function-based thinking: a systematic way of thinking

FUNCTION-BASED THINKING

Function-Based Thinking: A Systematic Way of Thinking About Functionand Its Role in Changing Student Behavior Problems

PATRICIA A. HERSHFELDT, JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

MICHAEL S. ROSENBERG, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

CATHERINE P. BRADSHAW, JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR THE PREVENTION OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

The responsibility of managingstudent behavior has become aheightened concern for general

education teachers as a result ofincreased accountability for studentgains. Although functional behavioralassessments (FBAs) are widelyrecommended for use in suchsituations, there are clear indicationsthat this evidence-based practice isnot occurring regularly or reliably(e.g., Mclntosh, Homer, Chard,Dickey, & Braun, 2008; Scott et al.,2004). Nevertheless, there are coreelements of FBAs that promotefunction-based thinking (FBT) thatmay help bridge this gap and serve asan efficient strategy to addressbehavior problems and inappropriatereferrals.

This article outlines the FBTmodel, which aims to empowergeneral education teachers andschool-based personnel to apply amore systematic approach toproblem-solving possible functions ofstudent behavior. Special educationteachers are often tapped to providesupport to general education teacherswhen students with special needs areincluded in the general educationsetting. FBT is an approach tobehavior intervention planning thatcan be more easily embraced bygeneral education teachers than FBA.Drawing on the FBA literature (Carret al, 1999; Sugai et al, 2000; Sugai,Horner, & Sprague, 1999), the FBTmodel provides a framework forsystematically exploring possibleconditions that might be contributingto the student's misbehavior. Afterdescribing the core elements andmerits of FBAs, as well as the factors(e.g., setting demands) that impede

consistent use in schools, we offer arationale for FBT and a case studyillustrating how it can beimplemented by general educationteachers. We conclude with adiscussion of the professionaldevelopment and coaching that isnecessary to support high-qualityimplementation of FBT.

FBA: The Traditional Approach

Although only 1% of students areidentified as having a severeemotional disturbance (U.S.Department of Education, 2006), it isestimated that between 3% and 6% ofthe student population in publicschools exhibits behaviors significantenough to warrant some t5^e ofspecial education services forchallenging behavior. Additionally atleast 5% of children have seriousmental health needs, for which only asmall fraction receives services (U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices, 2001). These statisticsdemonstrate the need for generaleducation teachers to be familiar withthe principles of FBA and behaviorintervention plan (BIP) development.However, FBA has been historicallyused in clinical settings to determinethe antecedents and reinforcers ofsevere behaviors demonstrated byindividuals with significant cognitiveand developmental delays (Payne,Scott, & Conroy, 2007). Moreover,FBA was performed by professionalsskilled in applied behavior analysis(ABA) and under controlled clinicalconditions. To date, there has beenrelatively little research documentingits effectiveness when conducted byschool staff outside of research

projects (Payne et al., 2007).Additionally, there are a limitednumber of school-based professionalstrained in the complexities of FBA.The resource and time constraintsplaced on school systems limit theopportunity for the development of acomplex FBA for students outside ofthe special education domain (Asmuset al., 2004).

In an effort to increase the use ofFBAs, the reauthorizations ofIndividuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA) in 1997 and2004 mandated the use of FBAs andpositive behavioral supports forstudents with disabilities whosebehaviors could potentially result in achange in educational placement.Recommendations to employ FBAsand BIPs included use with studentswho are not identified as needingspecial education services. Althoughthe legislation prompted the use ofFBAs and BIPs, it provided notechnical assistance to guide schoolpersonnel in appropriatedevelopment and implementation.An additional concern is thepresumptive nature of thisrecommendation, as the research ismixed regarding the importance ofdetermining function in behaviormanagement strategies for generaleducation students (Mclntosh et al.,2008). Furthermore, there is limitedresearch examining potentialsimilarities in the functions ofbehavior for students exhibiting mildor moderate behavior problems andstudents with disabilities exhibitingmore intense behavior problems.There are also growing concernsabout the quality and effectiveness ofFBAs and BIPs developed by often

12 B EYOND B EHAVIOR


overwhelmed and budget-challengedschool-based personnel, who aretypically not provided opportunitiesto acquire ABA or functional analysisskills (Quinn et al., 2001; Scott et al.,2004). Thus, schools are mandated toexecute EBAs in the absence ofresearch-based processes andguidance specific to the school settingand with limited evidence of theeffectiveness of EBAs developed byteachers (Payne et al., 2007).

