Problem-Solving/RtI: Application to Students with Emotional/Behavior Disorders

David Wheeler, Ph.D.George Batsche, Ed.D.

José Castillo, M.A.

University of South Florida

FASP 2007

Rule 6A-6.03016, FAC

(1) Definition. Students with an emotional / behavioral disability (EBD). A student with an emotional/ behavioral disability has persistent (is not sufficiently responsive to implemented evidence-based interventions) and consistent emotional or behavioral responses that adversely affect performance in the educational environment that cannot be attributed to age, culture, gender, or ethnicity.

Assumptions

• Students with emotional/behavioral disabilities demonstrate behaviors that are intense and severe– Intensity - deviation of the behavior (frequency, duration) from general

expectations and peer/cultural/setting norms– Severity - the behaviors continued non-response to evidence-based

interventions delivered with increasing intensity and consistency

• Some students with behavior problems have an emotional/behavioral disability

• Some students with behavior problems display behaviors that are intrusive and disruptive without having an emotional/behavioral disability

Criteria for Special Education Eligibility

• Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance

• The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark

• Student is not a functionally independent learner

• Complete comprehensive evaluation

“Change is the law of life and those who only look to the past or present

are certain to miss the future.” John F. Kennedy

Paradigm Shift

• Eligibility– Diagnostic/Test &

Place Model

• Improving student outcomes – Problem Solving/

Response to Intervention Model

IDEA 2004 - 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(5)

30 years of research has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . . providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs of such children

State Board Rule 6A-6.0331

District’s responsibility to address through appropriate interventions and, to the extent possible, resolve a student’s learning or behavioral areas of concern in the general education environment.

“Every student needs something special in education BUT not every student needs special education.”

Jim Tucker

Getting “help” without labeling children as disabled

• Problem-solving approach

• Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery

• An integrated system of assessment & data collection that informs decisions at each tier

Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention is a multi-tiered, problem-solving approach to providing instruction and intervention to students, at increasing levels of intensity, based on progress monitoring and data analysis.

80 - 90%

10 - 15%

1 - 5%

Three-Tier Model of Behavioral Intervention/Support

Tier III: Intensive, Individual Interventions

Tier II: Targeted Group Interventions

Tier I: Universal Interventions/Supports

80 - 90%

10-15%

1-5%

How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Protocol

Addl.DiagnosticAssessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthlyBx

Screening

Bench-Mark

Assessment

AnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroomAssessments

Yearly Assessments

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

StandardProtocol

Small GroupDifferentiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Problem-solving Process

• Problem identification - What is the problem?• Problem analysis - Why is it occurring?• Intervention development & implementation -

What are we going to do?• Response to intervention (evaluation of

effectiveness through progress monitoring) - How effective is the intervention?

I

II

III

Problem Identification

Problem Analysis

Intervention Design

Responseto

Intervention

Tiers of Problem Solving

Categories of school-based behavior problems

• Problems that respond to interventions – Not eligible for special education

• Problems that do not respond to intensive interventions AND do not constitute a recognized emotional/behavioral disability – Not eligible for special education but require intervention

• Problems that do not respond to intensive interventions AND constitute a recognized emotional/ behavioral disability– Eligible for special education

Importance of emotional/behavioral intervention within an RtI model

• Promotes social/emotional health for all students• Improves school climate and culture • Focus on early intervention/prevention• Assessment linked to intervention• Reduces the number of students “needing” placement• Disproportionality - minorities and males• Maintains students in least restrictive environment

Adapted from E. Runkel’s presentation on Behavioral Assessment & RTI at the NASP 2007 Annual Conference

Three Tier Model of Behavioral Intervention & Positive Support

• Tier I: Universal: School-wide interventions and support

• Tier II: Targeted Group Interventions

• Tier III: Intensive Individual Interventions

80 - 90%

10 - 15%

1 - 5%

Three-Tier Model of Behavioral Intervention/Support

Tier III: Intensive, Individual Interventions

Tier II: Targeted Group Interventions

Tier I: Universal Interventions/Supports

80 - 90%

10-15%

1-5%

Tier I

• Question: How effective is school-wide program?

