Check, Connect, and Expect
Study: Cheney et al. (2009)

Summary

Basic level: Morning check in with coach. Coach (a) checked to see if parents signed yesterday’s DPR, (b) presented the student with that day’s DPR, (c) gave reminders to the student about DPR expectations, (d) prompted student to go to class (as needed), and (e) redirected student’s inappropriate behavior during the procedure (as needed). After check-in, the coach rounded up any missing CCE participants (as needed) to ensure that all intervention students checked-in daily. Afternoon check-out with coach. Coach (a) collected the student’s DPR and tallied his or her points, (b) verbally praised student’s success on the DPR, (c) gave verbal feedback for the student’s problem behavior, and (d) redirected the student’s inappropriate behavior during the procedure (as needed). Self-monitoring:Same procedures as basic, but students self-rated their behavior and compared ratings with teacher ratings. Basic plus: Same procedures as basic, but students received incentives for behavior. Also, coaches provided tutoring for academic work completion, if points not earned for work completion and a social skills intervention program was provided for students who did not meet goals for following directions.

Target Grades:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Target Populations:
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
  • Other: OHI, LD seconda
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Other:
Where to Obtain:
Initial Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
Not available

N/A in this paper. See McDaniel paper for more specific description of training.


Not described

Access to Technical Support:
Not available
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
Minimum Number of Weeks:
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

Basic level: Morning check in with coach. Coach (a) checked to see if parents signed yesterday’s DPR, (b) presented the student with that day’s DPR, (c) gave reminders to the student about DPR expectations, (d) prompted student to go to class (as needed), and (e) redirected student’s inappropriate behavior during the procedure (as needed). After check-in, the coach rounded up any missing CCE participants (as needed) to ensure that all intervention students checked-in daily. Afternoon check-out with coach. Coach (a) collected the student’s DPR and tallied his or her points, (b) verbally praised student’s success on the DPR, (c) gave verbal feedback for the student’s problem behavior, and (d) redirected the student’s inappropriate behavior during the procedure (as needed). Self-monitoring:Same procedures as basic, but students self-rated their behavior and compared ratings with teacher ratings. Basic plus: Same procedures as basic, but students received incentives for behavior. Also, coaches provided tutoring for academic work completion, if points not earned for work completion and a social skills intervention program was provided for students who did not meet goals for following directions.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
not selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
OHI, LD seconda

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
Phone Number
Website

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
Unit of cost

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
Minimum number of sessions per week
Minimum number of weeks
selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Not available

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
N/A in this paper. See McDaniel paper for more specific description of training.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
Not described

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
No

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Study Information

Study Citations

Cheney, D. A., Stage, S. A., Hawken, L. S., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C. & Waugh, M. (2009). A 2-year outcome study of the Check, Connect, and Expect intervention for students at risk for sever behavior problems.. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17() 226-243.

