONSEQUENCE EVENTS tha t p red ic tab lyfollow and maintain problem behavior(positive or negative reinforcement).

For example2, when Linda’s teacherrequested assistance because of problembehaviors in his classroom, members of theschool’s behavior support team interviewedthe teacher, reviewed Linda’s behavioralincident records, examined her typical classand activity schedule, and consulted withother adults (e.g., parent, music teacher)who had firsthand knowledge about Linda’sstrengths and problem behaviors.

S tep Two. The in fo rmat ioncollected in the first step is used to developtestable hypotheses which best describe theconditions under which the problembehavior is most likely to occur. A completetestable hypothesis indicates (a) problembehavior, (b) triggering antecedent events,(c) maintaining consequence events and (d)influential setting events/establishingoperations (O’Neill et al., 1997).

For example, based on a review ofinterview and archival information, thebehavior support team determined thatwhen Linda’s teacher asked her to redo

2 The details of this example have beensimplified to illustrate the general features ofeach step.

spelling and grammar errors in her essay(antecedent), Linda verbally protested, failedtc follow directions, and used profanelanguage (problem behavior). Her teachertypically removed the essay task and turnedhis attention to other students (maintainingconsequence). Problem behaviors also weremore likely to occur and be worse inintensity when she had failed to completeher work during the prior math class or hadan argument with an adult (setting event).

Step Three. After testablehypotheses are developed, directobservation information is collected to verifythe accuracy or predictability of thesestatements, Usually, multiple observationsare conducted across multiple settings andsituations to determine whether problembehavior patterns occur under hypothesizedconditions and contexts. These observationsinvolve the careful documentation ofantecedent and consequence variables thatare present or absent when problembehaviors are and are not observed.

In cases where hypotheses oredifficult to establish or where problembehavior is particularly resistant tointervention, functional “analysis” may berecommended. A functional analysisinvolves a systematic manipulation (i.e.,removal and addition) of factors that arehypothesized as triggering or occasioningproblem behavior. These manipulations aredesigned to trigger problem behavior underone set of conditions and not under others.However, in educational and clinicalapplications, we do not recommendfunctional analysis without the (a) directinvolvement of an experienced behavioranalyst, (b) consent and collaboration byfamilies and caregivers, and (c) structuresfor maintaining appropriate accountability(e.g., data collection, monitoring ofimplementation fidelity).

In Linda’s situation, the schoolcounselor, Linda‘s classroom teacher, andthe special education teacher conducteddirect observations during music, math, andlanguage arts periods. They noted thoseantecedent and consequence events thatwere associafed with each problem behaviordisplayed by Linda. They also looked fortimes when or situations where the problem


behavior did not occur. For Linda, directobservation data confirmed the hypothesisstatement generated in the previous step.

Step Four. Based on informationfrom verified hypotheses, behavior supportplans are developed that specify possibleteaching strategies or manipulations for (a)desired and acceptable alternativebehaviors, (b) antecedent events, (c)consequence events, and (d) settingevents/establishing operations. This planserves as the basis for defining the actualimplementation of the behavioralintervention. Unlike more typical singledimension interventions that focus onreactive, consequence manipulations (e.g.,timeout, behavioral contracts), behaviorsupport plans that are based on FBAsconsider intervention components that are(a) instructionally focused (Le., teachingacceptable and desired replacementbehaviors), (b) prevention focused (e.g.,neutralizing or eliminating the conditions thattrigger problem behaviors or make themworse or more likely), and (c)environmentally-based (e.g., rearrangementof the problem context).

For Linda, the behavior team, whichincluded Linda’s teacher and father,developed a behavior plan that had thefollowing general elements: (a) teach Lindato ask for help and/or indicate that the taskis too difficult, and teach her to self-record atthe end of the period whether she “kept hercool” (behavior teaching), (b) reviewcorrection strategies, provide an answerkey, and point out what is correct about herwork before asking Linda to makecorrections (antecedent manipulations); (c)provide verbal praise for asking for help orindicating that work is too hard, do first 2-3corrections with Linda, check her self-recording, and give Linda a break from thetask if she appropriately begins her work(consequence manipulations); and (d) if shehas had a prior conflict with an adult, provideLinda with an opportunity to problem solvethe prior conflict and present her with aneutral and simple task before requestingmaking corrections (setting eventmanipu la t ion) .