Along with increased pressure toconduct EBAs, there is greateremphasis on the prevention of studentbehavior problems through effectivemanagement of behavior problems inthe classroom. Educators are forced tofocus a majority of their contact timewith students strictly on academics,which leaves little time to manageproblematic behaviors and teachprosocial replacement behaviors(Greenberg et al., 2003). Althoughstudents exhibiting problematicbehaviors need explicit instruction inreplacement behaviors (Kauffman,Lloyd, Baker, & Reidel, 1995),behavioral instruction andmanagement are not heavilyemphasized in preservice or in-servicegeneral education teacher training(Kauffman, 2005; Reid & Eddy, 1997).In fact, general education teacherstypically receive little or no training inbehavior management principles andclassroom management during theirpreservice training experience (Cook,2002; Cook, Landrum, Tankersley, &Kauffman, 2003). A related challengeis the limited time available to providetraining, support, and technicalassistance to teachers, as well aslimited class time for teachers toimplement interventions(Domitrovich et al., 2008). Demandson teacher time increase as newinitiatives are proposed, often in theabsence of additional time andresources to support implementation(Sugai ef al., 2000).

Rationale for EBT

EBT is intended to address thecall for function-based behavior

planning by providing a frameworkfor helping teachers think aboutproblematic behaviors. EBT isintended to be efficient andminimally invasive in terms ofteacher time, cost, and managementefforts. When executed well, the useof EBT will likely result in a timesavings for teachers andadministrators. The initial investmentin training reaps rewards as ateacher's ability to consider functionis enhanced. Responding at theclassroom level minimizes the needto spend time outside of theclassroom attending numerousbehavior support meetings.Eurthermore, using EBT as aprecursor to EBA permits preventiveinterventions to be implementedprior to making a referral to the oftenback-logged school-level studentsupport teams. EBT is an attractiveprevention approach, given the timeconstraints, limited training in EBA,and uncertainty about the matchbetween functional analysis and usewith general education students.

Research suggests that the earlierintervention is provided for new-onset behaviors, the more effectivethe behavioral change efforts. Whenintervention is not provided, studentbehavior problems escalate andrequire more intensive intervention(Scott et al., 2005). Therefore, ifteachers are able to apply EBT tobehavioral concerns in the classroomas behaviors develop, they will bebetter prepared to prevent thedevelopment of more seriousbehaviors. Such an approach isproactive and contrasts typical schoolprocedures, which require teachersrefer students with problembehaviors and then wait for district-level support from a behaviorspecialist. When a teacher is trainedto apply EBT to a problem within hisor her class, he or she is able toexplore what could be changed in thestudent's school environment moreimmediately and ensure there are notstimuli within that setting that arecontributing to student problembehaviors. Thus, using EBT as a

preventative strategy allows teachersfo implement programs prior toreferral for special education andpossibly avoid the development ofmore serious problems.

Overview of FBT

EBT is a model for thinking and asystematic process for definingproblem behaviors and selectinginterventions that match the functionof the behavior. It addresses both theimportance of identifying thefunction of behaviors ana thesignificant role general educationteachers can play in thatidentification process. At the sametime, EBT takes into consideration thesetting demands placed on generaleducators. The model incorporatesthe function of a student's behaviorproblem when planning behavioralinterventions and considers the role"function" plays in the selection ofthose interventions. EBT adheres tothe basic principles of EBA: ahypothesis statement that depends onthe development of an operationaldefinition of the behavior,information gathering that includesdirect observation (primarily by theclassroom teacher), and the creationof a behavior support plan that alignswith the determined function (Sugaiet al, 2000). Because EBT does notrequire the level of expertise anddepth of assessment that EBA does, itis more accessible and user-friendlyfor teachers.

EBT is designed to serve theneeds of students who have behaviorproblems that have not yet evolved tothe point of requiring multiple layersof intervention to support success.Training in EBT helps teachersconsider the ftmction of students'behavior problems and planinterventions accordingly. This, inturn, has the potential to decreasereferrals to the student support team,typically the group of professionalswho work collectively to solvepersistent academic and behavioralissues. When teacher interventionsreduce student referrals to the

S P R I N G 20 10 13


Figure 1 COMPARISON OF FBA mn FBT

Differences betv^een

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

• A process and a product• Requires formal assessment and

analysis of comprehensive data• Involves multiple team members• Requires individual trained in behavior

analysis or functional assessment• Typically a lenqthy and intensive

/ I / T

assessment and intervention process• Not often used as a preventative

measure, but rather instituted whenmore problematic behaviors arise

1

FBA and FBT

Function-Based Thinking (FBT)

• A quick systematic way of thinkingthat informs the selection of effectivefunction-based supports

• A preliminary step, prior to anextensive FBA

• Only requires the teacher and anindividual knowledgeable of behaviormanagement to facilitate the learningprocess ror teachers

• Draws from the research-basedcomponents of FBA

• Designed to be used as an earlyintervention strategy with mild tomoderate behavior problems

• Designed to be used prior toinvolving the student support team oroutside supports

student support team, the team candedicate more time to supportstudents with more intensebehavioral needs. FBT is not designedas a replacement for FBA. Rather, it isintended to be a preliminary,proactive, and user-friendlyexamination of how student behaviorproblems relate to their environments(see Figure 1). The ultimate goal ofFBT is for a teacher to independentlythink functionally about problematicstudent behavior and select anintervention that serves the samefunction without the support ofmultiple team meetings. Learning tothink functionally follows a three-step process, which includesgathering information, developing aplan, and measuring the success ofthe plan. These steps are described ingreater detail in the following section.

As stated previously, FBT is notintended to replace morecomprehensive FBA. FBA should stillbe carried out when student

behaviors are more complex or havebeen exhibited for an extendedamount of time. FBA could also beused when the behavior plan createdfrom FBT does not prove to beeffective at changing newly acquiredproblem behaviors.

The Three Steps of FBT

Gathering InformationThe first step of FBT requires the

gathering of information or dataabout the presenting behavior. Anyinformation that helps schoolpersonnel explore the nature of thepresenting problem behavior iscollected. Collecting antecedent,behavior, consequence (A-B-C) datamay bring to light the cause of thebehavior. Keep in mind that theantecedents of behavior might occuroutside of the school day, with adelayed behavioral response.Collecting A-B-C information canhelp reveal these and other specific

patterns of behavior, triggers, andresponses that may be reinforcing thebehavior. A-B-C data also serve toclarify teacher and student responsesthat may be consciously orunconsciously rewarding thebehavior.

There are many kinds of data thatare collected naturally in the course ofthe school day. Examples of theseinclude student grades, homeworkand work completion, tardies,absences, and even visits to the nurseor guidance office. All of these canhelp provide insight into studentbehavior. These data typically arecollected independently, and thusthey are rarely looked at collectivelyor comprehensively. The cause of thebehavior is much clearer as a result ofgathering numerous sources of dataand reviewing them collectively.Teachers are becoming more astute atusing data to make academicdecisions. The same rationale appliesto behavior and helping a teacher

14 B EYOND B EHAVIOR


learn to review data for behavioralintervention planning is just ascritical. Thus, FBT promotes thesystematic examination of existingdata and is not always dependentupon the collection of new sources ofinformation. Through this process,teachers begin to think functionallyabout the causes of students'misbehavior and the mostappropriate interventions.

Developing a PlanThe second step of FBT is the

development of a plan that supportsbehavior change. The plan shouldtake into consideration the function ofthe behavior. Development includescreating a plan to replace the targetedbehavior with a goal behavior that ismore suitable for the given setting.The plan should also identifypersonnel that could help the studentlearn the new behavior as well asreinforce the student fordemonstrating the new behavior.This may require that personnel betrained or guided so that all of theadults understand the expectations ofthe plan and respond consistently tothe student. Although oftenoverlooked, it is critical to share thestudent behavior plan with otherschool staff who are not directlyinvolved with implementing the planbut who have regular interactionswith the student. Key personnelwould naturally include all of thestudent's teachers but may alsoinclude front office personnel, theschool nurse, the lunchroom staff,and bus drivers. Because the successof the plan is dependent upon adultbehavior change, it is critical toinclude all adults who regularlyinteract with the student in thedevelopment of a consistent systemof support.

Measuring the Success of the PlanThe third step in FBT is to

determine how the plan will beevaluated for success. Building on thefirst step of gathering data prior toimplementation of the plan, the datacollection should be ongoing and

periodically compared with thebaseline data to determine studentprogress. The data collection strategyneeds to be simple and efficient forthe teacher to implement while stillteaching a class. A sample worksheetand flowchart that further explain theFBT process are included at the endof this article (see Figure 2 andFigure 3).

