Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO)

Study: Mong, Johnson, & Mong (2011)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

The Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO) is a tier 2 behavior intervention designed primarily to improve students' mild to moderate problem behavior. BEP/CICO provides a structure for positive adult contact to be made with the student throughout the day. The students identified for the intervention check-in with the BEP/CICO coordinator at the start of each school day, and checkout with the coordinator before leaving school. At check-in, the students are provided with a Daily Progress Report (DPR) that lists the school wide expectations and a place to rank student behavior in corresponding columns. Teachers rank the student at specified blocks of time throughout the day (i.e. each class period in secondary schools; each subject area block of time in elementary schools, etc.), and provide corrective feedback and/or positive reinforcement. At check-out at the end of the day, the BEP/CICO coordinator totals the percentage of points earned to determine whether each student has met their individual goal for the percentage of points on the DPR available. If the student meets their goal, they receive a reinforcer. Students take their DPR to show to their parents and obtain a parent signature, and return it the following day at morning check-in. 

This program is intended for use in grades kindergarten through high school. The program is intended for use with students with disabilities, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, English language learners, and any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

The area of focus is externalizing behavior which includes: physical aggression, verbal threats, property destruction, noncompliance, high levels of disengagement, disruptive behavior, social behavior, and, most broadly, behavior that is maintained by peer or adult attention.

Where to Obtain: Guilford Press

Address: 72 Spring St. New York, NY 10012

Phone: (800)- 365-7006

Website: www.guilford.com

Those interested in implementing the program can obtain a copy of Crone, Hawken, & Horner's "Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program" from Guilford Press for $34.85. This book includes all necessary information for implementing BEP/CICO at a school, as well as suggestions for how to best adapt the program for each school's unique setting. The cost of implementation is variable, based on how schools choose to create the DPR, as well as reinforce positive behavior. At the low end of costs, schools can choose to create a simple half sheet piece of paper for the DPR, and provide activity or attention reinforcers. At the other end of expenses, schools can choose to have the DPR on triplicate carbon copy paper, and provide a range of tangible reinforcers. The book provides examples of DPRs to assist schools in creating their own, as well as suggestions for reinforcers and guidelines for choosing effective reinforcers. The basic materials required for implementation are a BEP coordinator to facilitate check-in/check-out and record student data, the DPR form, and reinforcers for students. The coordinator can be a person already on staff, such as a paraprofessional or school counselor, who can dedicate approximately 10 hours per week to facilitation of the BEP/CICO.   

This program is designed for use with small groups of approximately 15 students and no more than 10% of school population.

One coordinator is needed to implement and facilitate the program, however, because BEP is a school wide program, it involves all of the included students' teachers.

The program is affiliated with a broad school or classwide management program.

The program does not require technology.

Four to eight hours or more of training are required for the interventionist. The coordinator can be trained in the intervention with a half day or full day training. On-going support for the first few weeks of implementation is helpful, but not essential for the program's success.

The interventionist must at a minimum be a paraprofessional.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals or instructions for implementation.

The manual was developed following implementation of the intervention in two middle schools and one elementary school in Oregon. Fern Ridge Middle School in Elmira, Oregon developed the first version of this intervention which was then manualized and pilot tested with an additional middle school and an elementary school. These schools were chosen because they had school-wide/Tier 1 positive behavior support in place and had at least 10% of their student population at risk for engaging in more severe problem behavior. 

Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support through contacting university personnel.

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were identified as having/being at high risk for emotional or behavioral difficulties based on their receipt of 5 office discipline referrals within one month, as well as evidence of problem behavior occurring consistently throughout the day in different settings.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Lauren

8 years old/3rd grade

Female

Caucasian

Not reported

No history of receipt of special education services

Not reported

Lauren frequently talked out during instruction, disrupted other students during independent seat work, didn't follow teacher directions, and engaged in multiple aspects of these problem behaviors in both the classroom and the cafeteria (Mong, Johnson & Mong, 2011).

Case 2: Andrew

8 years old/3rd grade

Male

African-American

Not reported, but Andrew did receive Title 1 services for reading and math at the time of the study. 

No history of receiving special education services

Not reported

Andrew engaged in inappropriate behavior in the music classroom as well as the general education classroom. His inappropriate behavior included talking during instruction and not complying with teacher directions or requests (Mong, Johnson & Mong, 2011).

Case 3: Pam

9 years old/3rd grade

Female

African-American

Not reported

Pam had never received special education services at the time of this study.

Not reported

The majority of Pam's office discipline referrals were based on non-compliance with teacher requests and bus driver instructions, as well as talking out during instruction, and failure to complete assignments (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011).