Step Five. Implementation scriptsare developed lo specify how, when, and

where the behavior support plan will beimplemented and by whom, Contingencyplans for responding to emergencies,training staff, and collecting data also areindicated. If necessary, resources andassistance from other support individuals oragencies (e.g., mental health, medical,vocational) are indicated.

For example, Linda’s teacheragreed to implement the plan the next dayand to keep track of Linda’s language artserrors and corrections as a way ofdetermining if the intervention was working.The counselor and special educationteacher developed simple checklist scripts toguide Linda’s teacher through theimplementation of the behavior support plan.Linda’s father agreed to provide positiveacknowledgements at home if Linda met hergoal for each day. If Linda’s problembehavior escalated in intensity, thecounselor would come immediately to assistthe teacher.

Step Six. Information on theeffectiveness and efficiency of the behaviorsupport plan is collected regularly, and theplan is redesigned based on an evaluationof this information. A formative (direct,frequent, regular) approach is emphasized.In Linda’s example, one or more membersof the behavior support team met withLinda’s teacher every other day during thetwo weeks of the implementation of thebehavior support plan. This frequent Supportwas provided to ensure that the plan wasworking, and to provide Linda’s teacher withassistance in implementing the plan.

Conc lus ion

Schools can be great places forstudents, teachers, related servicespersonnel. families, human servicepractitioners, and community members towork collaboratively to achieve meaningfulresults for all children and youth. However,limited resources; diverse students, families,and neighborhoods; increases in schoolviolence: and increased socialresponsibilities have decreased theefficiency and effectiveness of manyschools. Although the solution is multi-faceted, schools can make a significantcontribution by “working smarter.” This

1’7


approach requires the establishment ofproactive school environments (i.e., “hostenvironments“) that have the capacities toidentify, adopt, and sustain the use ofeffective policies, systems, and practices.

Positive behavioral supportrepresents an important approach toidentifying and organizing effective schoolpractices, especially for students whopresent significant problem behavior.However, many systems-level challengesremain to be addressed. First, schools needguidelines for making the adoption andsustained use of PBS practices efficient andrelevant. Attention must be focused on thepolicies, environments, structures, andpractices of PBS. For example, addressingthe needs of students who presentsignificant problem behavior requirespersonnel with time, highly specialized skills,access to resources, and administrativesupports.

Second, balancing efforts andattention between school-wide andindividual student systems is a challenge formany schools. For example, a school-widediscipline system that operates efficientlyand effectively for the majority of students ina school can ease the high costs associatedwith addressing the intense needs of therelative small proportion of students whopresent the most significant problembehavior (Sugai, Horner, Sprague, &Walker, in press). However, many schoolslack the capacity to maintain the efficientand on-going operation of both school-wideand individual student systems. Increasingly,partnerships that include schools,community agencies, businesses, and familymembers offer new pathways for using PBSto change systems (Illback & Nelson, 1996;Sailor, 1996, in press).

Third, as the specialized nature ofinterventions increases with the increasingintensity of problem behavior, so does thecomplexity of the implementation. Schoolsneed user-friendly ways to use PBS andFBA based behavior support planning.Consideration must be given to the uniquefeatures (e.g., cultural, geographical,demographic, physical) of a school and itsstudents, families, teachers, and communitymembers .

Finally, Carr et al. (in press) notedthat lifestyle results were measured in lessthan 3% of PBS studies. Schools mustdevelop mechanisms for determining if theirefforts at the school-wide, classroom,nonclassroom, and individual student levelsactually are associated with meaningfuloutcome improvements for students, theirfamilies, and the school. Attention to thereduction of problem behavior isunderstandable; however, the impact of PBSefforts on larger lifestyle results (e.g., peerrelations, family functioning, corn, nun&ymobility) also must be considered.

The PBS approach offers students,teachers, and family and communitymembers a process that begins to addressthese systems level challenges. Theprocess is based on an established scienceof human behavior, pays attention toimportant lifestyle results, works from asystems perspective, and gives priority toresearch-validated practices. The goal ofPBS is to use information from FBAs toguide the design of learning and teachingenvironments that support and encourageadaptive behavior and lessen the usefulnessof problem behavior.


References

Alberto. P. A., & Troutman, A. C.(1999). Applied behavior analvsis forteachers (5” ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Adelman, H. & Taylor, L. (1997).Addressing barriers to learning: Beyondschool-linker services and full serviceschools, American Journal ofOrthopsvchiatrv, 67(3).

