Behavior Education Program (BEP) or Check-in/Check-out (CICO)
Study: Hawken et al. (2007)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were eligible to participate in the study if they had entered the BEP intervention after at least 2 months of school, received the BEP intervention for at least 6 weeks, had received at least 2 office discpline referrals, were nominated by teachers to receive additional behavioral support, and demonstrated problem behavior throughout the day rather than only during one subject (Hawken, MacLeod & Rawlins, 2007).

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 behavior difficulties based on their receipt of at least 2 office discipline referrals, teacher referral for additional behavioral support, and evidence of problem behavior throughout the day in multiple settings.

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:

A multiple-baseline across groups of students was used in this study.

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

The Behavior Education Program (BEP) included 5 components. The first component involved the students checking in before school with a paraprofessional who was the BEP coordinator. The BEP coordinator provided the student with a Daily Progress Report (DPR), collected signed DPRs from the previous day, and prompted students to identify daily goals. The BEP coordinator delivered the DPR to younger students' classrooms. Students received praise and a lottery ticket for checking in. The lottery ticket was used for a weekly raffle. The second component of the BEP involved teachers providing students with feedback on their DPR at natural transition points during the day (i.e. between subjects). Teachers rated the students on each expectatation with either a 0 (did not met expectations), 1 (somewhat met expectations) or a 2 (met expectations). The third component involved students checking out with the BEP coordinator. At check out, the coordinator calculated the total points earned by each of the students and provided praise and rewards for students who met their daily point goal. A spinner was used to randomly select rewards, which included candy, tokens to be cashed in for school wide reinforcers, or a bonus move on a sticker chart system. Each of the students in this study had a goal of 80% of total points (which was 40 out of 50 total points) per day. The fourth step involved students taking their DPRs home to be signed by a parent or guardian, and the 5th step involved students returning the signed DPR the next morning at check in. The Schoolwide behavior support team met every other week to discuss data, which were summarized by the BEP coordinator, and evaluate student progress (Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007).

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 condition, students did not participate in any of the five components of the previously describe BEP intervention. Students' receipt of office discipline referrals was monitored during the baseline condition. Additionally, during baseline, students still accessed typical schoolwide behavior support procedures in place for all students (Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007).

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 across groups because this study used a non-concurrent baseline design across groups. The 12 participants were sorted into 4 different groups, based on when students started the BEP intervention. Students who started the intervention within 1 month of each other were grouped together.

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 four demonstrations of experimental control because the design used is a non-concurrent multiple baseline across groups design that includes four groups.

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: