Direct behavior rating (DBR) may be a viable assessment for documenting current areas of impaired functioning and progress monitoring students’ response to a behavioral intervention. Challenging behaviors are often addressed in general education settings using interventions such as the daily report card (DRC). To best implement and monitor such interventions, effective progress monitoring tools are needed. The present study reports on the results of a multiple-baseline design across three elementary school children who had a DRC implemented to address academic engagement and social behaviors. The DRC and systematic direct observation (SDO) were compared with teacher-completed DBR to investigate the correspondence between these two measures of progress monitoring. Relative to SDO, results indicated that DBR was generally an effective means of monitoring progress for most cases and most target behaviors. The results of the present study support using DBR to monitor progress following the use of a behavioral intervention such as the DRC.
AtkinsM. S.PelhamW. E.WhiteK. J. (1989). Hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders. In HersenM. (Ed.), Psychological aspects of developments and physical disabilities: A casebook (pp. 137–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
2.
BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.NeugebauerS. R.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2013). Assessing influences on intervention implementation: Revision of the Usage Rating Profile-Intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 81–96.
3.
BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2010). Generalizability and dependability of behavior assessment methods to estimate academic engagement: A comparison of systematic direct observation and direct behavior rating. School Psychology Review, 39, 408–421.
4.
BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2016). Direct behavior rating: Linking assessment, communication, and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
5.
ChafouleasS. M. (2011). Direct behavior rating: A review of the issues and research in its development. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 575–591.
6.
ChafouleasS. M.BrieschA. R.Riley-TillmanT. C.ChristT. J.BlackA. C.KilgusS. 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.
7.
ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.SassuK. A.LaFranceM. J.PatwaS. S. (2007). Daily behavior report cards (DBRCs): An investigation of consistency of on-task data across raters and method. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 30–37.
8.
ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.SugaiG. (2007). School-based behavioral assessment: Informing intervention and instruction. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
9.
ChafouleasS. M.SanettiL. M. H.KilgusS. P.MagginD. M. (2012). Evaluating sensitivity to behavioral change using Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scales (DBR-SIS). Exceptional Children, 78, 491–505.
10.
CheneyD.FlowerA.TempletonT. (2008). Applying response to intervention metrics in the social domain for students at risk of developing emotional or behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 108–126.
11.
CroneD. A.HawkenL. S.HornerR. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
12.
FabianoG. A.ChafouleasS. M.WeistM. D.SumiW. C.HumphreyN. (2014). Methodology considerations in school mental health research. School Mental Health, 6, 68–83.
13.
FabianoG. A.PelhamW. E.GnagyE. M.Burrows-MacLeanL.ColesE. K.ChackoA.. . . RobbJ. A. (2007). The single and combined effects of multiple intensities of behavior modification and multiple intensities of methylphenidate in a classroom setting. School Psychology Review, 36, 195–216.
14.
FabianoG. A.VujnovicR.NaylorJ.PariseauM.RobinsM. L. (2009). An investigation of the technical adequacy of a daily behavior report card (DBRC) for monitoring progress of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in special education placements. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 231–241.
15.
FabianoG. A.VujnovicR.PelhamW. E.WaschbuschD. A.MassettiG. M.YuJ.. . .VolkerM. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with ADHD using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39, 219–239.
16.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
17.
JohnsonA. H.MillerF. G.ChafouleasS. M.WelshM. E.Riley-TillmanT. C.FabianoG. A. (2016). Evaluating the technical adequacy of DBR-SIS in tri-annual behavioral screening: A multisite investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 39–57.
18.
KelleyM. L. (1990). School-home notes: Promoting children’s classroom success. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
19.
KilgusS. P.ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.WelshM. E. (2012). Direct Behavior Rating Scales as screeners: A preliminary investigation of diagnostic accuracy in elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 41–50.
20.
MillerF. G.CohenD.ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.WelshM. E.FabianoG. A. (2015). A comparison of measures to screen for social, emotional, and behavioral risk. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 184–196.
21.
MurrayD. W.RabinerD.SchulteA.NewittK. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent-teacher consultation intervention for ADHD students. Child Youth Care Forum, 37, 111–126. doi:10.1007/s10566-008-9054-6
22.
O’LearyK. D.PelhamW. E.RosenbaumA.PriceG. H. (1976). Behavioral treatment of hyperkinetic children. Clinical Pediatrics, 15, 510–515.
23.
OwensJ. S.MurphyC. E.RichersonL.GirioE. L.HimawanL. K. (2008). Science to practice in underserved communities: The effectiveness of school mental health programming. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37, 434–447.
24.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L. (2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322.
25.
PelhamW. E.Burrows-MacLeanL.GnagyE. M.FabianoG. A.ColesE. K.TrescoK. E.. . . HoffmanM. T. (2005). Transdermal methylphenidate, behavioral, and combined treatment for children with ADHD. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 13, 111–126.
26.
PelhamW. E.FabianoG. A.MassettiG. M. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 449–476.
27.
PelhamW. E.FabianoG. A.WaxmonskyJ. G.GreinerA. R.GnagyE. M.PelhamW. E.. . . MurphyS. A. (2016). Treatment sequencing for childhood ADHD: A multiple-randomization study of adaptive medication and behavioral interventions. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45, 396–415.
28.
PelhamW. E.GnagyE. M.Burrows-MacleanL.WilliamsA.FabianoG. A.MorrisseyS. M.. . . OnyangoA. N. (2001). Once-a-day Concerta™ methylphenidate versus t.i.d. methylphenidate in laboratory and natural settings. Pediatrics, 107, Article e105. Retrieved from http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/107/6/e105
29.
PfiffnerL. J.VillodasM.KaiserN.RooneyM.McBurnettK. (2013). Educational outcomes of a collaborative school-home behavioral intervention for ADHD. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 25–36.
30.
Riley-TillmanT. C.BurnsM. K. (2009). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
31.
SaudargasR. A.LentzF. E. (1986). Estimating percent of time and rate via direct observation: A suggested observational procedure and format. School Psychology Review, 15, 36–48.
32.
ShinnM. R. (2004). Administration and scoring of mathematics computation curriculum-based measurement (M-CBM) and math fact probes for use with AIMSweb. Eden Prairie, MN: Edfomation.
33.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edfomation.
34.
VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.DavisC. R.MasonB. A.BurkeM. D. (2010). Effective intervention for behavior with a daily behavior report card: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 39, 654–672.
35.
VannestK. J.ParkerR. I.GonenO.AdiguzelT. (2016). Single Case Research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 2.0) [Web-based application]. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available from singlecaseresearch.org
36.
VolpeR. J.DiPernaJ. C.HintzeJ. M.ShapiroE. S. (2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34, 454–474.
37.
VolpeR. J.FabianoG. A. (2013). Daily behavior report cards: An evidence-based system of assessment and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
38.
VujnovicR. K.FabianoG. A.MorrisK.NormanK. E.HallmarkC.HartleyC. (2014). Examining school psychologists’ and teachers’ application of approaches within a response to intervention framework. Exceptionality, 22, 129–140.
39.
VujnovicR. K.HoldawayA.OwensJ. S.FabianoG. A. (2014). Response to Intervention for youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Incorporating an evidence-based intervention within a multi-tiered framework. In WeistM.LeverN.BradshawC.OwensJ. S. (Eds.), Handbook of school mental health (2nd ed., pp. 399–412). New York, NY: Springer.
40.
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2012). WWC review of the report “Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/single_study_reviews/wwc_dailyreportcards_061212.pdf