Participants Empty Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students in 18 schools within three school districts were selected to participate in the study if (a) they were in first, second, or third grade; (b) they were determined to be at risk for developing emotional or behavior disorders; (c) for students identified with disabilities, their IEP team agreed that the program would facilitate attainment of IEP objectives; and (d) their parents and teachers consented to their participation.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were identified as being at risk for developing emotional or behavior disorders if they passed through the first two stages of the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992). In Stage 1 of the SSBD, teachers rank all students in their classroom in terms of their internalizing and externalizing characteristics, and the three students who rank highest for display of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, respectively, pass on to the second stage. In Stage 2, teachers complete rating scales for these six students. Students for whom ratings met national normative criteria passed through Stage 2 and were considered emotionally or behaviorally at-risk.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
All students entering the program began at the Basic level. In the Basic program, coaches (i.e., non-certified paraprofessionals supervised by a master's-level behavior specialist) checked in students in the morning and checked out students in the afternoon. The check-in process consisted of five elements: (a) checked to see if a parent signed the student's daily progress report (DPR) for the prior day, (b) provided the student the DPR for the current day, (c) reminded the student of DPR expectations, and, as needed, (d) prompted the student to go to class and/or (e) redirected student's inappropriate behavior to the task. Similarly, the check-out process consisted of four steps: (a) collected the student's DPR and tallied earned points, (b) provided verbal praise for student's points, (c) provided verbal feedback for student's inappropriate behavior, and, as needed, (d) redirected student's inappropriate behavior to the task. Coaches entered DPR data into an electronic data system weekly, and reviewed DPR data in collaboration with the behavior specialist every 5-10 days to evaluate whether change in intervention was necessary. Students were deemed successful in the Basic program and entered the Self-Monitoring program when they earned more than 75% of possible points on more than 80% of days across an eight-week period. In the Self-Monitoring program, students rated their own behavior on the DPR and compared their ratings to teacher ratings. When students achieved partial agreement, defined as within one point for each expectation rating, for 10 out of 15 days, they transitioned to only self-monitoring their behaviors (i.e., not comparing ratings to teacher ratings). After two weeks of self-monitoring only, students graduated from the program. If students were not successful in Self-Monitoring, they returned to the Basic program for four weeks with an emphasis on understanding teachers' scores. If students were not deemed successful in the Basic program after 8 weeks, they received additional services in the Basic Plus program. For students who did not meet the 5% criterion for any 2 weeks of the program, their daily criterion was set to a 10% reduction of the student's current average. In addition, incentives were added for meeting criteria during five consecutive days. DPR data were evaluated to identify difficulties with academic task completion and with social skills. Students with diffiulties with academic task completion received tutoring from coaches. Those with difficulties with social skills received social skills instruction provided by the Stop and Think Social Skills Program (Knoff, 2001). Students who met their criteria on 80% of days across 8 weeks re-entered the Basic level. If students did not meet their criterion during 8 weeks in the Basic program and after 8 weeks in the Basic Plus program, they entered the Intensive program. Students were excluded from this program if they were already participating in a school-based FBA intervention or were currently being evaluated for participation in special education. In this Intensive program, students participated in a functionally based behavioral intervention. To inform this intervention, the behavior specialist conducted an FBA involving a teacher interview, a student interview, and five behavioral observations. Conditional probabilities were used to evaluate whether teacher attention, peer attention, or avoidance reinforced the inappropriate behaviors. If one consequence reliably followed the behaviors, one of three interventions was used: (a) for teacher attention, differential reinforcement for teacher attention; (b) for peer attention, the Good Behavior Game; and (c) for escape, differential reinforcement using free time after completing work tasks. If no one function of the behavior was identified as being reliable, a multicomponent intervention was implemented. Students who progressed through the Self-Monitoring program participated in the Graduate program, during which coaches provided them with feedback on their behavior at least monthly and informally interacted with them at least weekly.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Specific information regarding behavioral supports in the comparison condition was not provided. It was assumed that students in control schools received behavioral supports in alignment with typical school practices.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten 0 0 0.00
Grade 1 9 6 0.00
Grade 2 36 22 0.04
Grade 3 48 39 0.17
Grade 4 25 15 0.10
Grade 5 1 6 1.00
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 20 16 0.11
American Indian 1 0 1.40
Asian/Pacific Islander 9 7 0.12
Hispanic 9 14 0.63
White 62 45 0.08
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 48 47 0.35
No Subsidized Lunch 81 39 0.33

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability 18 30 0.66

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 29 26 0.23
Male 92 60 0.02

Mean Effect Size

0.33

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
"Schools were matched in pairs on four demographic variables: school size, percentage of student population with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, and percentage of Caucasian students" (p. 228). These pairs were then randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison condition.

What was the unit of assignment?
Schools
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
selected Individually
not selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
80.00
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The interventionists (coaches, in this case) were noncertified paraprofessionals who were supervised by master's-level behavior specialists. The interventionists' training and level of ongoing support were not described in the article.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Treatment fidelity was assessed via three different evaluations: the Teacher Adherence and Quality Form, the Check-In Adherence Quality Form, and the Check-Out Adherence Quality Form (Cheney & Stage, 2005a,b). The Teacher Adherence and Quality Form was completed by research staff members observing teacher feedback regarding students' DPRs; however, information regarding when and how often this form was completed was not provided. The check-in/check-out forms were completed once weekly by both the coach and the behavior specialist or a research assistant. Check-in/check-out adherence averaged 92% and ranged from 70 to 100%.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
No differential change in treatment procedures was observed for students of the graduate and non-graduate groups. There was, however, a statistically reliable change in coaches' check-out procedures across the two years of intervention, such that their adherence increased but quality decreased.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
The article does not indicate whether fidelity measures were used in the control classrooms.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
Linear growth analysis within hiearchical linear modeling (level 1: time, level 2: group membership) was used to examine changes in the eight outcome measures (i.e., three SSRS scales, two TRF scales, two WJ-III scales, and AET). The random effect of group membership was evaluated by examining whether the variance associated with group membership was significant at the final intercept as well as across time. To determine whether the intervention group improved more than the control group, the linear growth analysis must demonstrate significant change across the intervention and at the final intercept of the intervention compared to the control group. In addition, an analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether outcome measures were significantly different based on year of entry into the intervention as well as an interaction with student group membership at the end of the study.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.