implementation of the three-tiered prevention approach to school-wide behavior support

Tary J. Tobin, Celeste Rossetto DickeyUniversity of Oregon

Coordination, Consultation, and Evaluation (CCE) Center at the University of Wisconsin

Center on PBISDirected by George Sugai and Robert H. Horner

Will have case studies of a variety of 3 tiered models of school wide interventions, some

academic, some behavioral, some both academic and behavioral.

1. What is a 3 tiered approach to School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS)?

2. What’s the background for this study?3. How was this school selected?4. Interventions at this school5. Outcomes for students6. Conclusions & Practical Implications7. Discussion & questions

3/27/2008

Fifth International Conference on Positive Behavior Support -

Chicago, IL 4

Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

Tertiary Prevention:Specialized

IndividualizedSystems for Students

with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

http://pbis.org

3/27/2008 6


Chicago, IL

http://pbis.org/

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 7

8

Primary Prevention: Universal interventions for all students

Extra support for some students:◦ Secondary Prevention: Targeted interventions for

students at heightened risk for behavior problems ◦ Tertiary Prevention: Intensive interventions for

individual students

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Behavioral expectations are ◦defined, ◦taught, ◦and encouraged.

93/27/2008


Chicago, IL

10

Defining behavioral expectations. Using a range of positive and negative examples

to teach all students and staff members. Opportunities to practice. Being rewarded and positively acknowledged

when they use them. Having most contacts between teachers and

students be prosocial (positive and preventive) rather than corrective and punishing.

Using data to make decisions and to build action plans.

The universal intervention is systematically coordinated with targeted and intensive individualized interventions.

(Sugai & Horner, 2001; Sugai et al., 2000)

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

11

Behavior Education Program, also known as “Check In, Check Out” (CICO)

(Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004)

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Examples:First Step to SuccessBehavior Education Program, also known as “Check In, Check Out” (CICO)

Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004; Sugai, Horner, Lewis-Palmer, & Todd, 2005

123/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Student checks in at beginning of day with an adult at the

school; gives assessment form to teacher at beginning of

each period; [Cue for teacher to monitor] receives feedback on behavior at end of each class

period; checks out at end of day with the same adult; takes CICO form home and gets it signed by

parent.Team assesses % of points earned daily, and

adjusts intervention weekly. (e.g., add self-monitoring)

133/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)◦ Competing Behavior Pathway

(O’Neill et al., 1997) Behavior Support Plan based on

the FBA (Crone & Horner, 2003)

143/27/2008


Chicago, IL

15

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

Behavior Support Plan based on the FBA

(Crone & Horner, 2003)

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

16

Teachers decide who needs extra support, using Response to Intervention (RtI) logic.

Barkley has a strong support system for the teachers, including:◦ Action Plans from School-wide PBS Team◦ School Wide Information System (SWIS) ◦ Teacher Assistance Team for Academic & Pre-

referral Suggestions◦ District & School Teams Focused on Behavior

Support for Individual Students ◦ Student Study Team for Special Education

Referrals and On-going Help

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

M a lab on

Irv ing

F a irf ie ld

D a ne bo

C le a r L a ke

E le m e n ta ry S ch o o ls

P ra irie M ou n ta in

M e a d ow V iew

K -8 S ch o o ls

S h as ta

C a sca de

M id d le S ch o o ls

K a la p uya (A lt)

W illa m e tte

H ig h S ch o o ls

Bethel School DistrictEnrollm ent: 6 ,300 students

Staff: 650

6,300 Students, 650 Staff

Suburban/Rural District

Free/Reduced Lunch (27-75%)District Average 48%

Mobility Rate (8%-29%)

2008

1988

Proj

ect P

repa

re

1988

-199

1

EBS

Supp

ort

Pilo

t Pro

ject

1991

-199

4Be

thel

EBS

Proj

ect 1

994-

pres

ent

PBS

Distric

t-

wid

e Im

plem

enta

tion

2000

-pre

sent

RtI 2

007

-

pres

ent

Beth

el R

eadi

ng

Proj

ect

1996

-pre

sent

Beth

el M

ath

Proj

ect

2006

- pr

esen

t

Leadership Team

Active Coordination

Funding Visibility PoliticalSupport

Training Coaching Evaluation

Local School Teams/Demonstrations

Commitment to scientifically-based practices

Approach based on principles of effective instruction

Data-based decision making Regular screening Universal core curriculum Continuum of support beyond universal

systems

Three tier model◦ PBS◦ Reading K-9◦ Mathematics K-12

Research/University Partnerships◦ PBS – Sugai, Horner, Anderson & Colvin◦ Reading – Kame’enui, Simmons, Good & Harn◦ RTI – Fuchs & Harn◦ Mathematics – Chard, Jungjohann, Baker,

Ketterlin-Geller, Tindal & Doabler

PBS District Leadership Team since 2000

PBS District Coordinator since 2000

Elementary, Middle and K-8 schools Monthly School PBS Team Meetings

Quarterly District PBS Team Trainings

Quarterly PBS Facilitator Meetings

PBS Schoolwide Team – meets monthly

BISSC Team – meets 1-2x monthly (now called IPBS Team)

TAT (Teacher Assistance Team) meet about individual students to develop plans

Braun, Kowalko & Smith, 2007

Universal: PBS School-wide Interventions

Targeted: Check In Check Out, Social Skills Groups, Counseling Groups, Breakfast Buddies, Recess Club, etc.

Individual: FBA/BSP, Individualized support, Family and Community involvement

Staff Member refers student to Teacher Assistance Team◦ Team includes Teacher, Previous Teacher,

Counselor, Special Educator, Administrator, and others

◦ Decisions about intervention & follow up scheduled

Monthly meeting to review students receiving targeted and individual interventions

Team includes: Special Educator, Counselor, Administrator, District Level Liaison (School Psychologist or Behavior Specialist)

Decisions about plan revisions, follow up TAT or moving from Targeted to Intensive interventions

* Now called IPBS (Individual PBS Team)

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 38

Behavior and/or Reading Research Centers (Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Kansas)

United States Office of Special Education Programs

Coordination, Consultation, and Evaluation Center of the University of Wisconsin.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 39

“To expand the conceptual and empirical knowledge about behavior support

for students who exhibit or are at-risk of developing serious problem behaviors that lead to later discipline problems” (Sugai & Horner, 2003).

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 40

Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD, Walker & Severson, 1990) or Early Screening Project (ESP, Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1995).

Social Skills Rating System (SSRS, Gresham & Elliott, 1990).

Office Discipline Referrals

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 41

Identified by scores on the Adaptive and/or Maladaptive behavior scales of the SSBS / ESP

based on norms by grade level and gender At or above 70th percentile on

internalizing or externalizing behavior problems was the criteria for being in the Tracking Sample.

Grade 1: Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD, Walker & Severson, 1990)

Kindergarten: Early Screening Project (ESP, Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1995)

423/27/2008


Chicago, IL

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 43

Gains other children’s attention in an appropriate manner.

Expresses anger appropriately (without becoming violent or destructive)

Gains teacher attention in appropriate ways.

Participates well in group activities. Initiates positive social contact with peers.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 44

Behaves inappropriately in class when directed (e.g., shouts, defies teacher).

Creates disturbance during class activities (noisy, bothers other children, etc.)

Tests or challenges teacher’s limits/rules Pouts or sulks Is overly affectionate with others (touching,

hugging, kissing, hanging on, etc.)

ANOVA

Extra Support

12.851 34 .378 2.212 .004

9.567 56 .171

22.418 90

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

453/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Identified by scoring in the 30% percentile for “at-risk” for behavior disorders

on the Adaptive and/or Maladaptive behavior scales

463/27/2008


Chicago, IL

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 47

Screening done to select new students for the Tracking Sample each year, while still following and monitoring progress of each cohort over the years, up to 3rd grade

2002-2003: Cohort A starts 2003-2004: Cohort B starts

48

Grade-based Percentile for Problem Behaviors as rated by teachers on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS, Gresham & Elliott, 1990)

