1. Tier III Behavior Supports: Practices and Systems Research to Practice Chris Borgmeier, PhDSheldon Loman, PhD cborgmei@pdx.edu sheldon.loman@pdx.educborgmei@pdx.edu sheldon.loman@pdx.edu Portland State University UPDATED SLIDES @ www.pbisnetwork.org

2. Tier 3 Students for whom:  Quick fixes & simpler solutions have Not worked  There is no single solution  Interventions must be tailored to match the individualized needs of student & context

3. Tier 3 Behavior Support Practices  Function-Based Interventions & Support  Team Process  Functional Behavioral Assessment  Effective Behavioral Intervention  Implementation  Monitoring & Data Based Decision Making

4. Tier 1 SWPBS Tier I Group Interventions CICO Skills groups Group Interventions w/function-based modifications Function-based Support Comprehensive Supports Tier II Tier III

5. N = 2565 713 266 474 9%19%24% 18%

7. An Abridged History of FBA  Spawned from substantial research on Functional Analysis  Originating primarily from work with individuals with significant disabilities  Use of Experimental manipulation to ID function of bx  Functional Analysis was adapted into more feasible “Functional Behavior Assessment” for use in schools (O’Neill et al., 1997)  Research has suggested the efficacy of use FBA to inform effective interventions in schools and across a range of student concerns and populations  Importantly students w/ EBD

8. Why FBA?  The primary purpose of functional behavioral assessment is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of behavior support  Behavior support plans built from functional assessments are more effective  Didden et al., 1997Newcomer & Lewis, 2004  Carr et al., 1999Ingram, Lewis-Palmer & Sugai, 2006  Ellingson, et al., 2000; Filter & Horner, 2009

9. Filter & Horner, 2009

10. Ingram, Lewis-Palmer & Sugai, 2005

11. Newcomer & Lewis, 2004

12.  Federal legislation mandated the use of FBA in schools over a decade ago (IDEA, 1997).  Despite gallant efforts, schools continue to struggle to use FBA in supporting students with behavior problems  Blood & Neel, 2007; Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008; Scott et al., 2005; Van Acker et al., 2005  The field has voiced concerns as to if schools are adequately equipped to conduct effective FBAs  Drasgow & Yell, 2001; Ervin et al., 2001; Sasso et al., 2001

13.  FBA is used mainly as a reactionary approach.  opportunity is lost to utilize FBA technology to develop interventions that address minor behaviors that usually precede more serious problems.  FBA is restricted to set of procedures used by “experts”  The rich supply of information from people with whom the student interacts with the most is lost (Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006).  FBA is restricted to rigorous procedures that are unrealistic for public school settings.  Disincentive for using FBA technology.  Cynicism as to the practicality of FBA.

14.  FBA conceptualized as a proactive pre-referral routine that uses the most parsimonious procedures required to create an effective behavior support plan.  Given the time & resource constraints in schools, we must encourage schools to “work smarter” to develop capacity to implement technology to effectively support more students.  Use Practical FBA procedures to develop capacity within a school to utilize FBA technology.

15. Within Tier 3 More different than alike  Individualizing Interventions  Tier 3 = a range of assessments & interventions  Informal FBA  Match to Group Intervention  Practical FBA  Behavior Support Plan  FBS/Functional Analysis  Comprehensive BSP + Wraparound supports  Match level of assessment & intervention to level of student complexity and need

16. Observations and add’l Observations Multi-Disciplinary Assessment & Analysis Formal FBA PBIS Individual Student Support Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems Intensive Targeted Referral Data & FACTS Simple Student Interventions Targeted Interventions Complex Individualized Interventions Team-Based Wraparound Interventions Intervention Assessment Practical FBA No Assessment

17. Scaffold Implementation  Build from your foundation  Tier 1  Tier 2  Tier 3  Matching to Group Interventions based on Function  Identifying & Selecting group interventions based on Function  Build capacity for effective Function-Based Assessment  From simpler to more complex

18. Using Function-Based Assessment to Guide School-wide Intervention Planning Middle School: Students w/ 2 + referrals CICO ?

