NASP Communiqué, Vol. 26 #7
May 1998
Positive Behavioral
Supports and School Psychology: What a Great IDEA!
By Mark W.
Steege, NCSP
The IDEA '97 requirements for the use of positive behavioral
support strategies to address problem behavior have particular
significance for school psychologists. Positive behavioral
support refers to a set of methodologies that focuses
on providing environmental modifications that reduce the
probability of problem behavior and educational supports
that result in the acquisition, maintenance and generalization
of functional behaviors. The net result is the increase
in prosocial behavior and the decrease/elimination of
problem behavior. There are three components of IDEA '97
specifying positive behavioral support interventions that
have relevance to school psychologists: a) positive behavioral
support methodologies are indicated when the behavior
of a student impairs his or her learning, or that of others;
b) the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team is encouraged
to have as a member someone knowledgeable about positive
behavioral supports; and c) the role of the school psychologist
has been expanded to include assisting in developing positive
behavioral interventions.
These requirements are consistent with trends within
the field of school psychology in which the responsibilities
of the school psychologist assume a balance of assessment,
consultation and direct interventions. IDEA's focus on
positive behavioral support offers an opportunity for
school psychologists to expand and define their roles
as active members of the IEP team who participate in the
design, implementation and evaluation of positive behavioral
supports for students displaying problem behavior.
To adequately address the requirements of IDEA '97, it
is critical that school psychologists understand the conceptual
underpinnings and components of positive behavioral supports.
This article provide an overview of the conceptual foundations
and specific components of positive behavioral support
methodologies.
Conceptual
Foundations
Positive behavioral support refers to the broad process
of assisting individuals to acquire adaptive, socially
meaningful behaviors and to overcome patterns of destructive,
maladaptive and stigmatizing behaviors (Koegel, Koegel,
and Dunlap, 1996). Positive behavioral support methodologies
are used to increase appropriate prosocial behavior and
to concomitantly decrease maladaptive behaviors. A primary
goal of positive behavioral supports is to teach functional
skills as a replacement for problem behavior.
Positive behavioral support interventions are based on
empirically derived models that have demonstrated links
to a wide range of proactive behavioral interventions.
For example, the competing behaviors model (O'Neill, Horner,
Albin, Sprague, Storey, and Newton, 1997) has been used
to explain, predict and promote appropriate behavior,
and to decrease and/or eliminate inappropriate behaviors.
The competing behaviors model emphasizes that whenever
the IEP team proposes to reduce a problem behavior, alternative
desired behaviors should also be identified for intervention.
Positive behavioral interventions indicate not only what
a person should not do, but also what a student
should do (O'Neill, et al, 1997). The IEP team
needs to look beyond the problem behavior and focus instead
on teaching alternative behaviors. The IEP team needs
toconsider “what should or could or might the student
be doing instead of the problem behavior?” and “How
can we teach skills that are practiced, useful, valued
by others, and reinforced?” (Risley, 1966).
Positive behavioral supports are also based on response
covariation (Parrish & Roberts, 1993) and functional
equivalence (Carr & Durand, 1985) models. Response
covariation occurs when the manipulation of one response
results in change in another response. Functional equivalence
training involves: a) teaching a prosocial behavior
that serves a function equivalent to the problem behavior,
and b) eliminating contingencies maintaining the problem
behavior. In short, these models use proactive methods
that result in an increase in prosocial behavior and a
decrease in problem behavior.
For example, for a child who evidences aggressive behavior
the team could not only develop strategies to reduce aggression
but also teach the student prosocial behaviors, conflict
resolution skills, and/or anger management strategies.
Likewise, for a student displaying self-injury, an intervention
package incorporating functional communication training
and extinction strategies would result in an elimination
of self-injury and acquisition of meaningful communication
skills.
Components
of Positive Behavioral Supports
Positive behavioral support plans typically involve changing
existing environments in a manner that makes problem behaviors
irrelevant, ineffective and inefficient (Horner, O'Neill
& Flannery, 1993). This usually involves changing
a variety of aspects of the environment. Positive behavioral
support plans often include changing many environmental
variables in concert (e.g., physical setting, task demands,
curriculum, instructional pace, instruction of new skills,
individualized reinforcement) (Horner, Vaughn, Day, &
Aard, 1996). Procedures such as antecedent manipulation,
Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible behaviors (DRI),
systematic instruction of adaptive behavior, social skills
instruction and functional communication training have
been used to teach replacement behaviors and have concomitantly
resulted in a significant reduction in problem behavior.
O'Neill et at (1997) reported that the heart of a behavior
support plan lies in the extent to which the plan is a)
based on the results of functional assessments, b) consistent
with fundamental principles of behavior, c) a good conceptual
“fit” with the values, resources and skills
of all the people in the setting and d) includes ongoing
evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
Functional assessment: In a general sense,
assessment designed to develop and evaluate interventions
is functional assessment (Batsche & Knoff, 1995).