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 49

1. Social Skills [Similar to the Adaptive behaviors on the SSBD]

2. Problem Behavior [Similar to the Maladaptive behaviors on the SSBD]

3. Academic Competence (includes reading, math, motivation, intellectual function, etc.)

1. Cooperation, 2. Assertion, 3. Self-Control (the Social Skills)

4. Externalizing, 5. Internalizing, 6. Hyperactive Behaviors (the Problem Behaviors)

7. Academic Competence (same as the main Academic Competence Scale)

503/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Using the Oregon Behavior Research Center’s 3-tiered approach to SWPBS

With fidelity Good outcomes for students in the Tracking

Sample Study

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 51

Using the 3-tiered approach to SWPBS With fidelity Good outcomes for students in the Tracking

Sample Study

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 52

53

School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) (Horner et al., 2004)

Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET)

(Lewis-Palmer, Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Sampson, 2005)

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

54

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05

C 68 88 91 96 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

To

tal

SE

T S

core

SET Total Scores Over Time at this School

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

Trained and Skilled Data Collectors◦ Interviews

Administrator Behavior Specialist Behavior Support Team & School Staff

◦ Examination of Records Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) Behavior Support Plans based on FBAs Policies & Team meeting minutes

Produces 3 Scores◦ Foundations◦ Targeted Systems◦ Individual Systems

553/27/2008


Chicago, IL

56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006

Per

cen

t o

f P

oss

ible

Po

ints

Improvement on I-SSET at this School

Foundation

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

57

5.85%

28.30%

22.43%

-41.18%

-50.00%

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

Foundation Change Targeted Change Intensive Change Fighting /Aggression ODRs

Change

Pe

rce

nt

Ch

an

ge

ov

er

2 Y

ea

rs

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Problem

Beh.

Percentile

Outcomes for Tracking Sample Students:Average SSRS Problem Behavior Percentile Score by School

Can you guess which school was selected?

EFGABCD

3/27/2008 58


Chicago, IL

59

For the school For the students

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

60

“Mid-size Central City” in the Northwestern part of the United States.

Enrollment ranges from about 325 to 345 students, in Grades K-5.

Ethnicity/racial groups: ◦ The percentage of White (Non-Hispanic) students ranged

from 89% to 78%.◦ Latino or Hispanic students, increasing, currently about

12%◦ African American (Non-Hispanic), 1% to 4%◦ Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% to 6%◦ American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% to 5%.

65% to 70% free or reduced lunch Title 1 school.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

61

Barkley uses the school-wide systems of support that constitute PBS as described in the Positive Behavior Support Team Training Manual (Sugai, Horner, Lewis-Palmer, & Todd, 2005, available online at http://pbismanual.uoecs.org).

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

http://pbismanual.uoecs.org/

63

Primary prevention provided for ALL students

14 (74%) of students who met criteria receiving no additional intervention.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

64

5 of the 19 students received the targeted intervention, Check in / Check out (CICO) in addition to the universal intervention

One student received a tertiary level intervention, an intensive, individualized, behavioral intervention based on a functional behavioral assessment, also known as “function-based support.”

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

65

2002-2003: ◦ Kindergarten (AK)◦ 1st Graders (A1)

2003-2004◦ Kindergarten (BK)

2004-2005 & 2005-2006 ◦ Students move up through the grades (or move

away) More cohorts in the full study:

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

66

Grade Levels of Cohorts by Project YearCohorts: AK, A1, BK, B1, CK

0

1

0

1

2

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

4

Spring 0203 Spring 0304 Spring 0405 Spring 0506

Project Years 1 through 4

Gra

de

Lev

el (

0=K

, 1

= 1

st,

etc.

)1

= N

on

e CK

B1

BK

A1

AK

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

68

For 19 Barkley students who were in the Tracking Sample Study for at least two years and had no missing data on key measures, compared their first to last year in the study.