• Assessment: – Office discipline referrals (ODR)– Disproportionality data & school climate surveys– Screening (mental health & behavior)

• Hypotheses: – Lack of instruction – Lack of positive behavior supports – Inconsistent discipline policy

• Interventions– Identify common behavioral issues & develop school-wide (or whole

class) interventions– Introduce positive behavior supports– Teach prosocial behaviors

10 - 15%

Tier I: Behavioral Intervention/Support

80 - 90%

Tier I - Assessment Discipline Data (ODR)

Benchmark AssessmentSchool Climate Surveys

Universal Screening

Tier I - Core Interventions School-wide Discipline

Positive Behavior SupportsWhole-class Interventions

TIER 1: School-Wide Discipline Programs:

Positive Behavior SupportProsocial Discipline Programs

School-wide Discipline CommitteeAttendance Programs

Identifying students at-risk

• Universal screening for social skill competencies/social behaviors/mental health

• Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorder (SSBD)• School Wide Information System (SWIS)• School Archival Records Search (SARS)• BASC Emotional Screening System (BESS)• Classroom observation/Teacher nomination• Parent reported child risk factors• Student reported risk factors/self-identification

Universal Screening - Identifying students at-risk

• Sources of screening data – Academic performance– Discipline data (ODR)– Records – Observation

• Screening Instruments/Systems– School Wide Information System (SWIS)– School Archival Records Search (SARS) – Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorder (SSBD)– BASC Emotional Screening System (BESS)– Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Performance

Screening

10

30

38

30 31

24

30

54

26

18

86

17 16 16

26

29

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

August

September

OctoberNovember December

January February

MarchApril May

Month

Number of ODRs

2005-2006 2006-2007

Referral Analysis

• 42% Noncompliance• 30% Off-Task/Inattention• 12% Physical/Verbal

Aggression• 6% Relational

Aggression• 10% Bullying 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1stQtr

2ndQtr

3rdQtr

4thQtr

NoncomplianceOff TaskAggressionRel AggressionBullying

Building-Level Behavior Data

Behavior Referral Analysis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

MaleFemale White

HispanicAfrican Am

OtherLow SES

Building

Referred

% Building

% Referred

Male 50% 80%

White 72% 54%

Hispanic 12% 20%

African American 15% 24%

Other 1% 2%

Low SES 25% 50%

Tier II

• Question: How is student functioning compared to expectations? peers?

• Assessment: – Baseline data (intensity of behavior - frequency, duration)– Peer group comparison– Gap analysis

• Hypotheses: – Student has not been taught the skill– Expected behavior is not reinforced in the learning environment

• Interventions– Classroom-based behavioral interventions– Small-group, targeted interventions

80 - 90%

10 - 15%

1 - 5%

Tier II: Behavioral Intervention/Support

Tier II - Targeted InterventionsTargeted Group Interventions

Social Skills TrainingSmall Groups

Tiered Discipline Programs

80 - 90%

10-15%

Tier II - AssessmentBehavioral Observations

Intervention Data (peer group comparison)

Tier I - Core InterventionsTier I Assessment

TIER 2: StrategicStrategic/Supplemental Behavior Programs:

• Small Group SST• Anger Control Training

• Peer/adult mentoring program• Tiered discipline program

(e.g., positive rehearsal, time out)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May

% Wait for Turn

Benchmark75%

30 %

42%

74%

58%

Baseline

33%

37% 37%40%

42%

Class-Wide Social Skills Training

49%

65%62%

67%

70%

62%

79%75%

73%

79%82%

86% 85%

90%92%

(+3%) (+4%)

(+0%) (+3%)

(+2%)

Outcome?

• Rate of Peer Performance?– 82-58= 58/24 or 2.42

• Rate of Target Student Performance?– 42-27= 27/15 or 1.80

• Type of Response to Intervention?– Peer??– Student??

• Intervention Effectiveness Decision?

Raphael's Compliance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of on task behavior

78.3%

61.6%

81.6%

31.6

Jan

Baseline

Benchmark

Feb March April May

RTI -5% per wk.