19. Adapting Interventions based on Function of Behavior  Use function to focus/expand existing interventions  Modify Check-In/ Check-Out for:  Escape Academic Tasks  Peer Attention  Efficient Intervention through planful transitions from Tier 2 to Tier 3

20. SWIS-CICO Report Support Plan Change Description 09/10/2008CICO 09/19/2008Brief FBA & modified CICO for Escape Acad Tasks CICO What NOW? FBA = Avoid Academic Tasks (esp. if HW not completed) Start w/ CICO – Academic focus

21. Tier 3 Challenges Individualization  Limited Resources  Time, FTE  Efficiency  Requisite skills & Training  Implementation

22. Tier 3 Behavior Systems Features & Considerations

23. District Organizing for Individual Student Supports School PBS Team CICO Team Student Support Team Building Specialist District Beh. Specialist

24. SW-PBIS District Planning

25. PBIS Framework in Action  TIER 3 Practices EffectiveRelevantEfficientDurableSustainableScalable Outcome s BeneficiariesMeasurement Educational/s ocial importance Examples, demonstration s, & exemplars Data Verification & description Implementati on fidelity Progress monitoring Systems Training & coaching Evaluation Leadership Policy & political support Funding & visibility Content fluency Team-led Function Based Support Monitoring & Revision Student Teachers Peers Increased: Acad Achvmt Attendence Reduced: -Disc Refer -Suspension -Expulsion -LRE Feasible, Accurate Student Progress Data Benchmarks of Adv Tiers District Beh Specialist Building Beh Specialists (Who? – ID roles & Define responsibilities) Commitment to serve most challenging students SWIS-ISIS

26. PBIS Framework in Action Practices EffectiveRelevantEfficientDurableSustainableScalable Outcome s BeneficiariesMeasurement Educational/s ocial importance Examples, demonstration s, & exemplars Data Verification & description Implementati on fidelity Progress monitoring Systems Training & coaching Evaluation Leadership Policy & political support Funding & visibility Content fluency

27. Building FBA Capacity Teachers Staff School Specialist District Specialist Behavior Analysts Informal FBA X Level I: Practical FBA XX Level II: Complex FBA XXX Level III: Functional Analysis XXXX Done in school by typical teachers/ staff as part of normal daily problem solving Done by trained members of school setting, typically involves interview(s), and brief observation Done by behaviorally trained member of school or district, typically involves interview(s), and brief observation Done by trained behavior analyst. Involves interviews, direct observation, and systematic manipulation of conditions.

28. Tier 3 Practices

29. Effective Function-Based Support Team & Effective Process FBA: ID Function Develop Behavior Support Plan Implement w/ fidelity Monitor & Revise

30. Behavior Support Elements Problem Behavior Functional Assessment Content of Support Plan Fidelity of Implementation Impact on Behavior and Lifestyle *Team *Specialist *Hypothesis statement *Competing Behavior Analysis *Contextual Fit *Implementation Plan *Technical Adequacy * Strengths * Preferences * Lifestyle vision

31. Establish a Functional Team  Knowledge about the individual  His/her behavior, interests, strengths, challenges, future  Knowledge about the context  Instructional goals, curriculum, social contingencies, schedule, physical setting.  Knowledge about behavioral technology  Elements of behavior/ Principles of behavior/ Intervention strategies  + Active Administrator participation

32. Outcomes of a Functional Behavioral Assessment  Operationally defined problem behavior(s )  By response class  Identify routines in which the problem behavior is most and least likely to occur  Define the antecedent events (triggers; setting events) that predict when the problem behavior is most likely  Define the ONE consequence that contributes most to maintaining the problem behavior in that routine.  Summary Statement of findings.