Albin, R.W., & Sandler, L. (1998,May). Contextual fit as a variable affectingthe fidelity with which behavior interventionsare implemented. Presentation at theAssociation for Behavior Analysis AnnualConvention. Orlando, FL.

Albin, R. W., Lucyshyn, L. M.,Horner, R. H., & Flannery, K. B. (1996).Contextual fit for behavioral support plans: Amodel for A Goodness-of-fit. In L. K. Koegel,R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positivebehavior su~)poR: tncludinq peoole withdifficult behavior in the community (pp. 81-89). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley,T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions ofapplied behavior analysis. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, I, 91-97.

Benson, L., & Harkavy, I. (1997).School and community in the global society:A Neo-Deweyian theory of communityproblem-solving schools and cosmopolitanneighborly communities in a Neo-Deweyian“manifesto” to dynamically connect schooland community. Universities and CommunitySchools, 5(1/Z), 17 -69.

Biglan, A. (1995). Translating whatwe know about the context of antisocialbehavior in to a lower prevalence of suchbehavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalvsis, 28‘479-492.

Bijou, S. W.. & Baer, D. M. (1961).Child development I: A systematic andemuirical theorv. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1978)Behavior analvsis of child development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault,M. H. (1968). A method to integratedescriptive and experimental field studies atthe level of data and empirical concepts.Journal of Applied Behavior Analvsis, 1,175-191.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., Harris,F. R.. Allen, E., &Johnston, M. S. (1969).Methodology for experimental studies ofyoung children in natural settings.Psvcholoaical Record, 19,177-210.

Blakeslee, T., Sugai, G., & Gruba, J.(1994). A review of functional assessmentuse in data-based intervention studies.Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 397-414.

Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J.(7995). An approach to functionalassessment and analysis of disruptivebehavior in regular education classrooms.School Psvcholoqv Quarterlv, IO, 151-I 64.

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation ofself-injurious behavior: A review of somehypotheses. Psvcholoaical Bulletin, 84,800-816.

Carr, E. G. (1994). Emergingthemes in the functional analysis of problembehavior. Journal of Auplied BehaviorAnalvsis, 27,393-400.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985).Reduc ing behav ior p rob lems throughfunctional communication training. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analvsis, 18,111-l 26.

Can, E. G., Horncr, R. H., Marquis,J. G., Turnbull, A. P., Magito-McLaughlin,D., McAtee, M. L., Smith, C. E., Ryan, K. A.,Ruef, M, B., & Doolabh, A., (in press).Positive behavior support as an approachfor dealing with problem behavior in peoplewith developmental disabilities: A researchsynthesis, American Association on MentalRetardation Monoaraph Series.

Carr, E. G., Levin. L., McConnachie,G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C.E. (1994) . Communica t ion-basedintervention for problem behavior: A usersguide for producino positive chanae.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.


Center for Effective Collaboration Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A.,and Practice (1998). Addressing student Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). Theproblem behavior: An IEP team’s effects of multi-component, assessment-introduction to functional behavioral based curricular modifications on theassessment and behavior intervention plans. classroom behavior of children withAmerican Institutes for Research: emotional and behavioral disorders, JournalWashing:on, D.C. of Behavioral Education, 6,481~500.

Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., &Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide andc lass room management : Reconcep tua l i z ingthe integration and management of studentswith behavior problems in generaleducation. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 16, 361-381.

Colvin, G., & Sprick, R. (1999).Providing administrative leadership foreffective behavior support: Ten strategies forprincipals. Effective School Practices, 17,(4),65-71.

Calvin, G.. Sugai, G., Good, R. H.,ill. & Lee, Y. (1997). Using activesupervision and precorrection to improvetransition behaviors in an elementary school.School Psvcholoov Quarterlv, 12,344-363.

Cooper, J. 0.. Heron, T. E., &Heward. W. L. (7987). Aoolied behavioranalysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other neoole’schildren: Cultural conflict in the classroom.New York: New Press.

Dryfoos, J.G. (1997). Theorevalence of oroblem behaviors:implications for programs. In EnhancinqChildren’s Wellness. Healthv Children 2010.Issues in Children’s and Families’ Lives,Volume 8.

Dunlap, G.. Kern, L., DePerczel, M.,Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., White,R., & Falk, G. D. (7993). Functional analysisof classroom variables for students withemotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 18, 2758291.