RTI + 4.8% per wk

Tier One

Aimline

RTI +2.7% per wk.

89%

75%

96.%

42.5

RTI + 2.6%per wk.

Tier III

• Question: What is the student’s response to evidence-based interventions?

• Assessment: – Functional Behavior Assessment - prior to interventions– Response to Intervention data with graph

• Hypotheses: – Focus on child-specific issues in problem-solving

• Interventions– Behavior intervention plan - based on FBA– Assessing quality/intensity of interventions

80 - 90%

10 - 15%

1 - 5%

Tier III of Behavioral Intervention/Support

Tier II Targeted Interventions

80 - 90%

10-15%

1-5%

Tier I Core InterventionsTier I Assessments

Tier II Assessments

Tier III: Individualized InterventionsBehavior Intervention Plan

Individual CounselingSelf-Monitoring

In-school Alternative Education

Tier III: AssessmentsFBA

Progress Monitoring Graph

TIER 3: INTENSIVE Behavior Programs

• Individual counseling/therapy• Individual Behavior Plan

• Rapid Response • In-school alternative education

• Frequent, daily mentoring

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5%

Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive InterventionsIndividual Students or Small Group (2-3)Reading: Scholastic Program,

Reading,Mastery, ALL, Soar to Success, Leap Track, Fundations

1-5%

Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsIndividual CounselingFBA/BIPTeach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP)Assessment-basedIntense, durable procedures

5-10%Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsStudents that don’t respond to the core curriculumReading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog, CRISS strategies, CCC Lab Math: Extended DayWriting: Small Group, CRISS strategies, and “Just Write Narrative” by K. Robinson

5-10% Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)Small Group CounselingParent Training (Behavior & Academic)Bullying Prevention ProgramFBA/BIP Classroom Management Techniques, Professional Development Small Group Parent Training ,Data

80-90%Tier 1: Core CurriculumAll studentsReading: Houghton MifflinMath: HarcourtWriting: Six Traits Of WritingLearning Focus Strategies

80-90% Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll settings, all studentsCommittee, Preventive, proactive strategies, School Wide Rules/ Expectations Positive Reinforcement System (Tickets & 200 Club) School Wide Consequence System School Wide Social Skills Program, Data (Discipline, Surveys, etc.) Professional Development (behavior)Classroom Management Techniques,Parent Training

Three Tiered Model of School Supports:Anclote Elementary-Pasco County

Students

Intervention Support

• Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff

• All intervention plans should have intervention support • Principals should ensure that intervention plans have

intervention support • Teachers should not be expected to implement plans

for which there is no support

Critical Components of Intervention Support

• Support for Intervention Integrity

• Documentation of Intervention Implementation

• Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components

Intervention Support

• Pre-meeting– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Determine logistics

• First 2 weeks– 2-3 meetings/week– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Revise, if necessary

Intervention Support

• Second Two Weeks– Meet twice each week

• Following weeks– Meet at least weekly– Review data– Review steps– Discuss Revisions

• Approaching benchmark– Review data– Schedule for intervention fading– Review data

Problem-Solving Process Applied to E/BD

Problem solving - levels of analysis

• Student

• Class

• School

• District

• State

I

II

III

Problem-solving protocol

• Identify target & replacement behavior• Identify peer group for comparison

– Collect baseline & progress monitoring data (frequency, duration)

– Gap analysis - compare student to peer group and expectation

• Determine function of the behavior (FBA)• Develop/Implement interventions based on FBA (BIP)• Monitor/Evaluate/Modify interventions based on data

– Document response to intervention – Problem solving continues based on response to

intervention

Documenting response to intervention

• Benchmark/Expectation

• Student’s level of performance

• Peer performance

• Aimline

• Trendline

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

% Compliance

35%

Benchmark75%

= Peer Group = Aim Line

BASELINE

Evaluating the response to intervention - GAP Analysis

• What is the deficit in initial level?

• What is deficit in slope or rate of progress?

• How does the student compare to peers (students of similar age, gender, culture, & ethnicity)?