33. Functional Behavioral Assessment  Records Review  Routines Analysis  Interview  Observation  Contribute to development of a Summary Statement  Specificity is important  A = “Task too difficult” v. “worksheets w/ double digit multiplication totaling 99; any multiplication facts.”  C = “Escape from difficult task”

34. Using FBA to Design Effective Support: The Simple BSP  How can we prevent problem situations?  What should we teach as an alternative behavior?  How to increase reward of appropriate behavior?  How to minimize reward of problem behavior?  Are negative consequences for problem behavior needed?  Are safety routines needed?  What data to collect?  Are we doing the plan?  Is the plan working?

35. Leading a Team from FBA to BSP  FBA is designed to guide selection of interventions with an increased likelihood of success…. But for any intervention to be successful it must be IMPLEMENTED  The teaming process must account for contextual fit (Benazzi, Horner & Good, 2006).  What elements are feasible, acceptable, sustainable?  What is the smallest change that will produce the largest effect?  Contextual Fit:  The extent to which the people who will implement a behavior support plan find the elements of the plan  Consistent with their personal values  Consistent with the professional skills  Consistent with the resources available in the setting  Consistent with the available administrative support

37. Select #1 Ranked Answers to Insert into Summary Have Teacher Rate the Statement

39. Neutralize/ eliminate setting events Add relevant & remove irrelevant triggers Teach alternative that is more efficient Add effective & & remove ineffective reinforcers

40. Identify the “Replacement” Behavior  An appropriate Replacement Behavior:  Serves the same function as the problem behavior  The replacement behavior is a member of the same response class as the problem behavior  Is as, or more efficient than the problem behavior  physical effort, schedule of reinforcement, time to reinforcement  Is socially acceptable

41. Which of the Following are Appropriate Replacement Behaviors? Jason is nine and cries when asked to do difficult tasks. The crying is maintained by avoiding or escaping the tasks.  Possible Replacement Behaviors:  More rewards for doing tasks  Asking for a break from tasks  Asking to do something other than the tasks  Requesting adult attention  Asking to have soda after tasks are done

42. Which of the Following are Appropriate Replacement Behaviors? Jason is nine and cries when asked to do difficult tasks. The crying is maintained by avoiding or escaping the tasks.  Possible Replacement Behaviors:  More rewards for doing tasks  Asking for a break from tasks  Asking to do something other than the tasks  Requesting adult attention  Asking to have soda after tasks are done

43. Which of the Following are Appropriate Replacement Behaviors? Leslie is 12, has severe intellectual disabilities, does not use words, and hits her head. Head hitting is maintained by adult attention during work periods.  Which is the best Replacement Behavior  hide under her desk and be ignored  sign for “more” to another student  take completed work up to show the teacher  move to sit by another student  engage in stereotypies

44. Which of the Following are Appropriate Replacement Behaviors? Leslie is 12, has severe intellectual disabilities, does not use words, and hits her head. Head hitting is maintained by adult attention during work periods.  Which is the best Replacement Behavior  hide under her desk and be ignored  sign for “more” to another student  take completed work up to show the teacher  move to sit by another student  engage in stereotypies

45. Monitor & Revise  Plan implementation  Follow-up meetings  Meeting routines  Review task completion  Review Student Data  Student progress  Effective Data Systems required (SWIS-CICO & SWIS- ISIS)

46. Needs  District Structures & Plan  Defining Roles & Responsibilities (Coaching & Systems)  District Behavior Specialist  Hiring District Beh Specialist w/ necessary skills & experience  Coordinate Roles & Responsibilities  Teaming Processes  SPSYs, Admins, Couns, SPED, Beh Spec, etc….

