Search Results

In this chapter, the authors describe results from their analyses of published research on small groups, focusing on trends in behavioral assessment among small group researchers over the past 30 years. Behavioral assessment was found to have become less popular over time among group researchers. The authors also investigate whether levels of behavioral assessment varied significantly by journal or by group phenomenon. Three explanations are offered as to why social psychologists who study groups have moved away from assessing behavior: (a) the growing influence of European approaches to studying groups, especially work involving social identity and self-categorization; (b) the growing influence of social cognition approaches to studying groups; and (c) an increasing pressure on authors to produce journal articles containing multiple studies.

This chapter provides an overview of the seven main categories of behavioral assessment and describes some individual tests of behaviors in each category. It is broken into seven sections that provide overviews on a selection of behavioral tests useful in assessing that behavioral category. Representative references are provided for each test, but the reader is directed to specific chapters earlier in the book for more extensive reference lists. The test descriptions are intended to present a summary of a given test procedure rather than presenting the apparatus and procedural details; these can be obtained in cited methods references.

The big ideas of three-tiered FBA are reviewed and the themes in the book that were introduced in Chapter 1 are revisited and expanded. The book concludes with a full FBA case example of an elementary school student, followed from Tier 1 through Tier 3, using the forms and processes described throughout the book.

In Tier 2 of a prevention model, FBA is applied to at-risk students in a school. The purpose of FBA at Tier 2 is to determine the function of a student’s problem behavior in order to match the student to an effective intervention. The new source of data collected at this tier in order to determine the antecedents and consequence of problem behavior is brief interviews with teachers. Existing data from Tier 1 such as office discipline referrals are also reviewed along with students’ general school records. The data are organized into a precision hypothesis statement and students are matched to evidence-based interventions that fit the identified function of their behavior. Chapter 5 concludes with an illustrative case study of a Tier 2 FBA.

In Tier 3 of a school-based behavior prevention model, FBA is applied to students with significant and/or dangerous problem behavior. The purpose of FBA at Tier 3 is to identify that antecedents and consequences of students’ problem behaviors’ with enough confidence to develop and individualized behavior intervention plans that are likely to be effective. The data collected at Tier 3 include structured interviews and systematic direct observations. This chapter reviews the process of collecting these data using forms designed to make the process efficient and effective. The chapter concludes by describing the process of developing precision hypothesis statements that combine the data collected in Tiers 1 and 2 with the new data from Tier 3.

The purpose of FBA is to develop effective interventions. It is all-too-common in schools for evaluation teams to conduct FBAs and then not use the results for intervention, thereby negating the value of the FBA. This chapter begins by describing effective antecedent, behavior teaching, and consequence interventions and a step-by-step process for selecting the most appropriate interventions given the results of the FBA using a competing pathway model. Practical forms are presented for converting the interventions into broader plans that can be monitored for fidelity and effectiveness. The process of conducting a Tier 3 FBA and developing and implementing a corresponding behavior intervention plan is described in a case example.

This chapter provides a foundation for conceptualizing FBA as relevant to the three tiered prevention model in schools as opposed to its more traditional as a technology used only for working with students in special education. This chapter also reviews the legal and theoretical foundation of FBA in schools. Basic terms and concepts in FBA are introduced along with the three tiered prevention model.

In Tier 1 of a prevention model, otherwise known as universal prevention, FBA is applied to all students in a school. The purpose is to develop interventions that can improve behavior school-wide. In order to identify problem behaviors and their antecedents and consequences, school teams review school-wide behavior data such as office discipline referrals (ODRs). ODRs are reviewed to determine “The Big Six” patterns, which are referrals per day per month, location of referrals, time of referrals, behaviors referred, students referred, and possible motivation for referred behavior. Based on the patterns from The Big Six, school teams develop logical school-wide interventions that should efficiently reduce problem behaviors in the school. School-wide interventions are then monitored formatively for effectiveness.

This chapter defines “behavioral consultation” by reviewing the core assumptions of operant theory that provide the foundation for this consultation model. It presents a consultation model that centers on ways to assess, prevent, and replace unwanted behavior. The chapter discusses how to help educational professionals translate problems they face at the work level into behaviors to be assessed. Based on the assessed functionality of the behavior, the chapter examines how to prevent and replace it with desired, adaptive behavior. This process will be demonstrated through detailed focus on a simplified case example of an individual first grade student and then extend to applications at the level of the classroom and the whole school. The chapter ends with suggestions for deepening one’s understanding of the theory and broadening application of the practice method. It also discusses how the model is consistent with all three levels of the RtI framework, including individual, targeted, and universal services.

