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

Study: Hawken & Horner (2003)

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: Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were identified as having or being at high risk for emotional or behavioral difficulties based on their receipt of at least 5 office discipline referrals, as well as teacher/staff referral for additional behavioral support. Two of the students were receiving special education services at the time of the study, and one other student was receiving Title 1 services at the time of the study (Hawken & Horner, 2003).  

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Ryan

13 years old/6th grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

Receiving services for deficits in reading, writing, and math

Not reported

Ryan spent approximately 70% of his day in special education classes, and did not meet the 5th grade proficiency standards in reading, writing, or math. Ryan engaged in problem behavior including talking out, throwing materials, and disrupting peers. Based on a Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Students (FACTS), Ryan's problem behavior was found to be maintained by peer and adult attention (Hawken & Horner, 2003). 

Case 2: Scott

12 years old/6th grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

Eligible for services

Not reported

Scott engaged in problem behavior that included talking back to teachers, disrupting peers, and refusing to comply with teacher requests. Scott met the proficiency standards for 5th grade in reading, writing, and math, but his teachers reported concern about Scott's failure to complete assignments or come prepared to class. The results of a FACTS interview showed that Scott's behavior was likely maintained by attention from peers (Hawken & Horner, 2003). 

Case 3: Martin

13 years old/6th grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported/ Received Title 1 services for reading and math

Referred for special education services, but found ineligible due to a high number of absences

Not reported

Martin engaged in problem behavior that included talking out during class, talking back to teachers, and physical aggression. Martin met the 5th grade proficiency standards for reading, but not for math or writing (Hawken & Horner, 2003).

Case 4: Jalen

13 years old/6th grade

Male

Not reported

Not reported

Receiving services at time of study

Not reported

Jalen's problem behavior included failing to comply with teacher directions/instructions, talking out during class, and refusing to do work. Jalen met the 5th grade standard for proficiency for reading, but not for writing and math. Results of a FACTS interview indicated that Jalen's problem behavior was likely due to seeking peer attention (Hawken & Horner, 2003).

Training of Instructors: The interventionist (BEP coordinator) was an Educational Assistant. Additional information about the interventionist is not provided.

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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity of treatment information was obtained by reviewing the DPRs of each student three times per student throughout the intervention.

Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were also collected for the observations in both the baseline and intervention phase for at least 20% of the observations in each phase. The number of intervals with agreement was divided by the total number of intervals and multiplied by 100% (Hawken & Horner, 2003).  

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: The intervention was implemented with a high degree of fidelity; parent signatures were obtained on 67% of the DPRs, 83% of the DPRs showed evidence of appropriate check-in procedures, 75% of the DPRs showed evidence of appropriate check-out procedures, 92% of DPRs showed appropriate teacher feedback completion, and 100% of the DPRs were recorded in data collection.

IOA for each of the participants problem behavior observations was at least 97% for total agreement and 84% for occurrence only agreement. IOA for each of the participants academic engagement was at least 93% for total agreement (Hawken & Horner, 2003).    

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

20 minute Observation Intervals- Problem behavior

IOA conducted for at least 20% of observation intervals; IOA indicated 97% total agreement

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

Observations were conducted approximately once per week on five same gender peers who were in close proximity to the target student and engaging in the same academic task as the target student. Observations of control peers were conducted to provide additional context for behaviors occuring. The control peers did not receive any BEP intervention components.

20 minute Observation Intervals- Academic Engagement

IOA conducted for at least 20% of observational intervals; IOA indicated 93% total agreement.

Academic engagement was a secondary variable, but is functionally related to the goals of the BEP intervention, as increasing academic engagement may be aligned with decreasing problem behavior.

Observations were conducted approximately once per week on five same gender peers who were in close proximity to the target student and engaging in the same academic task as the target student. Observations of control peers were conducted to provide additional context for behaviors occuring. The control peers did not receive any BEP intervention components.

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Partially 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 and academic engagement were also visually inspected for level, trend, and variability. 

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns:

For observations of problem behavior: Ryan's percentage of intervals with problem behavior decreased from 29% in baseline to 12% in intervention; Scott's percentage of intervals with problem behavior decreased from 14% in baseline to 9% in intervention; Martin's percentage of intervals with problem behavior decreased from 18% in baseline to 10% in intervention; Jalen's percentage of intervals with problem behavior decreased from 12% in baseline to 1% in intervention. Ryan's baseline levels of problem behavior were variable between 8% and 52%, but the baseline trend was flat. Scott's baseline data reveal an increasing trend over the last six days of baseline, with variability prior to the increasing trend. Martin's baseline was shorter and had a slightly decreasing trend. Jalen's baseline data was very stable and had a range of 0%-30% intervals with problem behavior. During intervention, Ryan's data showed a decreasing trend with low variability. Scott, Martin, and Jalen each had relatively low variability during the intervention as well. Ryan, Scott, and Jalen each showed a reduction in the variability of behavior across days during the intervention phase as well (Hawken & Horner, 2003).

For observations of academic engagement: Baseline data showed high variability for each of the participants' academic engagement during baseline. Ryan's percentage of intervals with academic engagement increased from 48% during baseline to 58% during intervention; Scott's percentage of intervals with academic engagement increased from 48% during baseline to 78% during intervention; Martin's percentage of intervals with academic engagement increased from 63% during baseline to 80% during intervention; Jalen's percentage of intervals with academic engagement increased from 63% during baseline to 85% during intervention. There were visible increasing trends of academic engagement for Ryan and Martin during the intervention phase. Scott, Martin, and Jalen had decreases in variability of academic engagement between baseline and intervention phases (Hawken & Horner, 2003).  

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).