47. Needs  District Structures & Plan  Effective PD plan focused on desired outcomes of Tier 3 FBA/BSP  Training  Coaching  Performance Assessment  Data Systems to facilitate teaming & decision making

48. Sheldon Loman sheldon.loman@pdx.edu Portland State University

49. School-wide Positive Behavioral Supports 80% of Students Secondary Group Supports 10-15% of Students Individualized Supports 5% of Students District Behavior Specialist(s) responsible for 25 FBAs in school of 500 School Specialists with “flexible” roles conduct proactive Practical FBA to expand the scope of FBA, prevent intensive problem behaviors, & decrease reliance on District Specialist.

50.  To determine if staff with flexible roles in schools (e.g., counselors, administrators) can be trained to conduct functional behavior assessments (FBA) for students with mild to moderate behavior problems (i.e., students with recurring problems that do not involve physical aggression or violent behaviors).  To determine the efficacy and acceptability of a “practical” training on FBA methods and tools with school personnel.

51.  Is there a relationship between the Practical FBA training and valid summary statements generated from FBA conducted by school professionals?

52. 1.Is there a change in school participant score on FBA knowledge Pre & Post Instruction? 2.Is the practical training & FBA process used efficient & socially valid for use in schools? 3.Are FBAs conducted by trained school personnel procedurally adequate? 4.Is there consistency between summary statements generated solely from FACTS interviews & Functional Analyses?

53. Phase 1- Practical FBA training on FBA tools & methods provided to 12 school professionals. -Demographic Information and Pre- & Post-Tests of FBA knowledge provided before and after Practical FBA training. Phase 2- Ten (10) trained school professionals conducted an FBA according to procedures they were taught for one student within their school. -Interview results with staff, observations of the student, and a summary statement based upon these will be generated by each school professional. Phase 3- Functional analyses conducted by researcher to test each participant’s hypothesis/summary statement -The percentage agreement between the functional analyses and summary statements calculated to determine the efficacy of the Practical FBA training.

54. 12 School professionals with a flexible role (i.e., not directly responsible for instruction of students) in an elementary school (K-5) 7 Counselors/ 2 Special Educators / 2 Principals/ 1 V.P. 58% stated they had completed an FBA before the training Average knowledge of behavioral theory= 3.4 out of 4 (extensive) 1. Participated in four 1-hour Practical FBA training sessions (over the course of 4 weeks) 2. Completed tests of FBA knowledge before and after the Practical FBA training program. 3. Completed a Practical FBA using the tools & procedures from training (Phase 2). -FACTS interviews, ABC Observations, Summary Statement 4. Completed a Time Expended Log & Acceptability Rating Profile Phase 1 & 2

55.  Important to use to determine if participants have the requisite skills to conduct a Practical FBA  Questions address participant’s knowledge in:  FBA Process  4-term Contingency/ Summarizing Behavior  Operationally defining behavior  Identifying Antecedents, Consequences, Function, Setting Events  Using common interview tool (FACTS) to identify routines & summarize behavior

56. Training Series 4 training sessions on conducting functional behavioral assessments (FBA) for students with mild to moderate behavioral problems in schools. The training series teaches participants to conduct interviews and observations in such a way as to precisely determine the relationship between student problem behavior and the context: – What the problem behaviors are. – When, Where, & Why a student’s problem behaviors occur. A summary of this information will help an individual student team develop effective behavioral supports that: -prevent problem behaviors from occurring -teach alternative behaviors -& effectively respond when problem behaviors occur. 56

57. Practical FBA process D.A.S.H. D efine behavior in observable & measurable terms A sk about behavior by interviewing staff & student -specify routines where & when behaviors occur -summarize where, when, & why behaviors occur S ee the behavior -observe the behavior during routines specified -observe to verify summary from interviews H ypothesize: a final summary of where, when & why behaviors occur 57 Session #1 Session #2 Session #3 Session #4

58. Objectives Review Activities Checks for Understanding Comments/ Questions Tasks Key Points 58

59. Practical FBA vs Comprehensive FBA Practical FBAComprehensive FBA For:Students with mild to moderate problem behaviors (behaviors that are NOT dangerous or occurring in many settings) Students with moderate to severe behavioral problems; may be dangerous and/or occurring in many settings What:Relatively simple and efficient process to guide behavior support planning Time-intensive process that also involves archival records review, family- centered planning, and collaboration with agencies outside of school Conducted by whom:School-based personnel (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators) Professionals trained to conduct functional assessments with students with severe problem behaviors (e.g., school psychologists, behavior specialists) 59 Focus of this training series

60.  Overview of the Practical FBA training series and introduces concepts, examples, and practice opportunities for participants to learn how to: (a) Define behavior (WHAT), (b) Identify events that predict WHEN & WHERE the specific behavior occurs (c) Identify the function of behavior (WHY), and (d) Construct functional behavioral summary statements TASK: Find someone at their site whom they may conduct a practice interview with next week.

61. ABC’s of Understanding Why students engage in problem behavior: Finding out the Pay-off or Function of Behavior A= Antecedent(s). Find out the events that occur right before the behavior. – Allows you to predict: Where (During routine)? & When (Trigger event)? B=Behavior. Find out what is the observable problem behavior? C=OutCome/ Consequence. Find out what happens after the behavior occurs? WHY? A  B  C 61

62. Remember: Always start with the Behavior 1- Once you have defined the behaviors (the What) 2- & know the Where & When the behaviors occur #2 (Routine & Antecedents) 3- Then want to find out WHY (the outCome of the behavior…what happens right afterwards) 62 2 Antecedent/Trigger: When _____ happens…. 1 Behavior: the student does (what)__ 3 Consequence/OutCome..because (why) ______

63. Defining Observable Problem Behaviors Definitions of behaviors need to be: – Observable: The behavior is an action that can be seen. – Measurable: The behavior can be counted or timed. – Defined so clearly that a person unfamiliar with the student could recognize the behavior without any doubts! 63

64. Functions that behaviors serve 64

65. Create a Hypothesis Statement for Johnny’s Behavior After interviewing Mr. Smith and conducting several observations of Johnny in the third grade classroom, the team determined that during less structured class time (free time, cooperative group art projects, etc.), Johnny tears up his paper and stomps his feet. After Johnny engages in this behavior his peers laugh at him. Routine: During __(some routine e.g.: _______________ 65 Antecedent/Trigger: “When..” Behavior: “Student does..” Consequence/OutCome: “Because..” Peers laugh at him Therefore, the function of the behavior is to: get/avoid Peer Attention Less structured class time Third grade classroom Tears up paper & stomps feet

66.  Review content from the first session  Instruction, modeling, and practice opportunities in conducting FACTS interviews with staff (modified from Borgmeier, 2005) and students.  Practice constructing behavioral summary statements from each interview. TASK: Complete a practice FACTS interview with a staff member at school site.

68. Select #1 Ranked Answers to Insert into Summary Have Teacher Rate the Statement

69.  Review content from previous training sessions & practice interviews from week before  Instruction & practice opportunities (using videos) for participants to conduct ABC observations of students within routines identified as settings in which the problem behavior occurs most frequently (based upon the staff FACTS interviews).  Participants practice constructing summary statements based upon data from their observations to verify or modify summary statements derived from their FACTS interviews. TASK: Complete a practice ABC observation at school site.

72.  Review of concepts, skills from first three sessions.  Review practice ABC observations & summarizing results  Provide opportunities for participants to practice the skills that they have learned in conducting interviews, observations, and constructing behavioral summary statements;  Introduce the Competing Behavior Pathway and ideas for helping individual student support teams in designing function-based behavioral supports.

