Response to Intervention in The Social Domain

Response to Intervention (RTI) Response to evidence-based interventions (Elliott, Witt, Kratchowill, & Stoiber, 2002) Non-response- need for more intense intervention- (Vaughn, 2006) –Prevent failure- early evidence-based intervention Baseline compared to post-intervention (Gresham, 2004, 2005)

Response to Intervention (RTI) Identify sample for intervention Sample should be at risk of developing a disability Sample enters evidence-based treatment Identify responders and non-responders Look at social and educational outcomes for responders and non-responders

Student Participants: Identifying Students in Need of a Targeted Group Intervention

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 & Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ٭

Systematic Screening for CCE Intervention

Characteristic Intervention (n=170)* Comparison (n=110)* Significance SSBD Critical Events 6.13 (n=142, SD=4.00) 5.33 (n=95, SD=2.99).07 SSBD Adaptive31.04 (n=141, SD=8.39) (n=95, SD=6.95).32 SSBD Maladaptive (n=140, SD=9.83) (n=94, SD=8.2).64 SSRS Social Skills (n=170, SD=12.61) (n=89, SD=10.37).66 SSRS Problem Behaviors (n=170, SD=11.58) (n=89, SD=10.89).23 SSRS Academic Competence (n-170, SD= (n=95, SD=11.45) *.05 AET Percent Engaged 0.57 (n=170, SD=.24) 0.57 (n=106, SD=.23).89 Student’s Meet At-risk Criteria Baseline Measures (Nov./Dec. 2005)

Procedure: CCE as a Targeted Intervention An intervention (or set of interventions) known & practiced by all teachers and available for students throughout the school day An intervention that can provide additional student support in social support and academic areas

Our Current RTI Work- Check, Connect, and Expect (CCE) Based on 15 years of research and practice from: –Oregon’s Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support (Horner & Sugai) –Check and Connect (C&C; Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998), U. Minnesota –The Behavior Education Programs (BEP; Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004) U. Oregon/Utah. Both rely on: –a positive caring adult –daily positive interactions with teachers & other adults –supervision and monitoring of students –reinforcement/acknowledgement for success

Check, Connect, & Expect (CC&E) Program Levels/Phases For students who are responsive –Basic –Self-Monitoring –Graduates For students who need additional intervention –CCE Basic Plus –CCE Intensive (FBA )

CCE Builds from the School- Wide Behavior Support System School-Wide –Define and teach expectations –Monitor and reward appropriate behavior –Clear consequences for problem behavior –Information collected and used for decision-making Examples –Be Responsible –Be Respectful –Be Prepared to Work –Be Safe –Follow Directions

Student Passes Gate 2 of SSBD Parent Feedback Regular Teacher Feedback Afternoon Check-out Morning Check-in CCE Coach Summarizes Data For Decision Making Twice Monthly Meeting to Assess Student Progress Self-Monitor; Graduate Revise - Basic Plus; Intensive Program Start CCE Program From: Horner, Hawken, & Crone, 2004

Identify responders and non-responders Purpose of this Study: To assess the utility of Response to Intervention (RTI) metrics within the CCE project in the social/behavioral domain

Research Questions 1. Which RTI metrics (Gresham, 2005) are most useful for this project in measuring students ’ response to the CCE intervention? 2. Using the RTI metrics that were found to be useful, what percentages of students were identified as responders and nonresponders to the CCE intervention? 3. What percentages of students identified as responders and nonresponders in the CCE intervention were eligible for special education services?

RTI Metrics with CCE Data Compare first 20 days of intervention (baseline) to the last 20 days of intervention (post-intervention) across 80 days Absolute Change Difference between baseline and post- intervention DPR scores. Percent Change Difference between number of days in baseline when student met criterion from the same number of days in the post-intervention. Then divide difference by number of days in baseline when student met criterion. Effect Size Division of the difference of post-intervention and baseline mean by the standard deviation of baseline mean.

RTI Metrics with CCE Data (cont.) Reliable Change Index (RCI) The difference between the means from baseline and post-intervention is divided by the standard error of difference between post-intervention and baseline. Percent of Non-overlapping Data Points (PND) The number of post-intervention data points that exceed the highest baseline data point is divided by the total number of post-intervention points.

Baseline x = 65% Post-intervention x = 85% RTI with Student 547 Absolute change = 85 – 65 = 20 Percent change = (14 – 5) / 5 = 180% Effect size = Reliable change index = PND = 0%

Collecting and Charting Data

From: Fairbanks, S. et al. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, Standard Approach: Collect Behavioral Data Enter in Charting Application or By Hand Analyze by Visual Inspection or By Phase Change

Daily Data Entered in Website © PBSTools.org Secure and Password Protected Multiple Features and Analyses Available –Charts –Weekly Summaries –Progress Reports for Case Summaries

Ratings Entry

Progress Summary

CCE Progress Chart Red When Below Criteria Green When Above Criteria (B)asic Phase

Data Analysis Examined data of students who participated for at least 80 days Were present at school for at least 80% of 80 days 127 students’ data for analysis with RTI metrics 34 were early responders 93 students actually included in analysis

Summary of RTI Using 5 Metrics

Eligibility for Special Education (non special ed. students in Fall 05, N=104 and includes early responders)

Concurrent Validity of the Daily Progress Report with Student Behavior Constructs

Growth Curve Analysis by Behavior Construct Across 4 constructs Externalizing Behavior was the only one that was significantly different from Average Student Growth

TRF Externalizing Behavior Scales by Time Significant interaction of scale by time

Interaction of Group by Scale Significant interaction Of group by scale with Aggression significantly Higher for the Intensive And Basic Plus Group

Summary About 70% of students respond to the intervention based on daily data and 3 metrics –Absolute change, Percent change, Effect size Special Ed Referrals Prevented –92% non-referral rate for all students in the study Concurrent Validity established between the Daily Progress Reporting and Externalizing Dimension of Behavior CCE & PBSTools show promise for RTI in social domain