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

Study: Campbell & Anderson, (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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Students were identified as having/being at high risk for emotional or behavioral difficulties based on teacher referral, as well as receipt of 2-5 office discipline referrals.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Kyle

2nd grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

Received special education services under the category of Specific Learning Disability in reading

Not reported

Kyle had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (combined type) and was taking methylphenidate throughout the study. The levels of methylphenidate remained constant throughout the study. Kyle was referred to CICO due to disruptive behavior, which included talking to peers during large group instruction, making noises, and being out of his seat (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

Case 2: Mike

5th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

Did not qualify for special education services

Not reported

Mike received additional small group reading instruction from an assistant in a large-group reading class. Mike's problem behavior included talking to peers during instruction, being out of his seat during instruction, and failure to complete assignments (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

Case 3: Nick

5th grade

Male

Latino

Not reported

Received special education services under the category of speech and language impairment.

Not reported

Nick had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (combined type) and was taking amphetamine and dextroamphetamine throughout the study. The dosages of both medications remained constant throughout the study. Nick was referred for CICO due to his disruptive and off-task behavior during instruction, which included being out of his seat and talking to peers during independent work (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

Case 4: Paul

5th grade

Male

Caucasian

Not reported

Received services under the category of specific learning disability in reading.

Not reported

Paul was referred to the study by his teacher due to disruption and noncompliance, which included talking to peers during quiet time, making inappropriate noises such as pencil tapping and humming, and refusing to complete work (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

 

Training of Instructors: The interventionist (CICO coordinator) was a special education teacher at the school. Additional information regarding the background and experience of the coordinator was not reported.

Design: 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? Not applicable

Implemented with Fidelity: Convincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity of treatment information was obtained for 27% of the days that the students participated in CICO Fidelity was assessed by observers who completed a 12-item checklist that rated the presence of key features of CICO, including check-in, provision of the DPR, prompt to be successful, student returning the home report, student approaching the teacher throughout the day to receive feedback, teacher ranking the student's behavior with points, teacher providing verbal praise or corrective feedback, student check-out at the end of the day, student providing completed DPR card to coordinator, coordinator tallying and recording total points earned for the day, coordinator providing the student with feedback on their behavior, coordinator completion of the parent report, and provision of the parent report to the student. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was also conducted for 25% of the fidelity observations (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

IOA was also conducted by having two independent observers simultaneously collect data during 32% of observations across all 4 participants (Campbell & Anderson, 2011). 

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity of the intervention was, on average, 97%, with 97% IOA agreement on average. For IOA conducted on observations of problem behavior, agreement was at least 91% on average per student. For IOA conducted on observations of academic engagement, agreement was at least 90% on average per student.

Measures Targeted: Partially Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Observation of problem behavior

IOA was conducted for 32% of observations across all 4 participants, with at least 90% agreement. Problem behavior was also operationally defined to ensure consistency.

The BEP/CICO intervention seeks primarily to decrease problem behavior throughout the day, so observed problem behavior is highly relevant to the program focus.

Students who were not participating in the CICO intervention were not observed during any phase of this study.

Percentage of DPR points earned

DPR points have been found to be reliable and consistent measures of student behavior that are also sensitive to intervention effects.In this study, DPR points were collected by the teachers during all phases, including baseline and component analysis phases, to provide a comparative mechanism.

DPR points are relevant to the program, as they are a direct measure of behavior throughout specific time periods during the day. The goal of CICO is to address problem behaviors that occur throughout the day.

Students who were not participating in the intervention/study did not have any record of DPR points.

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Observations of academic engagement

IOA was conducted for 32% of all observation sessions across all 4 participants, with at least 90% agreement.

Functionally, the goal of improving students' behavior is to provide more opportunities for academic success. Improvements in academic engagement would provide indications of whether the intervention improves academic success.

Students who were not participating in the CICO intervention were not observed during any phase of this study.

 

 

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): Visual analysis of level, trend, variability, and immediacy of effect were used to evaluate whether CICO improved student behavior. Additionally, the means between phases were also compared to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: Kyle decreased his problem behavior from 37% of intervals in baseline to 12% of intervals in intervention. Mike decreased his problem behavior from 28% of intervals during baseline to 11% of intervals in intervention. Nick decreased his problem behavior from 28% of intervals during baseline to 8% of intervals during intervention. Paul reduced his problem behavior from 23% of intervals during baseline to 16% of intervals during intervention. All participants had increases in academic engagement, and these improvements were maintained throughout the component analysis. During CICO, the average percentage of DPR points earned was 84% for Kyle, 82% for Mike, 90% for Nick, and 86% for Paul. During the component analysis, the participants maintained over 84% of DPR points earned when morning and afternoon feedback sessions were removed, and maintained over 72% of DPR points when the final feedback session was removed. All participants displayed slightly increasing trends of problem behavior during baseline and return to baseline. With the exception of Paul, whose intervention data showed a moderate degree of variability, each of the participants' variability and level of problem behavior decreased during the first intervention phase. During the second intervention phase, all participants level, variability and trend of problem behavior decreased. This trend was maintained during the component analysis, with only slight increases in variability for each participant. For academic engagement, the students showed either level or moderately decreasing trends during baseline. During intervention phases, graphs of each students' academic engagement reflect moderately increasing trends, as well as decreasing variability. These trends were maintained during component analysis, with only very slight increases in variability for Nick and Paul (Campbell & Anderson, 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).