73. Neutralize/ eliminate setting events Add relevant & remove irrelevant triggers Teach alternative that is more efficient Add effective & & remove ineffective reinforcers

74. The school professionals were asked to utilize the practical tools/methods from Practical FBA training to develop a hypothesis (summary) statement of student problem behavior. School professional participants completed:  Practical FBA  Interview with Staff, Observation, Summary of Behavior  Time Expended Log  Acceptability Rating Profile

75.  10 elementary students identified for the study based on staff nomination for a functional behavioral assessment 8 Boys, 2 Girls from Grades K to 4 th grade  Students were included based on the criteria that they were exhibiting problem behaviors within the school setting that were impeding their school progress, but were not dangerous to other students or school staff  Students were observed by school staff that have received the Practical FBA training to complete the Practical FBA process  Upon completion of the Practical FBA, Functional Analyses were conducted with each student to verify hypothesis of personnel. Phase 2 Phase 3

76. Setting EventAntecedentBehaviorConsequence Teacher/Staff Interview Academic Failure in previous class that day Difficult tasks, any word problems & most math operations Work refusal, doodling, not follow directives, yells at teacher, disruptive Avoid math task, doodling, work refusal, sent to office ABC Observation Negative relationship w/ teacher??? Teacher confrontation Work refusal, doodling, yells at teacher, disruptive Avoid teacher confrontation, avoid math task, to office Final Summary of Behavior (move to Behavior Plan) Negative relationship w/ teacher & previous academic failure 1. Teacher confrontation 2. Math task Work refusal, doodling, yells at teacher, disruptive Avoid math task & teacher confrontation

77.  Individualized according to the functional hypotheses developed by the school professionals.  The functional analyses for all students consist of at least three conditions: control, attention, and escape.  Control Condition: baseline condition in which student has consistently exhibited little or no problem behavior. Reinforcement should be freely available and no demands placed on student  Attention Condition : will involve the contingent provision of attention following occurrence of the problem behavior.  Escape Condition: will examine the function of student behavior through the contingent removal of aversive tasks (e.g., difficult, long, or physically taxing tasks)

78. N=12 Overall Pretest M= 39.50% (SD=18.82%) Overall Posttest M= 92.55% (SD=7.22%) Results: Phase 1 99% Inter-rater Total Agreement on 25% of tests.

79. Skill/KnowledgePre-TrainingPost-Training FBA Process0% (33% Partial)92% (8% Partial) 4-Term Contingency/ Summarize Behavior 17% (25% Partial)94% (6% Partial) Define Behavior53%96% Identify Antecedent33%92% Identify Consequence42%92% Identify Function46%96% Identify Setting Events42%100% Forms: ID Routine83%100% Forms: Summarize Behavior0% (33% Partial)67% (25% Partial) N=12

80.  Each participant rated their agreement or disagreement with statements concerning the training, tools, and process.  Likert Scale of 1 to 6: 1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Slightly Disagree 4= Slightly Agree 5= Agree 6= Strongly Agree

81. Acceptability Ratings Agree Results: Phase 2 N=10

82.  Scheduling FACTS interview with teachers  Median= 5 min (Range= 2 to 90 min)  Conducting FACTS interview with teachers  Median= 35 min (Range= 15 to 90 min)  Observing Student Behavior using ABC Forms  Median= 33 min (Range= 10 to 108 min)  Completing Summary of Behavior Table  Median= 15 minutes (Range= 5 to 30 min)  Entire Practical FBA process for 1 student  Median= 95 minutes (Range= 65 to 275 min)  Number of School Days to Complete Practical FBA  Median= 11 days (Range= 2 to 39 days) Results: Phase 2

83.  An FBA Procedural Adequacy Checklist was used to rate each FBA on the following criteria:  Interviews were conducted with a staff member who worked with the student during routines where problem behavior occurred  Problem behavior was defined in observable and measurable terms  A routine was prioritized for direct observation  An antecedent event was defined as triggering the problem behavior  Only one maintaining function of the problem behavior was identified 83 100% of the FBAs conducted met all of these criteria. 100% Inter-rater Agreement Results: Phase 2

