The success of function-based interventions depends not just on the quality of procedures but also on the extent to which procedures are implemented as planned. Too often in schools, effort is committed to functional assessment and behavior support plan design, only to be followed by weak implementation. This study used a multiple baseline across participants design to examine whether a functional relation exists between a treatment package consisting of (a) self-monitoring treatment fidelity, (b) collecting data on student behavior, (c) entering fidelity and student behavior data into an online data management application, and (d) reviewing those data weekly using graphs generated by the application. Results indicate improved treatment fidelity and student behavior were associated with the treatment package. Potential contributions are discussed in terms of establishing efficient systems for schools that provide the structure for effective implementation of function-based interventions.
BegenyJ. C.MartensB. K. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’ training in empirically-validated behavioral instruction practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 262–285.
2.
BelfioreP. J.FrittsK. M.HermanB. C. (2008). The role of procedural integrity: Using self-monitoring to enhance discrete trial instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 95–102.
3.
BrodenM.HallR. V.MittsB. (1971). The effect of self-recording on the classroom behavior of two eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 191–199.
4.
DetrichR. (2014). Treatment integrity: Fundamental to education reform. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13, 258–271. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.13.2.258
5.
DunlapG.CarrE. (2007). Positive behavior support and developmental disabilities. In OdomS.HornerR.SnellM.BlacherJ. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 469–482). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
DunlapG.ConroyM.KernL.DuPaulG.VanBrakleJ.StrainP.. . . OstroskyM. (2003). Research synthesis on effective intervention procedures: Executive summary. Tampa: Center for Evidence-Based Practice: Young Children With Challenging Behavior, University of South Florida.
7.
DunlapG.FoxL. (2012). Function-based interventions for children with challenging behavior. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 333–343.
8.
DunnK. E.AirolaD. T.LoW.GarrisonM. (2013). Becoming data driven: The influence of teachers’ sense of efficacy on concerns related to data-driven decision making. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 222–241.
FixsenD. LBlaseK.NaoomS.DudaM. (2013). Implementation drivers: Assessing best practices. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
11.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa, FL: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida.
12.
FixsenD. L.PhillipsE. L.WolfM. M. (1972). Achievement place: The reliability of self-reporting and peer-reporting and their effects on behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 19–30.
13.
GreshamF. M.GansleK. A.NoellG. H. (1993). Treatment integrity in applied behavior analysis with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 257–263.
14.
HagerK. D. (2012). Self-monitoring as a strategy to increase student teachers’ use of effective teaching practices. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(4), 9–17.
15.
HayesS. C.CaviorN. (1977). Multiple tracking and the reactivity of self-monitoring: I. Negative behaviors. Behavior Therapy, 8, 819–831.
16.
HerbertE. W.BaerD. M. (1972). Training parents as behavior modifiers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 139–149.
17.
HornerR. H.SalentineS.AlbinR. W. (2003). Self-Assessment of contextual fit in schools. Eugene: University of Oregon.
18.
IngramK.Lewis-PalmerT.SugaiG. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224–236.
19.
IwataB. A.DorseyM. F.SliferK. J.BaumanK. E.RichmanG. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209.
20.
JoyceB.ShowersB. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
21.
KalisT. M.VannestK. J.ParkerR. (2007). Praise counts: Using self-monitoring to increase effective teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 51, 20–27.
22.
KellerC. L.BradyM. P.TaylorR. L. (2005). Using self evaluation to improve student teacher interns’ use of specific praise. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 368–376.
23.
LipinskiD. P.NelsonR. O. (1974). The reactivity and unreliability of self-recording. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 118–123.
24.
LomanS.HornerR. H. (2013). Examining the efficacy of a basic functional behavioral assessment training package for school personnel. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 18–30.
25.
LyloB. J.LeeD. L. (2013). Effects of delayed audio-based self-monitoring on teacher completion of learning trials. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 120–138.
26.
MandinachE. B.GummerE. S. (2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42, 30–37.
27.
MarquisJ. G.HornerR. H.CarrE. G.TurnbullA. P.ThompsonM.BehrensG. A.. . . DoolabhA. (2000). A meta-analysis of positive behavior support. In GerstonR. M.SchillerE. P. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 137–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
NelsonR. O.HayesS. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, 5, 3–14.
29.
NewcomerL. L.LewisT. J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 168–181.
30.
NewtonJ. S.HornerR. H.AlgozzineB.ToddA. W.AlgozzineK. (2012). A randomized wait-list controlled analysis of the implementation integrity of team-initiated problem solving processes. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 421–441.
31.
PlavnickJ. B.FerreriS. J.MaupinA. N. (2010). The effects of self-monitoring on the procedural integrity of a behavioral intervention for young children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 315–320.
32.
SchildkampK.EhrenM.LaiM. K. (2012). Editorial article for the special issue on data-based decision making around the world: From policy to practice to results. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 123–131.
33.
Seligson-PetscherE.BaileyJ. S. (2006). Effects of training, prompting, and self-monitoring on staff behavior in a classroom for students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 215–226.
34.
SimonsenB.MacSugaA. S.FallonL. M.SugaiG. (2013). The effects of self-monitoring on teachers’ use of specific praise. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 5–15.
35.
Strickland-CohenM. K.HornerR. H. (2015). Typical school personnel developing and implementing basic behavior support plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 83–94.
36.
SutherlandK. S.WehbyJ. H. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 161–171.
37.
TelzrowC. F.McNamaraK.HollingerC. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.
38.
WaymanJ. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 298–308.
39.
WorkmanE. A.WatsonP. J.HeltonG. B. (1982). Teachers’ self-monitoring of praise vs praise instructions: Effects on teachers’ and students’ behavior. Psychological Reports, 50, 559–565.