Durand, M. V., & Carr, E. G. (1985).Self-injurious behavior: Motivating conditionsand guidelines for treatment. SchoolPsvcholoctv Review, 14,171-l 76.

Eber, L. (1996). Restructuringschools through wraparound planning: TheLADSE experience. In R. J. ttlback & C. M.Nelson (Eds.), School-based services forstudents with emotional and behavioraldisorders (pp. 139-l 54). Binghamton, NY:Haworth Press.

Eber, L., & Ne!son, C. M. (1997).School -based wraparound p lanning:Integrating services for students withemotional and behavioral needs. AmericanJournal of Orthoosvchiatrv, 67,385395.

Epstein, M. H., Nelson, C. M.,Polsgrove, L., Coutinho, M., Cumblad, C., &Quinn, K. P. (1993). A comprehensivecommunity-based approach to servingstudents with emotional and behavioraldisorders. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 1‘127-133.

Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G.(1993). Using functional assessment todevelop effective, individualizedinterventions for challenging behaviors.Tcachina Excentional Children, 25, 44-50.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson,D, C. (1996). A national study ofdelinquency prevention in schools: Rationalefor a study to describe the extensivenessand implementation of programs to preventadolescent problem behavior in schools.Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates,Inc.

Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L.. Clarke,S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functionalassessment, curricular revision, and severebehavior problems. Journal of AonliedBehavior Analysis. 24‘387.397.

Gunter, P. L.,. Denny, R. K., Jack, S.L., Shores, R. E., & Nelson, C. M. (1993).Aversive stimuli in academic interactionsbetween students with serious emotionaldisturbance and their teachers. BehavioralDisorders, 18,265-274.

Haring, N. G., & De vault, G.(1996). Family issues and family support:Discussion. In L. K. Koegei, R. L. Koegel, &G. Dunlap (Ed%), Positive behavioralSUDDOR: lncludino people with difficultbehavior in the community (pp. 116-I 20).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Horner, R. H. (1994). Functionalassessment: Contributions and futuredirections. Journal of Apolied BehaviorAnalvsis, 27, 401-404.

Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W.,Sprague, J. R.. & Todd, A. W. (in press).Positive behavior support for students withsevere disabilities. In M. E. Sneii & F.Brown, (Eds.), Instruction of students withsevere disabilities (5th Edition). Columbus,OH: Merrill.

iwata, 8. A., Dorsey. M. Slifer, K. J.,Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982).Toward a functional analysis of self-injury.Anaivsis and Intervention in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 2, I-20.

JABA (1994). Special issue onfunctional analysis approaches to behavioralassessment and treatment. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 27.

Kagan, S. L., Goffin, S. G., Golub,S. A., & Pritchard, E. (199s). Towardsystemic reform: Service integration foryoung chiidren’and their families. FallsChurch, VA: National Center for ServiceIntegration.

Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W.(1998). Effective teachina strateqies thataccommodate diverse learners. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kauffman, J. (1997). Characteristicsof emotional and behavior disorders ofchildren and vouth (6rh ed.). Columbus, OH:Merrill.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R.(1999). Efficacy of special education andrelated services. Monograph of theAmerican Association on MentalRetardation. Washington, DC.


Kearns, J. F., Kleinert, H.L., Farmer,R., & Warlick, K, (in press). The implicationsof Kentucky’s education reform for studentswith disabilities. To appear in W. Sailor(Ed.), Inclusive education andschoo l l commun i t v oartnershias. TeachersCollege Press.

Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G.,Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Usingassessment-based curricular intervention toimprove the .classroom behavior of a studentwith emotional and behavioral challenges.Journal of Applied Behavior Anaivsis. 27,7-1 9 .

Kerr, M. M,, & Nelson, C. M. (1998).Strateaies for manaoina oroblem behaviorsin the classroom (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:Merrill.

Kleinert, J. L., Kearns, J.F. &Kennedy, S. (in press). Including all studentsin educational assessment andaccountability. To appear in W. Sailor (Ed.),Inclusive education and school/communitypartnershbs. Teachers Co l lege Press .

Knitzer, J. (1993). Children’s mentalhealth policy: Challenging the future. Journalof Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1 (l),E-1 6.

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch,B. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: Anexamination of proarams and policies forchildren with behavioral and emotionalproblems. New York: Bank Street College ofEducation.