84.  9 out of 10 of the summary statements hypothesized by the FACTS interviews with teachers were verified by results of experimental functional analysis  The one FACTS summary statement that was not verified by FA actually resulted in further clarification from the direct observation.  The school participant decided to use the results from the direct observation which resulted in a function that was verified by experimental functional analysis. Results: Phase 3

85. Student 1 Hypothesis: Escape Math Work 1. Is Esc different than Control? 2. Is Esc different than Attn?

86. Participant 2 Hypothesis: Access Adult Attention All 10 of the FAs confirmed the Hypothesis Statements

87.  Is there a relationship between the Practical FBA training and valid summary statements generated from FBA conducted by school professionals?  All 10 of the functional analyses conducted confirmed that personnel were able to accurately identify motivating operations & maintaining function of student behavior

88.  Suggest that school personnel can conduct “valid” FBAs for students with mild to moderate behavioral problems.  Suggest the utility and acceptability of practical FBA training methods to train school personnel in schools to conduct FBA.  It may be possible to train school personnel within the constraints of professional development in schools.  Suggest the utility of the FACTS interview tool to guide FBAs, but direct observation is needed.

89.  Use of Basic FBA v. Comprehensive FBA  Proactive, Parsimonious, Practical  Implications of direct observation validation  Ideas on how to organize personnel within a school/district to implement best practices

90.  People think they know more than they really do  School personnel can learn quickly  School personnel can conduct FBAS that would guide behavioral interventions  Manual is available  District’s can develop capacity to use or hire someone to teach Practical FBA to school personnel

91.  Designed to be used by someone well-versed in FBA and behavioral principles (e.g., behavior specialist, school psychologist) to train school personnel.  Has been used in a district in Oregon to train instructional assistants, teachers, and specialists from elementary, middle, and high schools (over 30 in attendance).

92. Since 1997 FBA has not been implemented widely in schools. Not due to lack of knowledge, but to practicality of use

93. References  Benazzi, L., Horner, R., & Good, R. (2006). Effects of Behavior Support Team Composition on the Technical Adequacy and Contextual Fit of Behavior Support Plans. Journal of Special Education, 40 (3), 160-170.  Crone, D.A. & Horner, R.H. (2003). Building Positive Behavior Support Systems in Schools: Functional Behavioral Assessment. Guilford Press: New York.  Filter, K., & Horner, R. (2009). Function-Based Academic Interventions for Problem Behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32 (1), 1-19.  Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-Based Intervention Planning: Comparing the Effectiveness of FBA Function-Based and Non-Function- Based Intervention Plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7 (4), 224-236.  Scott, T., & Caron, D. (2005). Conceptualizing Functional Behavior Assessment as Prevention Practice within Positive Behavior Support Systems. Preventing School Failure, 50 (1), 13.  Scott, T., & Kamps, D. (2007). The Future of Functional Behavioral Assessment in School Settings. Behavioral Disorders, 32 (3), 146-157.  Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C., & McIntyre, J. (2005). Team-Based Functional Behavior Assessment as a Proactive Public School Process: A Descriptive Analysis of Current Barriers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14 (1), 57-71.  Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G. Heineman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C.M. Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Rutherford-Turnbull, H., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.

94.  Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2007). From FBA to Implementation: A Look at What Is Actually Being Delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (4), 67-80.  Hawken, L., Vincent, C., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to Intervention for Social Behavior: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16 (4), 213-225.  Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are We on the Right Course? Lessons Learned about Current FBA/BIP Practices in Schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14 (1), 35-56.  Yell, M., & Drasgow, E. (2001). Legal Requirements for Assessing Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26 (1), 5-17.  Ervin, R., Radford, P., Bertsch, K., Piper, A., Ehrhardt, K., & Poling, A. (2001). A Descriptive Analysis and Critique of the Empirical Literature on School-Based Functional Assessment. School Psychology Review, 30 (2), 193-210.  O’Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Storey, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.  Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Stichter, J. P., & Fox, J. F. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282-296.