Case 4: Stanley

8 year old/3rd grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

Stanley had never received special education services at the time of the study

Not reported

Stanley's problem behavior consisted of off-task behavior, non-compliance, and talking out during instruction and physical education (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011).

Training of Instructors: The interventionists (BEP coordinators) were two guidance counselors. The first author trained the teachers and the guidance counselors in each phase prior to its implementation. The training consisted of the first author describing and modeling the procedures, then having staff members practice the procedures with the author providing feedback (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011). 

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? No

Implemented with Fidelity: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity was assessed for at least 33% of all observation sessions, evenly distributed across all phases of the study. Fidelity was assessed using the CICO Integrity Checklist. Interobserver agreement was also conducted for at least 33% of CICO sessions.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Interobserver agreement for problem behavior observation data was above 94% on average per participant. Treatment integrity was at least 88% for each participant. 

Measures Targeted: Partially Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Direct observation of problem behavior

IOA data demonstrated at least 94% consistency across 33% of observation periods.

Program focus is on decreasing problem behavior throughout the day, so having observations conducted in a variety of class periods is highly relevant to the program focus.

Control group students were not observed. Control group students also did not access any of the five components of the CICO intervention.

Percentage of DPR points earned

Evaluations of the DPR across students show signs of internal consistency, stability across time, concurrent validity and sensitivity to treatment effects (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011).

DPR points earned is a direct measure of the intervention, as a goal of BEP/CICO is to improve students' behavior throughout the day. Percentage of DPR points earned measures not only the average behavior of the student, but the students' specific behavior throughout each day and across the intervention. 

Control group students were not rated on a DPR.

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Researcher developed progress monitoring probes for math (modified from interventioncentral's Math Worksheet Generator).

Interscorer agreement was conducted for approximately 33% of probes. Probes were scored independently by two researchers until rules were clarified and revised to obtain 90% agreement on a set of 45 probes.

It has been hypothesized that improving students' on-task behavior could have additional benefits for their academics, as less problem behavior creates more time for academic focus.

Control group students were not given progress monitoring probes. Control group students also did not access any of the five components of the CICO intervention

 

Administrative Measure

Relevance to program focus

Office Discipline Referrals

Office discipline referrals are relevant to the program focus, as the main goal of BEP/CICO is to reduce problem behaviors.

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference): The differences between baseline and intervention means were used to assess the effect of the intervention. Graphs of observation data for problem behaviors, percentage of DPR points earned, office discipline referrals, and academic progress monitoring were also visually inspected for level, trend, and variability. 

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns:

Observation of problem behavior: Lauren decreased problem behaviors in the baseline phase from 31.3% of intervals to 17.9% of intervals in the intervention phase. Her baseline had an increasing trend and moderate variability. The implementation of the intervention was marked by an immediate decrease in level and trend of problem behaviors compared to the baseline phase. Andrew decreased problem behaviors in the baseline phase from 42.7% to 21.6% of intervals in the intervention phase. Andrew had relatively no trend in the baseline phase, and showed an immediate decrease in problem behaviors upon implementation of CICO. Pam decreased the percentage of intervals with problem behavior from 21% in baseline to 16.9% in intervention. Pam had a gradual decrease in level and trend in the intervention phase compared with the baseline phase. Stanley had 36% of intervals with problem behavior in the baseline phase, which decreased to 29.3% of intervals with problem behavior in the intervention phase. Stanley's problem behavior also decreased gradually in level and trend upon implementation of CICO (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011).

Percentage of DPR points earned: Lauren increased the average percentage of DPR points earned from 48% of points in baseline to 79% in intervention. Andrew increased the average percentage of DPR points earned from 37% in baseline to 82% in intervention. Pam increased the average percentage of DPR points earned from 56% in baseline to 75% in intervention. Stanley increased the average percentage of DPR points earned from 44% in baseline to 78% in intervention. Lauren and Andrew had 100% Percentage of Non-Overlapping Data (PND), which indicates that the intervention was effective at increasing the percentage of DPR points earned. The intervention was also effective in increasing the percentage of DPR points earned for Pam and Stanley, who each had 92% PND (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011). 

Office discipline referrals: Lauren reduced her office discipline referrals from 2.3 per week in baseline to 1 per week in intervention. Andrew reduced his office discipline referrals from 4.3 per week in baseline to 1 per week in intervention. Pam reduced her office discipline referrals from 1.7 per week in baseline to 1 per week in intervention. Stanley reduced his office discipline referrals from 5 per week in baseline to 2.3 per week in intervention. Each student showed a decreasing trend in office discipline referrals during the intervention phase, and had a high percentage (approximately 75%) of non-overlapping data points between baseline and intervention phases (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011).

Academic progress: For each of the participants, there was evidence of moderately increasing trends in number of problems correct during the intervention phase. It was also observed that errors for the majority of participants decreased in level, trend, and variability during the intervention phase (Mong, Johnson, & Mong, 2011). 

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Small groups (n = approx. 15)

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: Yes

Behavior Education Program Fidelity of Implementation Measure (BEP-FIM) Scoring Guide

School:                                                            Date:                           Pre:                 Post:              

District:                                                            State:                                      Data collector:                    

Evaluation Question

Data Source

P =  permanent product;

 I = Interview; O= Observation

Score

0-2

1. Does the school employ a BEP coordinator whose job is to manage the BEP (10-15 hours per week allocated)

(0 = No BEP Coordinator, 1 = BEP coordinator but less than 10 hours per week allocated, 2= BEP Coordinator, 10-15 hours per week allocated)

Interviews with                     I

Administrator & BEP

Coordinator                               

 

2. Does the school budget contain an allocated amount of money to maintain the BEP ?(e.g. money for reinforcer, DPR forms, etc. (0 = No,  2 = Yes)

BEP Budget                         P / I

Interviews

 

3. Do students who are referred to the BEP receive support within a week? (0 = more than 2 weeks between referral and BEP support, 1 = within 2 weeks, 2 = within a week)

Interview                              P / I

BEP Referrals & BEP Start dates

 

 

 

4. Does the administrator serve on the BEP team or review BEP data on a regular basis? (0 = no, 1 = yes, but not consistently, 2 = yes)

Interview                                 I

 

 

5. Do 90% of BEP team members state that the BEP system has been taught/reviewed on an annual basis? (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

Interview                                 I

 

6. Do 90% of the students on the BEP check-in daily?(Randomly sample 3 days for recording)

(0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP recording form                 P

 

 

7.  Do 90% of students on the BEP check-out daily?(Randomly sample 3 days for recording)

(0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP recording form                 P

 

8. Do 90% of students on the BEP report that they receive reinforcement (e.g. verbal, tangible) for meeting daily goals? (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

Interview students on BEP      I

 

9. Do 90% of students on the BEP receive regular feedback from teachers? (randomly sample 50% of student DPR’s across 3 days) (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP Daily Progress Reports     P

 

10. Do 90% of students on the BEP receive feedback from their parents? (0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

BEP Daily Progress Reports      P

 

11. Does the BEP coordinator enter DPR data daily? 

(0 = no, 1 =  1-4 x a week, 2 = daily)

Interview                                   I

 

12. Do 90% of BEP team members indicate that the daily BEP data is used for decision-making? 

(0 = 0-50%, 1 = 51-89%, 2 = 90–100%)

Interview                                   I

 

 

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional 4-8+ hours of training

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 11 studies

Cheney, D., Flower, A., & Templeton, T. (2008). Applying Response to Intervention Metrics in the Social Domain for Students at Risk of Developing Emotional or Behavioral Disorders. Journal of Special Education, 42, 108-126.

Cheney, D., Stage, S. A., Hawken, L., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C. & Waugh, M. (2009). A Two-Year Outcome Study of the Check, Connect, and Expect Intervention for Students At-Risk for Severe Behavior Problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 226-243.

Ennis, R.P., Jolivette, K., Swoszowski, N.C., & Johnson, M.L. (2012). Secondary Prevention Efforts at a Residential Facility for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Function-Based Check-In, Check-Out. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 29, 79-102.

Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., & Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to Intervention: Examining Classroom Behavior Support in Second Grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 288-310.

Kauffman, A.L. (2008). Stimulus Fading within Check-In/Check-Out. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (8580).

Lane, K.L., Capizzi, A.M., Fisher, M.H., & Ennis, R.P. (2012). Secondary Prevention Efforts at the Middle School Level: An Application of the Behavior Education Program. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(1), 51-90.

Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Briere, D. E. (2011). Comparing a Behavioral Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) Intervention to Standard Practice in an Urban Middle School Setting Using an Experimental Group Design. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 31.

Swain-Bradway, J. L. (2009). An Analysis of a Secondary Level Intervention for High School Students at Risk of School Failure: The High School Behavior Education Program. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (10262).

Swoszowski, N. C. (2010). Function-Based Responding to Check-In/Check-Out for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in a Residential Facility. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Georgia State University Digital Archive. (62).

Swoszowski, N.C., Jolivette, K., Fredick, L.D., & Heflin, L.J. (2012). Check-In/Check-Out: Effects on Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders with Attention or Escape-Maintained Behavior in a Residential Facility. Exceptionality, 20, 163-178.

Turtura, J. E. (2011). An Evaluation of a Secondary Intervention for Reducing Problem Behaviors and Improving Academic Outcomes in Schools. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from University of Oregon Libraries. (11146).