Data-based individualization (DBI) is a systematic process used to guide teachers in making decisions related to students’ responsiveness to intervention. Whereas this process has been used extensively with academic interventions, far less is known about DBI used within the context of behavioral interventions. In this study, elementary general and special education teachers (a) implemented a technology-based, self-monitoring intervention with students exhibiting challenging behavior; and (b) used DBI to evaluate student progress and make intervention adaptations accordingly. Results of multilevel modeling indicated students improved their positive behavior significantly (p < .001) from baseline to intervention. For most students, once they began intervention, positive behaviors either maintained or increased gradually when teachers made adaptations to the self-monitoring intervention. In addition to these results, an analysis of the effects of different intervention adaptations (e.g., raising or lowering goals, increasing or decreasing interval length) and visual analysis of individual students’ response are discussed.
Berry KuhleL.Zumeta EdmondsR.DanielsonL. C.PetersonA.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2015). The next big idea: A framework for integrated academic and behavioral intensive intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 150–158.
2.
BriereD. E.IIISimonsenB. (2011). Self-monitoring interventions for at-risk middle school students: The importance of considering function. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 129–140.
3.
BruhnA. L.LaneK. L.HirschS. E. (2014). A review of Tier 2 interventions conducted within multi-tiered models of prevention evidencing a primary behavioral plan. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22, 171–189.
4.
BruhnA. L.BarronS.FernandoJ. A.Balint-LangelK. (2018). Extending the DBR: A comparison of schoolwide behavior ratings and academic engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(1), 31–42.
5.
BruhnA. L.EstrapalaS.MahatmyaD.RilaA.VogelgesangK. (in review). Training teachers on data-based individualization: A mixed methods study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6.
BruhnA. L.McDanielS.KreighC. (2015). Self-monitoring interventions for students with behavior problems: A review of current research. Behavioral Disorders, 40, 102–121.
7.
BruhnA. L.VogelgesangK.FernandoJ.LugoW. (2016). Using data to individualize a multi-component, technology-based self-monitoring intervention. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 63–76.
8.
BruhnA. L.Woods-GrovesS.FernandoJ.ChoiT.TroughtonL. (2017). Evaluating technology-based self-monitoring as a Tier 2 intervention across middle school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 42, 119–131.
9.
CampbellA.AndersonC. M. (2008). Enhancing effects of check-in/check-out with function-based support. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 233–245.
10.
CampbellA.AndersonC. M. (2011). Check-in/check-out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 315–326.
11.
CarterE. W.LaneK. L.CrnoboriM. E.BruhnA. L.OakesW. P. (2011). Self-determination interventions for students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Mapping the knowledge base. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 100–116.
12.
ClemonsL. L.MasonB. A.Garrison-KaneL.WillsH. P. (2016). Self-monitoring for high school students with disabilities: A cross-categorical investigation of I-Connect. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 145–155.
13.
CrutchfieldS. A.MasonR. A.ChambersA.WillsH. P.MasonB. A. (2015). Use of a self-monitoring application to reduce stereotypic behavior in adolescents with autism: A preliminary investigation of I-Connect. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1146–1155. doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2272-x
14.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.
15.
FerronJ.JonesP. K. (2006). Tests for the visual analysis of response-guided multiple-baseline data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 66–81.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: a meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
17.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18.
18.
GoodmanR. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.
19.
Graham-DayK.GardnerR.IIIHsinY. (2010). Increasing on-task behaviors of high school students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Is it enough?Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 205–221.
20.
HartmannD. P.HallR. V. (1976). The changing criterion design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 527–532.
21.
HillC. R.HughesJ. N. (2007). An examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 380–406.
22.
KernL.WehbyJ. H. (2014). Using data to intensify behavioral interventions for individual students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(4), 45–53.
23.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38.
24.
McDanielS. C.BruhnA. L. (2016). Using a changing-criterion design to evaluate the effects of check-in/check-out with goal modification. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 197–208.
25.
McDanielS. C.BruhnA. L.MitchellB. S. (2017). A responsive Tier 2 process for a middle school student with behavior problems. Preventing School Failure, 61, 280–288. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275503
26.
MillerL. M.DufreneB. A.SterlingH. E.OlmiD. J.BachmayerE. (2014). The effects of check-in/check-out on problem behavior and academic engagement in elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 28–38.
27.
NicholsB. W.SingerK. P. (2000). Developing data mentors. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 34–37.
28.
ShadishW. R.KyseD. N.RindskopfD. M. (2013). Analyzing data from single-case designs using multilevel models: New applications and some agenda items for future research. Psychological Methods, 18, 385–405.
29.
SteckerP.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
30.
StormontM.ReinkeW.HermanK. (2011). Teachers’ knowledge of evidence-based interventions and available school resources for children with emotional and behavioral problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 138–147.
31.
SwoszowskiN.McDanielS.JolivetteK.MeliusP. (2013). The effects of Tier II check-in/check-out including adaptation for non-responders on off-task behavior of elementary students in a residential setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 63–79.
32.
WehbyJ. H.KernL. (2014). Intensive behavior intervention: What is it, what is its evidence base, and why do we need to implement now?TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 38–44.
33.
WittJ. C.ElliotS. N. (1985). Intervention Rating Profile–15: Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In KratochwillT. R. (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (pp. 251–288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