Koegei, L. K., Koegei, R. L., &Dunlap, G. (Eds.). (1996). Positivebehavioral supoort: Includino people withdifficult behavior in the community.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lawson, H. A., & Briar-Lawson, K.(1997). Connectina the dots: Proaresstoward the intearation of school reform,school-linked services, narent involvementand communitv schools, Oxford, OH:Institutes for Educational Renewal.

Lewis, T. J., Calvin, G., & Sugai, G.(in press). The effects of pre-correction andactive supervision on the recess behavior of

SESTCOPYAVAILABLE


elementary school students. SchoolPsvcholoqv Quarterly.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai. G. (1993).Teaching communicative alternatives tosocially withdrawn behavior: An investigationin maintaining treatment effects. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 3,61-75.

Lewis, T., & Sugai, G. (1996a).Descriptive and experimental analysis ofteacher and peer attention and the use ofassessment-based intervention to improvethe pro-social behavior of a student in ageneral education setting. Journal ofBehav iora l Educat ion , 6‘7-24.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996b).Functional assessment of problem behavior:A pilot investigation of the comparative andinteractive effects of teacher and peer socialattention on students in general educationsettings. School Psvcholoav Quarterlv, 11,1-19.

Lewis, T. J, Sugai, G., & Co!vin, G.(1998). Reducing problem behavior througha school-wide system of effective behavioralsupport: Investigation of a school-widesocial skills training program and contextualinterventions, School Psycholoav Review,27-446-459,

Lipsey, M. W. (1991). The effect oftreatment on juvenile delinquents: Resultsfrom meta-analysis. In F. Losel, D. Bender,& T. Bliesener (Eds.), P’svcholoov and law.New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juveniledelinquency treatment: A meta-analyticinquiry into the variability of effects, In T. D.Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H.Hartman. L. V. Hedges, R. V. Light, T. A.Louis, & F. Mostellar (Eds.), Meta,analysisfor exolanation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lipsey. M. W., &Wilson, D. 8.(1993). The efficacy of psychological,educational, and behavioral treatment:Confirmation from meta-analysis. AmericanPsvcholoaist, 48, 1181-1209.

Lohrman-O’Rourke, S., Knoster, T.,& Llewellyn, G. (1999). Screening forunderstanding: An initial line of inquiry for

school-based settings. Journal of PositiveBehavioral Interventions, ‘l(l), 35-42.

Luiselli, J. K., & Cameron, M. J.(Eds.). (1998). Antecedent control:Innovative approaches to behavioralsupport. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Mayer, G. (1995). Preventingantisocial behavior in the schools. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analvsis, 28,467-478.

Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (1989).Nonaversive intervention for behaviorproblems: A manual for home andcommunitv. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin,R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton,

.J. S. (1997). Functional assessment andproaram development for oroblem behavior:A oractical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., &Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial bovs.Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.

Peacock Hill Working Group.(1992). Problems and promises in specialeducation and related services for childrenand youth with emotional or behavioraldisorders. Behavioral Disorders, 16,299-313.

Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. P. (Eds).(1993). Communicative alternatives tochallenoina behavior: tntearatina functionalassessment and intervention strateoies (vol.3). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Repp, A. (1994). Commenis onfunctional analysis procedures for school-based behavior problems. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analvsis, 27‘208-412.

Repp, A., & Horner, R. H. (1999)(eds.). Functional analvsis of problembehavior: From effective assessment toeffective suooort. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Risley, T. (1996). Get a life: Positivebehavioral intervention for challengingbehavior through life arrangement and lifecoaching. In L. K. Koegel. R. L. Koegel. 81 G.


Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavioral suooort:lncludinq neoole with difficult behaviGr in thecommunity (pp. 403-424). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes .

Sailor, W. (in press). Devolution,schoollcommunitylfamily partnerships, andinclusive education. To appear in W. Sailor(Ed.), inclusive education andschoollcommunitv partnerships. TeachersCollege Press.

Sailor, W. (1996). New structuresand systems change for comprehensivepositive behavioral support. In L. K. Koegel,R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positivebehavioral support: Includinq oeoofe withdifficult behavior in the community (pp. 163-206). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Sasso, G. M., Peck, J., S C Garrison-Harrell, L. (1998). Social interaction settingevents: Experimental analysis of contextualvariables. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 34-43.

Schorr, L. B, (1997). Commonpurpose: Strenathenino families andneiohborhoods to rebuild America. NewYork: Anchor Books.

Schwartz, B. (1989). Psycholoqv oflearnins and behavior (3’d ed.). New York:W. W. Norton & Company.

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack,S. L. (1993). Classroom managementstrategies: Are they setting events forcoercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18,92-102.

Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Gunter,P. L., Ellis, D. N., DeBriere, T. J., & Wehby,J. H. (1993). Classroom interactions ofchildren with behavior disorders. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1,27-39.

Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Walker, H.(1998). Antisocial behavior in schools. In S.Watson & F. Gresham (Ed%), Child behaviortherapv: Ecoloaical considerations inassessment, treatment, and evaluation (pp.451-474). New York: Plenum Press.

Stevens, L. J.. 81 Price, M. (1992).Meeting the challenge of educating childrenat risk. Kaooan, 74(l), 18-23.

Sugai, G. (1998). Postmodernismand emotional and behavioral disorders:Distraction or advancement. BehaviorDisorders, 23,171-177.

Sugai, G.. & Horner, R. H. (1999).Discipline and behavioral support: Practices,pitfaiis, & promises. Effective SchoolPractices, 17(4), 10-22.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994).Including students with severe behaviorproblems in general education settings:Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. InJ. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), BOreaon conference monoaraoh (Vol. 6) (p.102-120). Eugene, OR: University ofOregon.

Sugai, G., Homer, R. H.. &Sprague,J. (1999). Functional assessment-basedbehavior support planninq: Research-to-practice-to-research. Behawioral Disorders,24- 223-227.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., &Hagan, S. (1998). Using functionalassessments to develop behavior supportplans. Preventino School Failure, 43(l), 6.1 3 .

Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner,R, H., & Walker, H. M. (in press). Preventingschool violence: The use of office disciplinereferrals to assess and monitor school-widediscipline interventions. Journal of Emotionaland Behavioral Disorders.

Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D.,Nelson, L., Longton, J.. Gassman, T..Cohen, J., Swartz, J., Horner, R. H., Sugai,G., 81 Hall, S. (1997). School-widebehavioral support: Starting the year offright. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7‘99.112.

filly, W. D., III, Knoster, T. P.,Kovalcski, J., Bambara, L., Dunlap, G., &Kincaid, 0. (1998). Functional behavioralassessment: Policy development in light ofemerging research and practice. National

23

Association of the State Directors of SpecialEducation: Alexandria, VA.

Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai,G., & Sprague, J. R. (in press). Effectivebehavior support: Strengthening school-widesystems through a team-based approach.Effective School Practices.

Tolan, P., & Guerra, N. (1994).What works in reducing adolescent violence:An empirical review of the field. Boulder:University of Colorado, Center for the Studyand Prevention of Violence.

Touchette, P. E.. MacDonald, R. F.,& Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot foridentifying stimulus control of problembehavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 18,343-351.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R.(1996). Group action planning as a strategyfor providing comprehensive family support.In L. K. Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap(Eds.), Positive behavioral supnort: lncludinqpeocle with difficult behavior in thecommunity (pp. 99.114). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes .

Umbreit, J. (1995). Functionalassessment and intervention in a regularclassroom setting for the disruptive behaviorof a student with attention deficithyperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders,2C.I- 267-278.


Vollmer, T. R., & Northup, J. (1996).Some implications of functional analysis forschool psychology. School PsychologyQuarterlv. II& 76-92.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., &Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior inschool:-Strateqies and best oractices.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Walker, H. M., Forness, S. R.,Kauffman, J., Epstein, M. H., Gresham, F.M., Nelson, C. M., & Strain, P. S. (1998).Macro-social validation: Referencingoutcomes in behavioral disorders to societalissues and problems. Behavioral Disorders,24- 1-18.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai,G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., &Kaufman, M. J. (1996). tntegratedapproaches to preventing antisocialbehavior patterns among school-agechildren and youth. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 4‘193-256.

Wolery, M. R., Bailey, 0. B., Jr., &Sugai, ,G. M. (1988). Effective teachina:Princioles and nrocedures of appliedbehavior analvsis with exceotional students.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Zins, J. E., & Ponti, C. R. (1990).Best practices in school-based consultation.In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.) Bestpractices in school osvcholoav -- ll’(pp.73-694). Washington, DC: National Associationof School Psychologist

Documents

Applying Positive Behavioral Support and Functional ...trainland.tripod.com/sugai9.pdf+ 36% of general public school parents fear for the physical safety of their oldest child at school,