On average, dropped from 86th to 59th percentile on the SSRS problem behavior scale, which includes both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

69

Comparison of Averages on Grade-based Percentiles for Problem Behavior by Level of Intervention

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

TIME 1 TIME 2 TIME 3

Per

cen

tile

Primary Only

Primary Plus

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

70

Primary Only Tracking Sample Students at Barkley: Grade-based Percentiles for Problem Behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Average (SD): Time 1 = 75 (23), Time 2 = 30 (31), Time 3 = 29 (29)

Per

cen

tile

Jacob

Mark

Amy

Sara

Alyssa

Mack

Lacey

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

71

Students Receiving Primary Plus Targeted and/or Individualized Support During at Least One Year: Grade-based Percentiles for Problem Behavior

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Average (SD): Time 1 = 91 (7), Time 2 = 62 (29), Time 3 = 72 (34)

Per

cen

tile

Benjamin

Lori

Ryan

Aaron

Aalisha

Gabe

Isabella

Linda

Andy

Carl

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

72

Cohort AK: Social Skills Rating Scale's Problem Behavior Grade-based Percentiles

2003-2004 to 2005-2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


SS

RS

%ile

Pro

ble

m B

eh

av

ior

Sc

ale

Lacey

Andy

Mabel

Carl

Emily

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

73

0

1

2

3

Number of ODRs

Cohort AK: Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) from 2002-2003 to 2005-2006

Time 1 0 0 0 0 0

Time 2 0 3 0 0

Time 3 0 0 0 0

Time 4 0 0 0

Lacey Andy Mabel Carl Emily

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

74

Cohort A1: Social Skills Rating Scale's Problem Behavior Grade-based Percentiles

2003-2004 to 2005-2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


SS

RS

%ile

Pro

ble

m B

eh

av

ior

Sc

ale

Aaron

Aalisha

Gabe

Eamon

Sabastian

Mack

Isabella

Linda

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

75

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of ODRs

Cohort A1: Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) from 2002-2003 to 2005-2006

Time 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 0

Time 2 6 4 0 0 0 1 0

Time 3 0 4 3 3 4 0 0 0

Time 4 6 0 2 0

Aaron Aalisha Gabe Eamon Sabastian Mack Isabella Linda

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

76

Cohort BK: Social Skills Rating Scale's Problem Behavior Grade-based Percentiles

2003-2004 to 2005-2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

SS

RS

%ile

Pro

ble

m B

eh

av

ior

Sc

ale

Jacob

Danny

Benjamin

Lori

Mark

Scott

Amy

Sara

Amber

Tyler

Alyssa

Ryan

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

77

0

1

2

Number of ODRs

Cohort BK: Office Discipline Referrals (ODRs) from 2003-2004 to 2005-2006

Time 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Time 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jacob DannyBenjami

nLori Mark Scott Amy Sara Amber Tyler Alyssa Ryan

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

78

0

1

2

3

1 = Primary Only 2 = Primary + Secondary

3 = Primary + Tertiary

Cohort AK: Prevention Levels from 2002-2003 to 2005-2006

Time 1 1 2 1 1

Time 2 1 3 1 2

Time 3 1 3 1 1

Time 4 1

Lacey Andy Mabel Carl Emily

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

79

0

1

2

1 = Primary Only, 2 = Primary Plus

Secondary

Cohort A1: Prevention Levels from 2002-2003 to 2005-2006

Time 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Time 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2

Time 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

Jacob DannyBenjami


3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

80

0

1

2

1 = Primary Only, Primary Plus Secondary

Cohort BK: Prevention Levels from 2003-2004 to 2005-2006

Time 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Time 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2

Time 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2

Jacob DannyBenjami


3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

The primary intervention of PBS is sufficient behavioral support for many young children even when identified by the SSBD/ESP.

Over time, the school improved its capacity to provide the secondary (CICO) & tertiary (function-based individualized support) interventions.

Externalizers were more likely to receive extra support than Internalizers.

823/27/2008


Chicago, IL

83

When School-wide Positive Behavior Support is well implemented, as it was in this school, the universal intervention (Primary Prevention) is effective and efficient behavioral support for many young children who are identified as “at risk” for externalizing or internalizing behaviors.