Tier 1 —Universal Interventions

25 2328

3540

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

% Compliance

• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support

• Grade Level Social Skill Training

35%

50%

55%

60%

Benchmark75%

= Peer Group

= Target Student

= Aim Line

= Trend Line

Types of responses to intervention

• Positive response– Gap closing at acceptable rate

• Questionable response– Gap maintained or is closing at unacceptable rate

• Poor response– Gap widens

Intervention decisions based on RtI

• Positive response– Continue intervention– Modify intervention intensity or fade

• Questionable response– Increase intensity of intervention - freq/time/focus– Monitor more frequently (at least weekly)

• Poor response– Revisit problem solving– Significantly modify current or develop new intervention

Evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention

• Is the intervention evidence-based?

• How “intense” is the intervention?

• What can we “expect” the intervention to do?

• Was the intervention implemented as planned?

• How effective is this intervention with students from similar backgrounds?

Data Issues

• Data collection– What is collected? Who is responsible for collecting? – How frequently is data collected? How is the data used?

• Data display - necessary to evaluate RtI– Graph - Benchmark, Aimline, Trendline– Disaggregate - grade, gender, race, ELL, SES

• Data Management – AIMS-WEB, Wireless Generation– Local Programs– Chart Dog

Case example . . . Victor

Problem Identification - Baseline data

Benchmark Level 75%

Current Level 27%

Peer Level 42%

Assess effectiveness of universal supports

• Gap analysis– Student and benchmark: 75/27 = 2.8– Student and peers: 42/27 = 1.5

• Effectiveness of core supports– Not effective for male peers

• Intervention decision: focus on Tier I– Grade-level social skills training 2x weekly

Document effectiveness of Tier I interventions & supports before moving to Tier II

Assess effectiveness of universal behavior supports at Tier I• Gap analysis

– Gap between student and benchmark: 75/11 = 6.8– Gap between student and peers: 71/11 = 6.5

• Effectiveness of core interventions– Is the gap closing?– Response to intervention?

• Intervention decision: move to Tier II interventions– Hypothesis - Victor is not complying to teacher requests

because he lacks social skills– Intervention - small group social skills training for 30 minutes

a day

Assess effectiveness of targeted group interventions at Tier II• Gap analysis

– Student and benchmark: 75/43 = 1.7– Student and peers: 80/43 = 1.9

• Effectiveness of targeted group intervention– Is the gap closing? – Response to intervention?

• Intervention decision: move to Tier III interventions– Multiple Hypotheses – ICES by RIOT– Interventions - Tier I + II + III

Assess effectiveness of intensive individual interventions at Tier III

• Gap analysis– Student and benchmark: 75/69 = 1 – Student and peers: 85/69 = 1.2

• Effectiveness of intensive individual interventions– Is the gap closing?– Response to intervention?

• Intervention decision– Does Victor require special education services?

IDEA Eligibility Evaluation

• IDEA definition of “evaluation” (§300.15) - procedures used to determine whether a child has a disability AND the nature and extent of special education needs

• What constitutes an evaluation? CFR §300.305– Review of existing evaluation data

• Evaluations and information provided by the parent• Current classroom-based, district, or state assessments, and

classroom-based observations • Observations by teachers and related service providers

– Identify what additional data (if any) are needed to determine if the student is a student with a disability and to determine the educational needs

IDEA Evaluations - §300.304

• Evaluation Procedures – Use variety of assessment tools and strategies – Not use any single measure as the sole criteria for

determining eligibility– Use technically sound instruments

• District responsibility– Not discriminatory (selection & administration) – Used for purposes for which the assessment is valid and

reliable– Administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel– Administered in accordance with publisher’s instructions

Where is requirement for RtI?

• Rule 6A-6.0331– Interventions must include a progress monitoring plan and

pre/post measures of intervention effects.– Parent conferences must include discussion of student’s

responses to interventions.• E/DB Rule

– Persistent defined in RtI language - not sufficiently responsive to evidence-based interventions

• Draft Administrative Rules• RtI embedded in NCLB and IDEA 2004

– Student outcomes– Data-driven accountability– Use of evidence-based interventions

When should an eligibility evaluation be initiated?