Functional assessment refers to the broad set of strategies
that are used to examine the variables associated with
problem behavior and those variables that promote prosocial
behavior. Within the past 15 years, numerous publications
demonstrating functional assessment procedures have been
reported. For example, functional assessment procedures
have been used to evaluate problem behaviors (Iwata, Dorsey,
Shifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982) and identify problem
behavior and reinforcer preferences (Steege, Wacker, Berg,
Cigrand, & Cooper, 1989), as well as academic performance
problems (Daly, Witts, Marten, & Dool, 1997).
Relative to problem behaviors, functional assessment
procedures are used to determine the variables associated
with the occurrence of maladaptive behavior (i.e., those
variables that maintain or reinforce problem behavior).
Functional assessment goes beyond identifying the topography
of the behavior and focuses, instead, on the variables
that maintain behavior. Theresults of functional assessment
are used to individually tailor intervention plans that
are matched to the functions of the problem behavior.
When the behavioral intervention is matched to the function
of the problem behavior, positive clinical outcomes result
(Parrish & Roberts, 1993). Repp, Felce and Banton
(1988) and Durand, Crimmins, Caulfield, and Taylor (1989)
reported that behavioral interventions based on the results
of functional assessments were more effective than those
behavioral interventions that were not based on functional
assessments.
There are three forms of functional assessments, each
with various levels of complexity and precision. These
three forms of functional assessment are arranged along
a continuum that ranges from unstructured to structured,
anecdotal to experimental, and hypothesis forming to hypothesis
confirming.
The Indirect Assessment (Iwata, Vollmer, &
Zarcone, 1990) method typically involves the use of a
structured interview to identify and describe: a) the
problem behavior, b) magnitude of the target behavior
and c) antecedents and consequences associated with occurrences
and nonoccurrences of problem behaviors.
Descriptive Assessment involves naturalistic systematic
observations of problem behaviors. Systematic recording
of problem behavior often involves the use of event, duration
or time sampling methods. Indirect and descriptive analyses
are useful to the extent that they provide a basis for
hypothesized functional relationships between problem
behavior and the environment (Cooper & Harding, 1993).
A Functional Analysis is an experimental analysis
of behavior that is used to empirically validate hypothesized
functions of problem behavior. This involves the observation
of behavior and the direct manipulation of antecedent
and consequence variables. The results of the functional
analysis are used to empirically identify the maintaining
conditions of a behavior and match the recommended treatment
with the identified maintaining condition. This results
in a match between motivational functions of behavior
and the proposed treatment. The components of a functional
analysis involve constructing at least one experimental
condition in which the variable of interest is manipulated
(e. g., social attention contingent upon aberrant behavior;
escape from demands contingent upon occurrences of aberrant
behavior, etc.), and another control condition in which
the variable is absent (e.g., no attention, no escape
from demands). Observation of the target behavior proceeds
while the experimental and control conditions are alternated,
usually within alternating treatments or reversal/withdrawal
designs.
A comprehensive functional assessment frequently involves
a combination of assessment procedures. For example, Cooper
and Harding (1993), Dunlap, Dunlap, Clarke, and Robbins
(1991), Mace and Lalli (1991), Sasso, Reimers, Cooper,
Wacker, Berg, Steege,Kelly, and Allaire (1992) and Berg,
Wacker, and Steege (1995) describe methods of combining
indirect, descriptive and functional analysis procedures.
O'Neill et al (1997) have published a useful and practical
handbook that provides descriptions of functional assessment
procedures, sample forms and examples of completed functional
assessment. The handbook describes the components of positive
behavioral supports and includes examples demonstrating
relationships between assessments and proactive interventions.
Behavioral interventions are based
on fundamental principles of behavior: Positive
behavioral supports include interventions that are grounded
in behavioral principles and that are based on empirical
evidence. They typically involve two basic methods: a)
antecedent control methods and b) behavioral skills training.
Antecedent control methods involve the manipulation
ofsome aspect of the environment to evoke a desired response
or to make a problem behavior less likely to occur (Miltenberger,
1997). Antecedent control methods involve maximizing the
controlling stimuli/prompts to elicit desired behavior,
modifying the environment to reduce the probability of
problem behavior, decreasing instructional demands and
increasing response fluency. For example, Dunlap and Kern
(1996) discuss models for modifying instructional activities
as a way to promote appropriate behavior and to decrease
problem behavior. Behavioral skills training involves
teaching desired behaviors as a replacement for problem
behavior. A variety of successful behavioral skills training
procedures have been demonstrated (e.g., chaining procedures,
modeling, shaping, performance feedback, rehearsal). Numerous
studies have demonstrated the use of discrete trial training,
in vivo instruction and incidental teaching strategies
to teach language skills as a replacement for problem
behavior.
Positive behavioral support plans are matched to
the needs of the student and resources available: Positive
behavioral support plans take into consideration the degree
of training and expertise of teachers, paraprofessionals,
parents and staff who are expected to carry out the interventions.
School Psychologists need to work collaboratively with
the IEP team in designing positive behavioral interventions
that are related not only to the function of the problem
behavior, but to the skills, motivations and time restraints
of the interventionists. Tilly and Flugum (1995) and Telzrow
(1995) describe processes for providing supports to interventionists
and methods for promoting intervention acceptability and
adherence.
Monitoring interventions: Monitoring the
intervention is the final phase of the positive behavioral
support model. Ongoing monitoring of the intervention
should include two components: a) monitoring the implementation
of the plan to determine the degree of integrity with
which the plan is delivered and b) the effectiveness of
the plan in modifying the target behaviors. The former
usually involves observation of the implementation of
the plan. The latter involves direct measures of the occurrence
of both problem and replacement behaviors. Steege and
Wacker (1995) describe a set of procedures for recording
behavior and the use of single case experimental designs
to evaluate the efficacy of interventions.
Summary
The proposed rules in IDEA '97 will shape implementation
of special education services for the next several years.
How will School Psychology respond? Requirements for positive
behavioral interventions, strategies and supports and
for functional behavioral assessments are an opportunity
for school psychologists to provide a full range of psychological
services to students with disabilities.
As state and local education agencies begin to interpret
these regulations, school psychologists need to actively
participate in the efforts to describe the procedures
involved in providing positive behavioral supports. We
need to emphasize the importance of linking functional
assessment with proactive interventions. We need to emphasize
the role of the school psychologist as not only evaluator
(i.e., “Chester the tester” or “The WISC
Jockey”), but also as a member of the IEP team who
utilizes collaborative problem solving processes that
result in tailored interventions that effect positive
and meaningful changes in the lives of students and their
families.
References
Batsche, G. & Knoff, H. (1995). Linking assessment
to intervention. In Thomas, A. & Grimes, J.(Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 569-586)
. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Berg, W. & Sasso, G. (1993). Transferring implementation
of functional assessment procedures from the clinic to
natural settings. In Reichle, J. & Wacker, D. (Eds.),
Communicative approaches to the management of challenging
behaviors (pp. 135-173). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Berg, W. Wacker, D., & Steege, M. (1995). Best practices
in assessment with persons who have severe or profound
handicaps. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology III (pp. 805-816).
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Carr, E. & Durand, V. (1985). Reducing problem behavior
through functional communication training. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-127.
Cooper, L. & Harding, J. (1993). Extending functional
analysis procedures to outpatient and classroom settings
for children with mild disabilities. In Reichle, J. &
Wacker, D. (Eds.), Communicative approaches to the
management of challenging behaviors: Integrating functional
assessments and intervention strategies (pp. 41-62).
Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Daly, E., Witt, J., Martens, B., & Dool, E.(1997).
A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic
performance problems. School Psychology Review,
26, 554-574.
Derby, K., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Northup,
J., Cigrand, K., & Asmus, J. (1992). Brief functional
assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behavior in
an outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 713-721.
Dunlap, G. & Kern, L. (1993). Assessment and intervention
for children within the instructional curriculum. In Reichle,
J. & Wacker, D. (Eds.), Communicative approaches
to the management of challenging behaviors (pp. 135-173).
Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Dunlap, G., Kern, L., Clarke, S. & Robbins, F. (1993).
Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe
behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 387-397.
Durand, V., Crimmins, D., Caulfield, M., & Taylor,
J. (1989). Reinforcer assessment I: Using problem behaviors
to select reinforcers. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 113-126.
Horner, R., O'Neill, R. & Flannery, K. (1993). Building
effective behavior support plans from functional assessment
information. In M. Snell (Ed.), Instruction of persons
with severe handicaps, 4th ed. (pp. 184-214). Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Horner, R., Vaughn, B., Day, H., & Ard, F. (1996).
The relationship between setting events and problem behavior.
In L.K.Keogel, R. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positive
behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior
in the community (pp. 381-402). Baltimore: PaulBrookes.
Iwata, B., Vollmer, R., & Zarcone, J. (1990). The
experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders:
Methodology, applications, and limitations. In A. C. Repp
& N.N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of
nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with
developmental disabilities (pp. 301-330). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Iwata, B., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K., Bauman, K., &
Richman, G. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury.
Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities,
2, 3-20. Reprinted in Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 1994, 27, 197-209.
Koegel, L., Koegel, R. ,& Dunlap, G. (1996). Positive
behavioral support. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Mace, F., & Lalli, J. (1986). Linking descriptive
and experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre
speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24,
553-562.
Miltenberger, R. (1997). Behavior modification.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand,L.,
Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief functional
analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an
out-clinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 509-522.
O'Neill, R., Horner, R., Albin, R. ,Sprague, J., Storey,
R., & Newton, J. ( 1997). Functional assessment
and program development for problem behavior: A practical
handbook. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.
Parrish, J. & Roberts, M. (1993). Interventions based
on covariation of desired and inappropriate behavior.
In Reichle, J. & Wacker, D. (Eds.), Communicative
approaches to the management of challenging behaviors
(pp. 135-173). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Repp, A., Felce, D. & Banton, L. (1988). Basing the
treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors
on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 21, 281-289.
Risley, T.