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

Summary

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 schoolwide 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.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with intellectual disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Physical Aggression
  • Verbal Threats
  • Property Destruction
  • Noncompliance
  • High Levels of Disengagement
  • Disruptive Behavior
  • Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
  • Other: Most broadly, behavior that is maintained by peer or adult attention
Where to Obtain:
Guilford Press
72 Spring St. New York, NY 10012
(800)-365-7006
www.guilford.com
Initial Cost:
$34.85 per manual
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

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.

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:
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 format of the interventionist training consists of one trainer meeting to discuss and go over the steps of implementation and facilitation with the interventionist one on one. After discussing the steps of implementation and how to facilitate the program, the trainer and interventionist role play different scenarios to ensure that the interventionist is prepared to train teachers and students participating in the program. Follow up sessions for support are optional and not essential, and consist of brief meetings in which the interventionist asks the trainer questions that might have arisen during the beginning stages of 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 behaivor support in place and had at least 10% of their student population at risk for engaging in more severe problem behavior.

Access to Technical Support:
On-going professional/technical support can be obtained through contacting university personnel.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • 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:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

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 schoolwide 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.

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
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

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

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

selected Physical Aggression
selected Verbal Threats
selected Property Destruction
selected Noncompliance
selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Most broadly, behavior that is maintained by peer or adult attention

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
72 Spring St. New York, NY 10012
Phone Number
(800)-365-7006
Website
www.guilford.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$34.85
Unit of cost
manual

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)

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.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not 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?

   Approximately 15; No more than 10% of the school population

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?
Yes

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

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:
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.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The format of the interventionist training consists of one trainer meeting to discuss and go over the steps of implementation and facilitation with the interventionist one on one. After discussing the steps of implementation and how to facilitate the program, the trainer and interventionist role play different scenarios to ensure that the interventionist is prepared to train teachers and students participating in the program. Follow up sessions for support are optional and not essential, and consist of brief meetings in which the interventionist asks the trainer questions that might have arisen during the beginning stages of implementation

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?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
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 behaivor support in place and had at least 10% of their student population at risk for engaging in more severe problem behavior.

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

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

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

On-going professional/technical support can be obtained through contacting university personnel.

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.

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.

 

Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., & Guardino, D. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining

classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 288-310.

 

Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., & Watson, J. (2007). Check in/ check out: A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level targeted intervention for reducing problem behaviors in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 69-84.

 

Hawken, L. H. & Hess, R.S. (2006). School psychologists as leaders in the implementation of a targeted intervention: The Behavior Education Program (BEP). School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 91-111.

 

McDaniel, S.C., Houchins, D.E., Jolivette, K., Steed, E., Gagne, P. (2011). Check, Connect, and Expect in a self-contained setting for elementary students with emotional and behavioral disorders. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3480305).

 

McIntosh, K., Campbell, A., Carter, D. R., Dickey, C. R. (2009). Differential Effects of a Tier Two Behavior Intervention Based on Function of Problem Behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 82-93.

 

Paolella, K. (2009). Positive behavior support and student response to the behavior education program. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Providence College Digital Commons. (1038).

 

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.

Study Information

Study Citations

Campbell, A. & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Check-in/Check-out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2) 315-326.

Participants Half Bobble

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?
%

Provide a description of the demographic and other relevant characteristics of the case used in your study (e.g., student(s), classroom(s)).

Case (Name or number) Age/Grade Gender Race / Ethnicity Socioeconomic Status Disability Status ELL status Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics
test test test test test test test test

Design Full Bobble

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

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.)?

Condition A
Weeks
5.00
Sessions per week
25.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
3.50
Condition B
Weeks
4.00
Sessions per week
25.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
2.50
Condition C
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
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.

Describe 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).

What were the 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.

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
IOA on observations was conducted in baseline and comparison conditions. Fidelity of CICO implementation was not conducted during baseline or component analysis conditions, as CICO was intentionally not fully implemented during these conditions.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Half 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 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.
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Targeted Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Broader Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance
Admin Measure 1 Yes A2
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Results Full Bobble

Describe the method of analyses you used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g., visual inspection, 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.

Please present results in terms of within and between phase patterns. Data on the following data characteristics must be included: level, trend, variability, immediacy of the effect, overlap, and consistency of data patterns across similar conditions. Submitting only means and standard deviations for phases is not sufficient. Data must be included for each outcome measure (targeted, broader, and administrative if applicable) that was described above.
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 ponts 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 asfternoon 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).

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?
11
Citations for Additional Research 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).

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.