• There is evidence of effective core supports– 90 - 95% of students successful in Tier I/II

• There is evidence of effective targeted and individual interventions– Interventions effective with 70% of students at Tier II/III

• The intensity of behaviors persist given evidence-based, individual interventions implemented with fidelity (Tier III)

• Purpose of evaluation is to assist in determining – whether behaviors constitute an emotional/behavioral

disability and – the educational needs of the student

80 - 90%

10 - 15%

1 - 5%

Tier III of Behavioral Intervention/Support

Tier II Targeted InterventionsTargeted Group Interventions

Social Skills TrainingSmall Groups

80 - 90%

10-15%

1-5%

Tier I Core InterventionsSchool-wide Discipline

Positive Behavior SupportsWhole-class Interventions

Tier I AssessmentsDiscipline Data (ODR)

Benchmark AssessmentUniversal Screening

Tier II AssessmentsBehavioral Observations

Intervention Data Gap Analysis

Tier III: Individualized InterventionsBehavior Intervention Plan

Individual CounselingSelf-Monitoring

Tier III: AssessmentsFBA

Progress Monitoring Graph/RtI(Eligibility Assessment)

RIOT/ICEL Matrix

Review Interview Observe Test

Instruction(Intervention)

Curriculum(School-wide Program)

Environment

Learner

RIOT

• Review - looking at records & products

• Interview - talking to people who know the student

• Observe - watching what occurs in the instructional setting

• Test - having students perform skills in structured format

ICEL

• Instruction - how content is presented (teaching)

• Curriculum - what is taught (content)

• Environment - physical setting where instruction occurs

• Learner - student variables

RIOT/ICEL Matrix Applied to E/BD

Review Interview Observe Test

Instruction(Intervention)

Curriculum(School-wide Program)

Environment

Learner

80 - 90%

10 - 15%

1 - 5%

Tier III of Behavioral Intervention/Support

Tier II Targeted InterventionsTargeted Group Interventions

Social Skills TrainingSmall Groups

80 - 90%

10-15%

1-5%

Tier I Core InterventionsSchool-wide Discipline

Positive Behavior SupportsWhole-class Interventions

Tier I AssessmentsDiscipline Data (ODR)

Benchmark AssessmentUniversal Screening

Tier II AssessmentsBehavioral Observations

Intervention Data Gap Analysis

Tier III: Individualized InterventionsBehavior Intervention Plan

Individual CounselingSelf-Monitoring

Tier III: AssessmentsFBA

Progress Monitoring Graph/RtI(Eligibility Assessment)

Universal Screening

• Sources of screening data – Academic performance– Discipline data (ODR)– Records – Observation

• Screening Instruments/Systems– School Wide Information System (SWIS)– School Archival Records Search (SARS) – Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorder (SSBD)– BASC Emotional Screening System (BESS)– Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Performance

Screening

Multi-dimensional E/BD Assessment

• Multiple methods– Observation– Interview– Standardized Rating Scales

• Multiple sources– Parent– Teacher– Student

• Multiple settings– School (within school)– Home

Components of E/BD Evaluation (SP&P)

• Functional behavioral assessment - general ed interventions (Tier II/Tier III)

• Psychological evaluation

• Social-developmental history

• Educational evaluation

• Medical evaluation - when determined necessary by ESE Director or designee

Functional Behavioral Assessment

• Description of target/replacement behavior (Problem identification)

• Identification of environmental factors that may contribute to the behavior (Problem analysis)

• Determination of function of behavior (Problem analysis)

• Development of hypotheses regarding the function or purpose of the behavior (Problem analysis)

• Development of positive interventions in a written plan (BIP) - (Intervention design/implementation)

• Evaluation (Progress monitoring/RtI)

FBA Assessment Tools

• Architext - Pearson • Conducting School Based Functional Behavioral

Assessments - Watson & Steege, 2003• Four-Step Model Functional Behavioral Assessment

