1. SCHOOL-BASED Cynthia M.
Ander son, R.
FUNCTIONAL Justin Boyd,
Nadia Sampson,
& Anna Mar shall
ASSESSMENT: CAPACITY Univer sity of
Oregon
DEVELOPMENT &
SCALING
Funded in part by
OSEP

2. WHY AREN’T WE “AT SCALE?”
Limited resources
Expertise
Time
Funds
Multiple competing initiatives
Research focus: effective interventions,
little work on how to implement

3. INTENSIVE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
 Goals
 Build district and school capacity at Tiers II and III
 Identify factors affecting implementation, effectiveness, and
sustainability
 Participants
 Model districts
 2 districts in OR; 8 schools (4 elementary & 4 middle)
 Scaling districts
 5 districts in OR (28 schools)

4. IPBS
 Systems
 Technical assistance (district)
 Team-based decision-making
 Interventions
 Tier II
 Function-based support
 Data/Progress monitoring
 Student outcomes
 Intervention effectiveness overall
 Fidelity of implementation

5. BUILDING CAPACIT Y IN SCHOOLS
Process
Year 1
 Progress monitoring team formed
 CICO implemented
Year 2
 Build capacity of 1-2 individuals in FBA/BSP
 Years 3 &4
 Train the trainer model of capacity building in schools

6. RTI MODEL
 Efficient FBA
 School-based staff
 Interview/observation
 Formal FBA
 District/school staff
 Parental involvement
 +structural analysis
 Complex FBA
 District
staff/consultant
 +experimental
manipulations
6

7. YEAR 2 FBA TRAINING
 Attendees selected by district coach
 FTE available to conduct FBA/BSP
 Access to coaching
 FBA Training varied by district (1/2 day to 2 -day)
1
 Typical workshop
 FBA interview
 ABC observations
 Emphasis on ABC relations within routines
 Follow-up coaching

8. OUTCOMES

9. SAMPLE
 Schools in Pacific NW
 20 elementary schools
 16 middle schools
 All schools implementing Tier I of SWPBS with
fidelity
 Participants selected by district
 Interested in scaling up
 District personnel with FTE for coaching/TA

10. TO WHAT EXTENT CAN
SCHOOLS IMPLEMENT
IPBS?
ISSET

11. Tier III Subscales
BL
T1BL
100.00
T2
80.00
T3
% Features Implemented
60.00 T4
40.00
20.00
0.00
Functional
T3-Assess. T3-Implement.
Implementation T3-Monitor.
Progress
Behavior Monitoring
Assessment

12. EVALUATION OF FBA/BSPS
 Participants
 School district in Pacific NW
 Implementing IPBS for 4 years at scale
 Sampling
 Requested copies of all FBAs and support plans
 26 FBA/BSP*
 Most schools had only support plans
 “we just talked about the support plan”
 Scoring
 2 doctoral students
 IOA on 24%

13. EVALUATION
12% of support plans had accompanying FBA
FBA summary statements (competing behavior
pathway)
 100% identified ABC relation
 60% operationally defined problem behavior
 Antecedents
 94% technically accurate “setting event” or none
 94% observable & environmental S+
 Consequences
 98% observable & environmental variables
 90% identified more than one reinforcer

14. SUPPORT PLAN EVALUATION
 Components
 75% logical antecedent strategy
 50% strategy for minimizing reinforcement of target response
 89% reinforcement for desired/alternative response
 99% contained no contra-indicated strategies…….
When EVERYTHING is a reinforcer any
interventions almost any strategies
will be a match

15. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

16. SUMMARY
 Documentation of FBA is a problem
 May not be accurately identifying function
 Support plans
 Antecedent & differential reinforcement strong
 Contingencies for problem behavior missing
 Implementation planning rarely occurs

17. EFFECTS ON STUDENT
BEHAVIOR

18. PROPORTION OF POPULATION WITH
REFERRALS
80%
60%
Mean % Change Between Baseline and Year 4
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40% Implementing
-60% Not Implementing
-80%
-100%
3 4 5 6+
ODRs ODRs ODRs ODRs

19. LESSONS LEARNED
1. District involvement is key
1. District level expertise in function-based support crucial
 1.0 FTE for every 4 schools
 Evidence-based practice
 Data-based decision-making
 Building & maintaining capacity
2. Capacity
 Tier I and Tier II is feasible
 Tier III?
3. Behavior analysis needed in training programs