Applying FBT in theClassroom Context

Examination of student behaviorshould start with the consideration ofecological factors that includeinstructional match, classroomenvironment, and cultural sensitivity.Ecological models highlight theconnection between the learningenvironment (and context) andstudent behavior and development(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998;Hobbs, 1982; Sheridan & Gutkin,2000). One such context is theclassroom, which has considerableinfluence on both the students' andteachers' behavior (Koth, Bradshaw,& Leaf, 2008). When studentbehaviors become problematic it isimperative that cultural context andteacher behaviors are considered, asboth are dimensions of the student'senvironment.

Given the influence that teacherbehavior and cultural factors have onstudent performance, when facedwith problematic student behavior itis critical to determine the degree towhich these factors may becontributing to the problem. Becauseclassroom management and culturalcompetence are sensitive issues to ateacher, we recommend theopportunity for teachers to self-reflecton these topics (Hershfeldt et al.,2009). Some self-assessmentinstruments have been designed toactively engage teachers in the self-reflection process. The Classroom-Check Up (Reinke, Lewis-Palmer, &Merrell, 2008), for example,highlights critical variables ineffective classroom management andprovides teachers an opportunity to

reflect on the ecology in theirclassroom. Likewise, the Double-Check Self Assessment (Hershfeldt etal., 2009) provides teachers theopportunity to reflect on indicators ofculturally responsive classroompractices. Both instruments serve thepurpose of opening a teacher'sthinking to the possibility thatsomething about his or her ownbehavior could be contributing toproblematic student behavior.

It is also critical to determine thematch between academicexpectations and the student's abilityto meet the expectations. The call foracademic progress monitoring hashelped to reduce assumptions aboutstudent ability. More often teachersare required to chart academicprogress of student in comparison tograde-level expectations. However^despite best efforts to consideracademic deficits, there are stillinstances where a student is facedwith tasks that are too difficult andfrustration turns into problembehavior. For example, Mclntosh etal. (2008) showed that students withlower reading levels often displayedescape motivated behaviors. Teachersmust carefully consider this as apossible predictor when students aredemonstrating challenging behaviors.Once it has been determined that theclassroom climate is supportive andpromotes positive learningopportunities and that the student isable to perform the expected task,then FBT should be applied.

Helping Teachers Implement FBTWe recommend that teachers are

coached through the three-step FBTprotocol with the intent of fosteringindependent implementation of FBTin the classroom. Some teachers mayneed support implementing FBT withseveral different students in order tolearn the process, whereas otherteachers may learn the process afterbeing guided through it just one time.FBT can be viewed as a skill that ateacher can acquire and use at theonset of behaviors—wheninterventions are most successful and

S P R I N G 2 0 1 0 15


Figure 2 TUE THREE STEPS OI- FBT

Gather Information

Describe the problem behavior.

Form an operational definition of the problem behavior (i.e., targeted behavior).

What information have you gathered about the behavior? When does it occur? What happensdirectly before the behavior (i.e., the trigger)? What happens directly after the behavior occurs(i.e., the consequence)? Do you detect any patterns?

Hypothesize why the student may be exhibiting the problem behavior. Behaviors typicallyoccur for a limited number of reasons; what do you hypothesize is the reason this student isdemonstrating the behavior (e.g., attention seeking or avoidance)?

Develop a plan

If the student is trying to access attention then how can he/she get attention in a way that isacceptable in the setting?

If the student is trying to avoid a task or interaction, how can the student avoid the task (at leasttemporarily) that is a in the setting?

Operationally define the goal behavior you would 'ideally' like the student to demonstrate?

Knowing that learning new behaviors takes time (just like with academics), what behaviorwould you 'settle for' while the student develops mastery of the new behavior?

Is there anyone else (aside from you and the student) who could help the student learn or couldreinforce the student when s/he demonstrates the new behavior?

How will you reward the student for demonstrating the new behavior (i.e., reinforcement toincrease the likelihood that the behavior will happen again)?

Is there anything that will prevent the student from being successful with this plan (substituteteacher, no breakfast, peers)? How will we 'pre-correct' for this ahead of time?

Measuring the success of the plan

How will you know if the new replacement behavior is happening more often? If the oldproblematic behavior is happening less often?

16 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R


CQ

O

m

O

g"Gc

G3C

'c'E0

Q

0N>

JO

UG

0

ô

G

0

"G

a pl

an t

cQ

rovi

des

îtabl

e w

cess

pe€

\ at

tent

icj

mon

ito

ÎJ o "^ ^G - o

ogre

ss.

°-

"o

lan

th

a.G

_ycû

tude

n

ÍG

plet

eco

mw

ith

_^o

AJO

S

CO

0!^c

t an

des

a

U

and

G

2?_o

tor

o

ess.

rogr

o.

0

G)C

hib

uden

t 1

"550

Isth

to0uuG

£

lavi

or

0_Q

0^

* ^L_O

ult(

hing

(ad

"0Eg

eu.

o

atte

nt0

D5

GJ'OJ

bit

_cX0"c0

- G

stu

0

ES

- GO

GQ

ior

G

0_o

cu-

COG

G

_>^

"o

eu.C

Whe

o

G3C

napp

eni

-—to

ofte

nH

ow

o

i)? befo

re?

¿¿G

"G

uene

y(f

reqi

mC

t ha

pf

GJC .

O

D

as a

res

t/>

cSí

t ha

pf

G

o

cu-O

TJ

plin

e 1

(dis

ei

"og0

if0o.^ o

Teae

lfu

ncti

o

f\)-

doin

giti

ons)

dent

\ is

stu

G

1O

serv

cid

(ob

inst

ecle

to

G"r

stud

eIs

the

O

mie

aead

e

o

lete

w

f\)-

eom

pdo

ta)

le t

on

tab

stud

eIs

the

0

jsed

room

ealth

n fo

eica

l/h2

rem

a(m

ed'

dota

)on

of

reep

ter

pe

Tea

eh

o

co

func

ti

S P R I N G 2 0 1 0 1 7


" 1 ' •

before behaviors intensify (Scott et al.,2005). Speciflcally, a teacher alongwith a coach or facilitator (e.g., schoolpsychologist, colleague, or otherschool personnel) would beginworking through the three-step EBTprocess. This team approach is usedas a support to the teacher who islearning EBT. Once the teacher isconfident in the application of EBTthen there is no longer a need for ateam approach unless the groupchooses to maintain that format.

The second step of the EBTprocess aims to help teachers ask thequestion. Why is the student engagingin the problematic behavior?Oftentimes when students aremisbehaving, teachers becomeoverwhelmed and rely on whateverintervention might have worked witha previous student. However, theresearch suggests that selecting anintervention that addresses thefunction of the behavior yields highersuccess in changing the targetedbehavior positively (Scott et al., 2005).Therefore, in showing teachers howto think about the ftmction of thebehavior they become more adept ataddressing problematic behaviors.The function of the behavior wouldbe determined by reviewing theinformation gathered andhypothesizing about why the studentis demonstrating the behavior.

The function of the behaviorshould be the primary considerationwhen developing the plan. Thepurpose of the plan is to supportchange of the targeted behavior.When developing the plan, schoolpersonnel should consider thestudent's strengths and interests inaddition to the student's needs.Creating a plan that supports the goalbehavior with reinforcers that matcha student's interests and build uponstrengths will be more effective thansimply focusing on the developmentof student deficits (Scott & Kamps,2007). In addition to reinforcers, theplan should include instructionaldesign, a plan for success, and a planto prevent failure (Scott & Kamps,2007). Instructional strategies that

will be implemented fo teach thestudent the goal behavior should beclearly outlined. Variables that canprevent the plan from beingsuccessful should be included. Thesemight include substitute teachers,peer conflicts, a disruptive bus ride,or even a child missing breakfast.School personnel who are consideredintegral in the implementation of theplan need fo be notified and trained ifnecessary; otherwise, lack ofpersonnel training may contribute tostudent failure.

Lastly, strategies for evaluatingthe success of the plan need to bedeveloped. By collecting data prior tothe intervention and comparing ifwith the data collected once theinfervention begins, the effectivenessof the plan can be more clearlyevaluated. Teachers are providedmultiple tools for charting readingand other academic progress.Learning to think functionallyinvolves carrying that skill into thebehavioral domain. At this point,teachers may need assistance indetermining what form of data focollect, how often to take data, andhow to display the data so that trendsand progress can be monitored. Asnoted previously, we recommend asimple measure so that continuedcollection is reasonable and can easilybe carried out by the teacher.Prepared forms are ideal for theefficient collection of data. Examplesof prepared reproducible datacollection forms have been developedby Jenson, Rhode, and Rea vis (1995)in the Tough Kid Tool Box.

Case Study Illustrating EBT

We consider a case example ofthe implementation of EBT with astudent. Jay, who is a third grader ina suburban school. The teacher, Ms.L, explained that Jay was persistentlycalling out during instruction to thepoint where other students werecomplaining about the disruptions.The teacher decided to address thebehavior because of the level ofdisruption. In this situation, the

teacher expressed her concern to theschool counselor and asked forsupport. The school counselorscheduled a meeting with the teacherand one of the authors who wouldserve as a trainer in EBT. Thirtyminutes were allowed for themeeting, and although parents werenot included in this particular casethey certainly could be.

Consistent with the stepsoutlined previously, we firstinterviewed the teacher, whichallowed her fo explain the behaviorand helped her to narrow if to anoperational definition (this step alsotypically includes an opportunity forteachers to "vent," or expressfrustration and get emotional supportfrom colleagues). Eor example, whenMs. L. began explaining Jay'sbehaviors she was using words suchas outbursts, blurts, and bellows. Thetarget behavior was written in termsthat could be easily understood by allschool professionals who might needto access the function-based plan. Atthis poinf, the interviewer asked theteacher to explain what she observesdirectly before and directly after thebehavior occurs. The group felt likethe teacher's observation clearlyrepresented the antecedents andconsequences and the interviewcontinued. If this had not been thecase, then the team would need toexplicitly collect A-B-C data. At thispoint, the team also reviewed otherdata sources that were relevant to thestudent behavior (e.g., officediscipline referrals, class workcompletion grades, the nurse's log).

Next, the group created ahypothesis statement that includedthe perceived reason for the behavior.Simply put, the hypothesis addressesthe question, "Why is the behavioroccurring?" In this case, the teacherrealized by reviewing her antecedentdata that the behavior occursprimarily during math class on daysthat new content was presented.More specifically, the behaviorstarted when Ms. L. gave thedirection to begin independentpractice of the new content. Ms. L.'s

1 8 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R


response (consequence) to Jay'sdisruption was to deduct minutesfrom recess, during which time hewould be required to finish theassigned task. Ms. L. also providedsupport on the assignment duringthis time.

After reviewing the data, Ms. L.realized Jay might be avoiding theassignment because he did notunderstand the new material wellenough to complete the workindependently. Therefore, by holdinghim for recess, she was actuallyreinforcing his behavior because hecould access her support. Thus, it wasdetermined that Jay was causingdisruptions to avoid the independentseatwork that was too difficult forhim to complete without assistance.By misbehaving, he received theteacher's help. Through determiningwhy the behavior occurred, Ms. L.was able to identify the function ofthe behavior.

Once the function of the behaviorwas determined, a replacementbehavior was defined. Identifying areplacement behavior answers thequestion, "What do you want thestudent to do instead?" It is alsoimportant that the replacementbehavior serve the same function asthe targeted behavior. Choosing anappropriate replacement behaviorthat matches the same function is adifficult skill that is not always part ofa teacher's repertoire but requirestraining and support. Ms. L. decidedthat rather than disrupting classwhen he felt unsure of the materials,she helped Jay learn to take his paperto the back table where she met himand provided him the support heneeded. Upon defining thereplacement behavior, the teacherdeveloped a plan that outlinedinstruction and reinforcement of thenew behavior. In this case, the teacherwanted to spend additional time onthe guided practice part of her lessonand developed a method for checkingfor Jay's understanding. She wantedto ensure that Jay felt comfortablemoving ahead with the independentpractice and provided him the

opportunity to move to the back tablefor additional help.

Finally, the team determined howto evaluate the effectiveness of theintervention. Again, the evaluationprocess required specific data aboutthe problem behavior be gatheredprior to intervention and again oncethe intervention is implemented. Inthis example, the teacher wanted todocument the number of times Jayfailed to attempt his individualseatwork prior to allowing him tovisit the back table and after he wasallowed to visit the back table (beforeand after the intervention wasimplemented). If the numberdecreased, then it would beappropriate to assume theintervention was successful (seeFigure 2). The ultimate goal is forteachers to become independent atusing FBT to select and implementbehavioral interventions. The teammodel described previouslycharacterizes a training situation.

The goal is for teachers to applyFBT when a behavior problem firstarises with a student. Althoughemploying a team of professionals isperhaps optimal, it is not always easyto pull together. While the team istrying to match schedules andconsider a possible time to meet, thestudent's behavior can often gounaddressed. Instead, teacherstrained to apply FBT possess theability to consider function whenselecting a response to studentbehavior problems, therebyincreasing the likelihood ofextinguishing the behavior.

Professional Development

An important part of the FBTprocess is receiving sufficient trainingand technical assistance inimplementing the strategy. In fact,there is increased interest in theelements that are critical to thesuccessful implementation of newpractices like FBT (Fixsen, Naoom,Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).Those elements include practitionerselection, preservice and in-service

training, ongoing consultation,coaching, and staff evaluation. First,basic assumptions must be met interms of practitioner selection; ateacher must be willing and able toperform the skills associated withFBT in order for implementation to besuccessful. Second, preservice and in-service training provide the necessarybackground knowledge and processknowledge so that teachers can graspthe relevance of the intendedstrategy. Ongoing consultation,technical assistance, and coachingshould be provided to ensurecontinued progress in theimplementation process. Finally, staffevaluation facilitates ongoingassessment of the implementationprocess. Assessing the use andoutcomes of FBT provides thepractitioner with self-reflectionopportunities specific to theimplementation of the new skill andfacilitates sustainability of theintervention (Fixsen et al., 2005)

The most critical of the coreimplementation components isongoing consultation and coaching. Ameta-analysis on the effects of trainingand coaching on classroomimplementation of new materialrevealed that 95% of participants, whoreceived in-class coaching to support anew strategy, demonstrated masteryof knowledge and accurate skilldemonstration and implemented thenew strategy with fidelity. In contrastwhen participants received onlypractice opportunities and feedback asa training component, 60%demonstrated mastery of knowledgeand accurate skill demonstration butonly 5% actually used the new skill inthe classroom (Joyce & Showers, 2002).Related research by Ager and O'May(2001) suggests that providingtraining without coaching has littleeffect on performance. Given thesefindings, it is clear that while trainingteachers to implement FBT, the coachshould provide support that iscollaborative rather than consultative.Coaching alongside the teacher in theclassroom will yield greater outcomesthan other training formats.

S P R I N G 20 10 19


It is for this reason that werecommend that a coach be availableto provide the necessary supports asteachers develop their functionalthinking skills. As discussedpreviously, members of the studentsupport team who are highly trainedin behavioral modification techniquescan serve as coaches at a collaborativelevel to ensure the teacher isdemonstrating the necessaryunderstanding and applying thecorrect logic when linking functionalhypotheses to interventions. Coachescan facilitate the inclusion of teachervalues and beliefs (Smart et al., 1979)and provide emotional supportduring the implementation process(Spouse, 2001).

Conclusions

Operationalizing the inventory ofresearch-based interventions andtheories in school settings requires anempathie consideration of school-based contextual factors, a commonlanguage, and one-to-one support forteachers willing to learn newtechnology in support of studentsuccess (Domitrovich et al., 2008).FBT is an example of how to applythe logic and theory of FBA to a widerpopulation of students who aredisplaying behaviors of concern. FBTis a framework for thinking thatconsiders the contextual needs ofgeneral education teachers andprovides opportunity for theseteachers to actively participate andplan behavioral interventions thatwill be more effective because theyare selected based on function. Bybuilding the capacity of the classroomteacher to such a level, the goal thenbecomes application of FBT to aid inthe prevention of urmecessary officereferrals, student support teamreferrals, and ultimately unnecessaryreferrals for special educationevaluation.

REFERENCESAger, A., & O'May, F. (2001). Issues in the

definition and implementation of

'best practice' for staff delivery ofinterventions for challengingbehaviour. Journal of Intellectual &Developmental Disability, 26(3),243-256.

Asmus, J., Ringdahl, J., Sellers, ]., Call, N.,Andelman, M., & Wacker, D. (2004).Use of a short-term inpadent modelto evaluate aberrant behavior:Outcome data summaries from 1996-2001. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 27, 283-304.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998).The ecology of developmentalprocesses. In W. Damon (Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1:Theoretical models of humandevelopment (pp. 993-1028). NewYork: Wiley.

Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., TumbuU, A. P.,Marquis, J. G., McLaughlin, M., &McAfee, M. L., et al. (1999). Positivebehavior support for people withdevelopmental disabilities: A researchsynthesis [American Association onMental Retardation MonographSeries]. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation on Mental Retardation.

Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes,strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general educators enrolled ina curriculum infusion teacherpreparation program. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 25,262-277.

Cook, B. G., Landrum, T. J., Tankersley,M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2003).Bringing research to bear on practice:Effecting evidence-based instructionfor students with emotional andbehavioral disorders. Education andTreatment of Children, 26, 345-361.

Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P.,Poduska, J., Hoagwood, K., Buckley,J., & Olin, S., et al. (2008). Maximizingthe implementation quality ofevidence-based preventiveinterventions in schools: Aconceptual framework. Advances inSchool Mental Health Promotion:Training and Practice, Research andPolicy, ](3), 6-28.

Eixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A.,Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).Implementation research: A synthesis ofthe literature. Tampa: University of

South Florida, Louis de la ParteFlorida Mental Health Institute, TheNational Implementation ResearchNetwork (FMHI Publication No. 231).

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P.,O'Brien, M. M., Zins, J. E., Fredericks,L., & Resnick, H., et al. (2003).Enhancing school-based preventionand youth development throughcoordinated social, emotional, andacademic learning. AmericanPsychologist, 58, 466-474.

Hershfeldt, P. A., Pell, K. L., Sechrest, R.,Rosenberg, M. S., Bradshaw, C. P., &Leaf, P. J. (2009). Double-Check: Amodel for cultural responsivenessapplied to classroom behavior.TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus,6(2), Internet site: http://escholarship.bc.edu /education /tecplus/vol6/iss2/art52

Hobbs, N. (1982). The troubled andtroubling child. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Jenson, W. R., Rhode, G., & Reavis, H. K.(1995). The tough kid tool box.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Studentachievement through staff development(3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics ofemotional and behavioral disorders ofchildren and youth (8th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J. W., Baker, J., &Riedel, T. M. (1995). Inclusion of allstudents with emotional orbehavioral disorders? Let's thinkagain. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 542-547.

Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J.(2008). A multilevel study ofpredictors of student perceptions ofschool climate: The effect ofclassroom-level factors. Journal ofEducational Psychology, WO, 96-104.

Mclntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J.,Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. (2008).Reading and skills in function ofproblem behavior in typical schoolsettings. Journal of Special Education,42(3), 131-147.

Payne, L. D., Scott, T. M., & Conroy, M.(2007). A school-based examinationof the efficacy of function-based

20 B E Y O N D B E H A V I O R


intervention. Behavioral Disorders,32(3), 158-174.

Quinn, M. M., Gable, R. A., Fox, J.,Rutherford, R. B. Jr, Van Acker, R., &Conroy, M. (2001). Putting qualityfunctional assessment into practice inschools: A research agenda on behalfof E/BD students. Education andTreatment of Children, 24, 261-275.

Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., &Merrell, K. (2008). The classroomcheck-up: A classwide teacherconsultation model for increasingpraise and decreasing disruptivebehavior. School Psychology Review,37, 315-332.

Reid, J. B., & Eddy, J. M. (1997). Theprevention of antisocial behavior:Some considerations in the search foreffective interventions. In D. M. Stoff,J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.),Handbook of antisocial behavior(pp. 343-356). New York: Wiley.

Scott, T. M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, C,Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., &DeShea, L., et al. (2004). Usingfunctional behavioral assessment ingeneral education settings: Making acase for effectiveness and efficiency.Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189-201.

Scott, T. M., & Kamps, D. M. (2007). Thefuture of functional behavioralassessment in school settings.Behavioral Disorders, 32(3), 146-157.

Scott, T. M., Mclntyre, J., Liaupsin, C ,Nelson, C. M., Conroy, M., & Payne,L. (2005). An examination of therelation between functional behaviorassessment and selected interventionstrategies with school-based teams.Journal of Positive BehaviorIntenmitions, 7, 205-215.

Sheridan, S., & Gutkin, T. B. (2000). Theecology of school psychology:Examining and changing ourparadigm for the 21st century. SchoolPsychology Review, 29, 485-502.

Smart, D. A., Blasée, K. B., Smart, D. I.,Graham, K., Collins, S. R., & Daly, P.B., et al. (1979). The teaching-familyconsultant's handbook (2nd ed.). BoysTown, NE: Father Flanagan's Boys'Home.

Spouse, J. (2001). Bridging theory andpractice in the supervisorrelationship: A socioculturalperspective. Journal of AdvancedNursing, 33, 512-522.

Sugai, G., Homer, R. H., Dunlap, G.,Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., &

Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000). Applyingpositive behavior support andfunctional behavioral assessmentin schools, journal of PositiveBehavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J.(1999). Functional assessment-basedbehavior support planning: Research-to-practice to research. BelmvioralDisorders, 24, 253-257.

U. S. Department of Education. (2006).Digest of educational statistics, 2006.Washington, DC: Author.

U. S. Department of Health and HumanServices. (2001). Report of the surgeongeneral's conference on children's mentalhealth: A national action agenda.Washington, IXI: Author.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Support for this project comes fromthe Institute of Education Sciences(R324A07n8 and R305A090307) andthe Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (1U49CE 000728-011 andK01CE001333-01).

S 1' K 1 N G 2 0 1 0 2 1

Copyright of Beyond Behavior is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

function-based thinking: a systematic way of thinking

Documents