Skiba, et al., NASP Communiqué, May 1998 • Functional Assessment Interview Form (FAI) - O’Neill

et al., 1997• Functional Assessment and Intervention System

(FAIS) - Stoiber, 2004• Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavioral

Intervention Plans - FLDOE, 1999 TAP (FY 1999-3)

Psychological Evaluation

• Assessment procedures identifying the internal or external factors that constitute an emotional/behavioral disability– Behavioral observations– Clinical interview– Assessment of emotional/behavioral functioning

• Information on developmental functioning and skills as needed - an intellectual evaluation is not required

• Identify the evidence-based interventions implemented and the criteria used to evaluate the student’s response to intervention

Observation Systems

• Academic Engaged Time Code (AET-SSBD) • Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools

(BOSS)• Direct Observation Form (DOF) - ASEBA• State-Event Classroom Observation (SECOS)• Student Observation System (SOS) - BASC-II

Portable Observation Program

Volpe, et al. (2005) Observing Students in Classrooms: A Review of Seven Coding Schemes. School Psychology Review.Hintze et al. (2002). Best Practices in the Systematic Direct Observation of Student Behavior. Best Practices in School Psychology IV.

Clinical Interviews

• Children’s Interview for Psychiatric Syndromes (ChIPS)

• Semi-structured Clinical Interview for Children and Adolescents (ASEBA)

• Semi-structured Parent Interview and Structured Diagnostic Interview for Parents (McConaughy)

• Social-Developmental History (BASC-2)

McConaughy (2005). Clinical Interviews for Children and Adolescents.

Rating Scales

• Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA)

• Beck Youth Inventories, Second Edition (BYI-II)• Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)• Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition

(BASC-II)• Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB)• Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree (EDDT)• Personality Inventory for Children, Second Edition (PIC-2)

& (PIY)• Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)

Social-developmental History

• Structured interview with parent • Appraisal of interpersonal, familial, and environmental

factors impacting learning & behavior – Family composition and dynamics– Educational history– Health and developmental history– Emotional and behavioral status– Environment and cultural influence

• Address factors that extend beyond the school setting

Educational Evaluation

• Review educational history and current academic performance (e.g., state & district assessments, progress monitoring data, classroom performance, previous educational assessments)

• Address relationship between academic performance and emotional/behavioral disability

• Complete a formal academic evaluation if there is insufficient information or if academic performance data is not current

Behavioral Assessment and Diagnostic Issues

• Validity and reliability of instruments

• Differential diagnosis

• Base rates

• Sensitivity

• Specificity

The eligibility evaluation must document:

• Response to evidence-based interventions implemented with fidelity (intensity/severity of the behavior)

• Behaviors constitute an emotional/ behavioral disability (meet criteria for recognized emotional and/or behavior disability)

• Exclusionary factors do not explain emotions/behavior• Need for special education & related services

Intervention Implementation with IEP

• Continue progress monitoring (RtI) and problem solving

• Intervention implementation on IEP should identify:– The most effective interventions (not simply those that are

“available” or tied to a particular setting (e.g., EBD “room”)– Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) in which those

interventions will be successful– Personnel qualified to deliver the interventions– Setting(s) which offers the greatest potential for integration

with typical peers.

Web Resources

• Florida Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention Project http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/

• Florida Positive Behavior Support Project http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/

• Intervention Central www.interventioncentral.org• Managing On-site Discipline for Effective Learning

http://www.modelprogram.com/• OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior

Supports http://www.pbis/• The National Association of School Psychologists

www.nasponline.org• The IRIS Center http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

Other resources

• Practitioner’s edition on promoting behavioral competence. Psychology in the Schools, Vol 44 (1) 2007.

• School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice. Vol 1 (2) 2007.

• Mini-Series: Current Perspectives on School-based Behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, Vol 33 (3) 2004.

• Mini-Series: Direct observation assessment of student Behavior. School Psychology Review, Vol 34 (4) 2005.

• Howell & Nolet (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation (Chap 13 - Social Skills).

• Rutherford, Quinn, & Mathur (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders.