Students who are at risk for or show low-intensity behavioral problems may need targeted, Tier 2 interventions. Often, Tier 2 problem-solving teams are charged with monitoring student responsiveness to intervention. This process may be difficult for those who are not trained in data collection and analysis procedures. To aid practitioners in these worthwhile tasks, we offer a step-by-step guide to collecting and evaluating Tier 2 behavioral progress monitoring data. This systematic approach includes (a) selecting an appropriate method of measurement, (b) planning for data collection and evaluation, (c) collecting and analyzing data, (d) considering treatment fidelity, and (e) adjusting intervention based on student responsiveness. Each step is described in detail with specific examples and additional resources are provided.
AdamsonR. M.WachsmuthS. T. (2014). A review of direct observation research within the past decade in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 39, 181–189.
2.
BruhnA. L.HirschS. E. (2017). From good intentions to great implementation. Report on Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 173(3), 64–70.
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. doi:10.1177/1063426613476092
4.
BruhnA. L.RilaA.MahatmyaD.EstrapalaS.HendrixN. (2017). Analyzing the effects of data-based, individualized interventions using multilevel modeling and visual analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5.
BurkeM. D.DavisJ. L.LeeY. H.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO.SugaiG. (2012). Universal screening for behavioral risk in elementary schools using SWPBS expectations. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 201(1), 38–54. doi:10.1177/1063426610377328
ChristT. J.Riley-TillmanT. C.ChafouleasS. M. (2009). Foundation for the development and use of direct behavior rating (DBR) to assess and evaluate student behavior. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 201–213.
8.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
9.
ElliottS. N.GreshamF. M. (1991). Social skills intervention guide. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
GageN. A.LewisT. J.StichterJ. P. (2012). Functional behavioral assessment-based interventions for students with or at risk for emotional and/or behavioral disorders in school: A hierarchical linear modeling meta-analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 55–77.
12.
GageN. A.McDanielS. C. (2013). Creating smarter classrooms: Data-based decision-making for effective classroom management. Beyond Behavior, 22(1), 48–55.
13.
GoodmanR. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38, 581–586.
14.
HirschS. E.EnnisR. P.McDanielS. C. (2013). Student self-graphing as a strategy to increase teacher effectiveness and student motivation. Beyond Behavior, 22(3), 31–39.
15.
HornerR. H.SugaiG.FixsenD. (2017). Implementing effective educational practices at scales of social importance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 201(1), 25–35. doi:10.1007/s10567-017-0224-7
16.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
17.
McDanielS.BruhnA. L.MitchellB. (2015). Tier 2: A framework for identification and intervention. Beyond Behavior, 241, 10–17.
18.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education.
19.
Riley-TillmanT. C.ChafouleasS. M.BrieschA. M.EckertT. L. (2008). Daily behavior report cards and systematic direct observation: An investigation of the acceptability, reported training and use, and decision reliability among school psychologists. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 313–327. doi:10.1007/s10864-008-9070-5
20.
SchulteA. C.EastonJ. E.ParkerJ. (2009). Advances in treatment integrity research: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement of treatment integrity. School Psychology Review, 39, 460–475.
21.
ScottT. M.AlterP.RosebergM.BorgmeierC. (2010). Decision-making in secondary and tertiary interventions of school-wide systems of positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 513–535.
22.
ScottT. M.McIntyreJ.LiaupsinC.NelsonC. M.ConroyM.PayneL. D. (2005). An examination of the relation between functional behavior assessment and selected intervention strategies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 205–215.
23.
SugaiG.HornerR. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.
24.
SugaiG.Lewis-PalmerT. L.ToddA. W.HornerR. H. (2001). School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET). Eugene: Center for Positive Behavioral Supports, University of Oregon.
25.
VogelgesangK.BruhnA. L.Coghill-BehrendsW.KernM.TroughtonL. (2016). A single subject study of a technology-based self-monitoring intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 478–497. doi:10.1007/s10864-016-9253-4
26.
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.
27.
YeatonW. H.SechrestL. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 492, 156–167.
