Progress Monitoring the Effects of Daily Report Cards Across Elementary and Secondary Settings Using Direct Behavior Rating: Single Item Scales

Abstract

Direct Behavior Rating–Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) have been advanced as a promising, systematic, behavioral, progress-monitoring method that is flexible, efficient, and defensible. This study aimed to extend existing literature on the use of DBR-SIS in elementary and secondary settings, and to examine methods of monitoring student progress in response to intervention. To this end, two concurrent multiple baseline design studies were conducted in a diverse magnet school district located in the northeastern United States. One study was conducted with four students in kindergarten and first grade, whereas the second study was conducted with three students in 10th and 11th grade. Response to a Daily Report Card (DRC) intervention was monitored using two different approaches: DBR-SIS and systematic direct observation (SDO) probes. Across all participants, modest improvements in behavior were observed using both visual and quantitative analyses of DBR-SIS data; however, decisions regarding student response to the intervention varied as a function of the dependent variable analyzed. Implications for practice and future directions for research are discussed.

Keywords

high school elementary progress monitoring

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Briesch

A. M.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Neugebauer

S. R.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

(2013). Assessing influences on intervention use: Revision of the Usage Rating Profile-Intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 81–96. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.08.006

Briesch

A. M.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

(2010). Generalizability and dependability of behavior assessment methods to estimate academic engagement: Comparison of Systematic Direct Observation and Direct Behavior Rating. School Psychology Review, 39, 408–421.

Chafouleas

S. M.

(2011). Direct Behavior Rating: A review of the issues and research in its development. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 575–591. doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0034

Chafouleas

S. M.

Briesch

A. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Christ

T. J.

Black

A. C.

Kilgus

S. P.

(2010). An investigation of the generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) to measure academic engagement and disruptive behavior of middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 219–246. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.02.001

Chafouleas

S. M.

Christ

T. K.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Briesch

A. M.

Chanese

J. A. M.

(2007). Generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Rating to assess social behavior of preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36, 63–79.

Chafouleas

S. M.

McDougal

J. L.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Panahon

C. J.

Hilt

A. M.

(2005). What do daily behavior report cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 669–676.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Christ

T. J.

(2009). Direct Behavior Rating (DBR): An emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 195–200. doi:10.1177/1534508409340391

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

McDougal

J. L.

(2002). Good, bad, or in-between: How does the daily behavior report card rate? Psychology in the Schools, 39, 157–169. doi:10.1002/pits.10027

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Sassu

K. A.

LaFrance

M. J.

Patwa

S. S.

(2007). Daily behavior report cards: An investigation of the consistency of on-task data across raters and methods. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 30–37.

10.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Sanetti

L. M. H.

Kilgus

S. P.

Maggin

D. M.

(2012). Evaluating sensitivity to behavioral change using Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scales. Exceptional Children, 78, 491–505.

11.

Christ

T. J.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Boice

C. H.

(2010). Direct Behavior Rating (DBR): Generalizability and dependability across raters and observations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 825–843. doi:10.1177/0013164410366695

12.

Epstein

J. N.

March

J. S.

Conners

C. K.

Jackson

D. L.

(1998). Racial differences on the Conners Teacher Rating Scale. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 109–118.

13.

Fuchs

(2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

14.

Gresham

F. M.

(2011). Response to intervention: Conceptual foundations and evidence based practices. In Bray

M. A.

Kehle

T. J.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of school psychology (pp. 523–551). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Hintze

J. M.

Volpe

R. J.

Shapiro

E. S.

(2002). Best practices in the systematic direct observation of student behavior. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 993–1006). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

16.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/wwc_scd.pdf

17.

Miller

F. G.

Patwa

S. S.

Chafouleas

S. M.

(2014). Using Direct Behavior Rating–Single Item Scales to assess student behavior within multi-tiered systems of support. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(2), 76–85.

18.

Miller

F. G.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Schardt

A. A

. (2017). Direct Behavior Rating instrumentation: Evaluating the impact of scale formats. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 119–126. doi: 10.1177/1534508416658007

19.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322.

20.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006

21.

Reid

Casat

C. D.

Norton

H. G.

Anastopoulos

A. D.

Temple

E. P.

(2001). Using behavior rating scales for ADHD across ethnic groups: The IOWA conners. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 210–218.

22.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Sassu

K. A.

Chanese

J. A. M.

Glazer

A. D.

(2008). Examining the agreement of Direct Behavior Rating and Systematic Direct Observation data for on-task and disruptive behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 136–143. doi:10.1177/1098300707312542

23.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Methe

S. A.

Weegar

(2009). Examining the use of direct behavior rating methodology on classwide formative assessment: A case study. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 242–250. doi:10.1177/1534508409333879

24.

Suen

H. K.

Ary

Covalt

(1991). Reappraisal of momentary time sampling and partial-interval recording. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 803–804. doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-803

25.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Davis

C. R.

Mason

B. A.

Burke

M. D.

(2010). Effective intervention for behavior with a daily behavior report card: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 39, 654–672.

26.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

(2011). Single Case Research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 1.0) [Web-based application]. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available from singlecaseresearch.org

27.

Venn

(2012). Current issues in assessing students with special needs. In Webber

C. F.

Lupart

J. L.

(Eds.), Leading student assessment (pp. 133–150). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

28.

Volpe

R. J.

Briesch

A. M.

(2012). Generalizability and dependability of single-item and multiple-item direct behavior rating scales for engagement and disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 246–261.

29.

Volpe

R. J.

Fabiano

G. A.

(2013). Daily behavior report cards: An evidence-based system of assessment and intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.