Students who meet criteria for disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders generally present with a wide range of challenging behaviors that impede their ability to function appropriately at school and at home. Understanding the differential diagnosis and comorbid manifestations of these disorders—particularly the two most common disruptive disorders (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder)—can assist school practitioners in addressing students’ behavior and socioemotional well-being in school. It is also important that school practitioners are knowledgeable about Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) categories for which students exhibiting the symptoms of these disorders are most likely to qualify for school-based services. This chapter provides resources to assist schools and school-based practitioners in implementing universal screening, progress monitoring, and rapid assessment of students, as well as evidence-based psychosocial interventions to meet the needs of students with disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders.

The word disruptive has become associated with the age of technology. The connotations of this term have changed drastically from years ago, when in schools it was associated with the type of behavior that would result in a trip to the principal’s office. In the 21st century, “disruptive” often refers to changes that markedly affect and reshape the way things are done, opening up new approaches that change the way we live and function. Computers in various forms, from desktop systems to handheld devices and mobile phones, have played a large role in changing the way we live and work. Researchers no longer spend days at computer centers running study statistics and now can accomplish far more sophisticated analyses using notebook computers. Despite the dramatic changes technology has made in most phases of life, its impact on the practice of clinical neuropsychology has been minimal. It is fair to say that neuropsychologists have increased their use of computers for patient assessment and that some traditional test measures have been adopted for computers, simplifying the administration and scoring process. A number of tests have been developed and designed for computer administration. While computer use has increased especially in specific areas, such as aviation, pharmaceutical studies, and in evaluating concussion both in sports and in the military, the potential use of computers and other technologies to augment assessment has barely been exploited. The goal of this volume is to present ideas and accomplished work demonstrating the use of technology to augment the neuropsychological assessment of patients. Some of the ideas presented in the introduction are forward thinking, incorporate the use of advanced technology, and are potentially disruptive. Others represent incremental changes, but changes that take obvious advantage of using technology to modernize and streamline the assessment process. The introduction reviews the current state of technology in neuropsychology and sets the stage for the succeeding chapters.

This afterword turns from the early modern material to think about the role of nostalgia in discussions of agricultural animal welfare that are taking place today. It explores how animals are understood in Qualitative Behavioral Assessment methodology that is being used to evaluate farm animal welfare today, and compares that to the understanding of animals that is evidence in early modern ideas. It argues that QBA offers a kind of return to a way of living alongside and understanding animals that Cartesian and behaviorist thinking has left behind.

Translational research has become one of the key concepts of medical science in the 21st century, with academics and clinicians coming together in a joint effort to bring findings from basic research into the clinical setting so that they can benefit patients. Channi Kumar may not have recognized this phrase, but his work was truly translational. Indeed his perinatal research programme was bi-directional in its translation. As a clinician and an academic, Channi’s research was informed by his clinical work with mothers suffering from severe mental illness (SMI) following childbirth. He recognized the importance of treating a mother’s mental illness, while at the same supporting her in the care of her baby. His clinical work on the Mother and Baby Unit at the Bethlem Royal Hospital gave rise to research into the understanding of antenatal and postnatal mental illness and its effects on the child as well as into improving services and treatment for women and their babies. In this chapter we will show how two of Channi’s flagship studies, the South London Child Development Study (SLCDS) and a video feedback intervention programme on the Mother and Baby Unit, continue to gather evidence and to inform perinatal guidelines in the 21st century. The SLCDS is unique in that it is one of the first longitudinal studies of women’s mental health and its impact on the children to begin during pregnancy. Specifically, families from two inner-city London General Practice sites were initially recruited into a longitudinal prospective study of emotional disorders related to childbirth when the women were pregnant between 1 January and 31 December 1986. It has followed the lives of 151 families through pregnancy and the index child’s first year, with 86% participating when the index child was 4 years, 89% at 11 years, and 83% at 16 years. At the outset of the study, the mean age of the women was 25.9 years (range 16–43 years); 60% were married, 32% had a regular partner, and 8% were single; 78% were of white British origin; 86% were working class; 30% had no educational qualifications.