Students with serious behavior problems typically benefit from extra support (Secondary or Tertiary Prevention), such as Check In / Check Out and/or Function-based Support, especially if it is provided consistently over time while self-management skills are developing.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL 84

86

Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support teams composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 160-170.

Condon, K. A., & Tobin, T. J. (2001). Using electronic and other new ways to help students improve their behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(1), 44-51.

Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford.

Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2003). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York: Guilford. Gresham, F. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education & Treatment of Children, 28, 328-344.

Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., & Guardino, D. (in press). Response to intervention: An evaluation of a classroom system of behavior support for second grade students. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. (2004). The School-wide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 3-12.

Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. G. (2004). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 131-147.

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

87

Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Sampson, N. (2005). Individual student system systems evaluation tool. Unpublished instrument. Eugene, University of Oregon, College of Education, Educational and Community Supports.

Lewis-Palmer, T., Bounds, M., & Sugai, G. (2004). District-wide system for providing individual student support. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30, 53-65.

McIntosh, K., Borgmeier, C. J., Anderson, C. M., Horner, R. H., Rodriguez, B. J., & Tobin, T. J. (in press). Technical adequacy of the functional assessment checklist - Teachers and Staff (FACTS) FBA interview measure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.

McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstrating combined effects in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavioral challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146-154.

Nelson, C. M., Sprague, J. R., Jolivette, K., Smith, C. R., Tobin, T. J. (in press). Positive behavior support in alternative education, community-based mental health, and juvenile justice settings. In Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Behavior Support. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., Sprague, J. R., & Newton, M. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Scott, T. M., & Martineck, G. (2006). Coaching positive behavior support in school settings: Tactics and data-based decision-making. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 165-173.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2001, June 23). School climate and discipline: Going to scale. Paper presented at the National Summit on the Shared Implementation of IDEA, Washington, DC.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23-50. (Co-published simultaneously in J. K. Luiselli & C. Diament (Eds.), Behavior psychology in the schools: Innovations in evaluation, support, and consultation (pp. 23-50). New York: The Haworth Press).

3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

88

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143. [Can be downloaded from http://pbis.org ]

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Todd, A. W. (2005). Positive Behavior Support Team Training Manual. Eugene, University of Oregon. Retrieved 3/19/2006 from http://pbismanual.uoecs.org

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2001). School-wide evaluation tool. Eugene, University of Oregon. Retrieved 11/01/2005 from http://pbis.org

Tobin, T. J. (2005). Parents’ guide to functional assessment (Third edition). University of Oregon, College of Education, Educational and Community Supports, Eugene. Retrieved 1/1/2008, from http://uoregon.edu/~ttobin/Tobin-par-3.pdf as “Parents’ Guide.”

Tobin, T. J. (2007). Alternative and Regular Schools’ Use of the Team Implementation Checklist. University of Oregon, College of Education, Eugene. Retrieved 1/1/2008 from http://uoregon.edu/~ttobin/alt_tic07.pdf .

Tobin, T. J. (2006). Systems of individual support: The Functional Interventions in Versatile Environments Project’s pilot study of evaluation tools. University of Oregon, College of Education, Eugene. Retrieved 1/1/2008 from http://uoregon.edu/~ttobin/measure.pdf

Tobin, T. J., (2006). Positive behavior support systems: Value added from use of the School Wide Information System. University of Oregon, College of Education, Eugene. Retrieved 1/1/2008 from http://uoregon.edu/~ttobin/positive2.pdf

Tobin, T. J., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2002). School-wide and individualized effective behavior support: An explanation and an example. Behavior Analysis Today, 3(1), 51-75.

Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. (2005). Preventing problem behaviors: Primary, secondary, and tertiary level prevention interventions for young children. Journal of Early Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2(3), 115-124. Retrieved 10/6/2005 from http://www.jeibe.com

Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G. (1999). Self-monitoring and self-recruited praise: Effects on problem behavior, academic engagement, and work completion in a typical classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 66-76.

Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 72-82.

Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1990). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders: User's guide and administration manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1995). Early Screening Project: A proven child-find process. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. 3/27/2008


Chicago, IL

implementation of the three-tiered prevention approach to school-wide behavior support

Documents