Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO)
Study: Hawken & Horner (2003)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were eligible to participate in this study if they were not receiving additional individualized behavior support, were nominated by teachers or school staff for additional behavior support, and had received at least 5 office discipline referrals. Students were selected to participate in this study if they assented to participate, the students' parents consented, and their teacher(s) consented to having observations conducted in their classrooms (Hawken & Horner, 2003).

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 or being at high risk for emotional or behavioral difficulties based on their receipt of at least 5 office discpline 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).

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:

The design used for this study was a non-concurrent multiple baseline.

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

The Behavior Education Program (BEP) is a tier 2 behavior intervention that includes 5 components. First, the students check-in before school with the BEP coordinator, who was an Educational Assistant (EA) in this study. At check-in, each student receives a copy of a blank Daily Progress Report (DPR) that has rows for schoolwide expectations and columns for specific blocks of time during the day. At check-in, the BEP coordinator checked to see that each study had the materials (pencils, paper, etc.) needed for the day, and reminded them of the schoolwide expectations. Students also were praised for bringing back their signed DPR from the day before, and were reminded of their goals for the day. If necessary, students were given feedback on expectations they were having difficulty following to encourage success. The second component of the BEP involved students receiving feedback from their teachers on the DPR throughout the day. At the end of each class period, teachers rated the students with a 0, 1, or 2 for each behavior expectation listed, and provided praise and/or corrective feedback. If students received a 0, they did not meet that expectation. If they received a 1, they somewhat met the expectation, and if students received a 2, they met the expectation. The third component involved the students checking out with the BEP coordinator at the end of the day. The BEP coordinator totalled the points earned for the day and provided corrective feedback and/or praise. If the students met the pre-determined goal of 80% of the points for the day (40 out of 50 total points), they received praise and a small tangible reward, such as a piece of gum or granola bar. If they did not meet their goal, the BEP coordinator provided corrective feedback. Fourth, the students took home the DPR to be signed by a parent or guardian and returned the following morning (fifth component). The BEP coordinator recorded and summarized the data daily, and the BEP team met once per week to review student progress (Hawken & Horner, 2003).

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]):

During the baseline phase, students were observed in the class in which their problem behavior was most likely to occur, based on FACTS interview data. None of the students received any of the five components of the BEP described above during the baseline phase. Observations were conducted four or five times per week during the baseline phase. Ryan was observed in a special education classroom during language arts instruction, Scott was observed during science in a general education classroom, Martin was observed during social studies in a general education classroom, and Jalen was observed during language arts in a general education classroom (Hawken & Horner, 2003).

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

Replication of a treatment effect was demonstrated across participants, as this study used a non-concurrent multiple baseline design.

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 through a non-concurrent multiple baseline across four participants.

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

Non-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: