Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO)
Study: Campbell & Anderson (2011)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were selected to participate in this study if they had 2-5 office discipline referrals, had been referred for CICO by a teacher, and were determined to be good candidates for CICO by the school's School Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) team (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):

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.

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?

%

Please describe the study design:

This study used a reversal design to evaluate the effects of CICO on problem behavior and academic engagement. Following the reversal phase, a component analysis of CICO was conducted in which components of CICO were removed individually to determine effects of each of the components.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:

Check-in/Check-out as implemented in this study included 5 main components. First, students checked in with the CICO coordinator at the beginning of the school day. The check-in lasted about 2 minutes per student, during which time the coordinator provided the student with the DPR, collected the previous day's parent report form, and engaged in a brief positive interaction with the student. Following check-in, the student took their DPR with them and was evaluated by their teacher at three points during the day (morning, lunch, and afternoon). The specific times for these evaluations were determined by the individual teachers. During these feedback sessions, students could receive 1 point for not meeting the expectations, 2 points for somewhat meeting the expectation, and 3 points for meeting the expectation. Students were evaluated on three expectations at each feedback point. Students were told the number of points they needed to earn to receive at least 80% of their DPR points and receive a reinforcer. Students were able to earn tangible or intangible rewards each week based on their receipt of points throughout the week. The third component of CICO involved checking out with the coordinator at the end of the day. The coordinator totalled the points earned by each student and delivered reinforcers. The fourth component involved the student taking home a report to their parents that indicated the percentage of points earned that day, provided a space for parent comments, as well as a parent signature. The fifth component of CICO involved the students bringing the signed parent report back the following day to check-in (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):

Teachers were told to manage and teach their classes as they typically did during baseline. All students were able to access the tier I supports available under the school's SWPBS framework, which means they may have been formally acknowledged for meeting school expectations, or may have received office discipline referrals for violating school rules. During the reversal phase, the participating students did not participate in any of the components of CICO. During the component analysis, participating students met with the CICO coordinator in the morning and afternoon for check-in and check-out, but feedback meetings were individually removed. The first feedback meeting removed was the noon feedback meeting. Next, the morning feedback meeting was removed so students only received feedback from their teachers in the afternoon. Third, the afternoon feedback session was removed so students no longer used a DPR card throughout the day. Students still met with the CICO coordinator to check-in and check-out, but only received points for checking in and checking out (Campbell & Anderson, 2011).

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)

Replication of treatment effect was demonstrated through reversal. The first phase of this study was baseline, the second phase was full CICO intervention implementation, the third phase was a return to baseline, the fourth phase was CICO implementation, and the fifth phase was the component analysis.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).

The design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control because it is an ABABC design that is also a multiple baseline across four participants.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?

Concurrent

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

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 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.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion: