Problem children--Education

There has been a substantial amount of research supporting the use of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) for students with severe to profound disabilities. Many of the studies with these populations have shown to greatly impact the behavior of students when FBA-generated interventions, which match the function of the targeted behavior, are used to improve behavior. This research was the basis for the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which specifically requires the use of the FBA to generate educative, positively-based interventions. Since IDEA '97, research has shown the effective use of the FBA to create interventions matching the function of the problem behavior for students with milder disabilities. This is promising as research has been lacking in what assessment data teachers use to select behavioral interventions. Furthermore, school personnel have been ineffective in dealing with the problem behavior of students with disabilities as evidenced by high suspension rates for students with disabilities. There is also very limited research in the area of what assessment data is used in the development of individualized education programs (IEP) for students with emotional disabilities. The psychological evaluation is used to determine eligibility for special education, yet there is no research indicating that the information contained within a psychological evaluation is used for either goal development or intervention selection. This is problematic in that IEPs developed for students with emotional disabilities are lacking in quality and effectiveness. This study examined the effect that types of assessment report played on teachers' selection of interventions and IEP goal development for a student with an emotional disability. After reviewing an FBA or psychological evaluation, participants were to develop a behavioral goal. These goals were rated for the presence or absence of five quality indicators that should be present in a well-developed goal. No significant differences were found in the frequencies of these goal indicators. Participants were then asked to indicate preference of use of three interventions to increase appropriate behavior and three interventions to decrease inappropriate behavior and then to rank order their potential use of the interventions. No significant differences were found in the indication of use on either measure. Participants did consistently indicate preferred use of the three positively-based interventions.

This study of one hundred subjects, selected randomly from three
hundred deviant secondary school students, was conducted to determine if
there was a significant difference between those subjects whose behavior
was improved over the period of one year and those whose behavior remained
the same or deteriorated.
Variables from home relationships, peer affinities, achievement,
duration of the behavior problem, enrollment in vocational education,
drug usage, discipline measures and behavior types were studeid for
measures of central tendency.
A factor analysis was conducted to reduce the number of variables
to a cluster of factors or constructs. Nine factors emerged from the
original forty-two variables. They were named: Adaptability, Behavior,
Maturity, Student Response, Parental Attitude, Achievement, Home, Y and E,
and External Influence.
Regression analyses were run to select the possible predictors of
success or failure in behavior modification from the original variables and from the nine factors. Of the original variables, student attitude
and response to parents were the most significant. Amongst the factors,
Student Response and Parental Attitude lead the rest.
A multivariate analysis of variance tested the hypothesis: there
is no significant difference between those students deemed successful in
behavior change and those deemed failures. The nine factors were used
as dependent measures in the rejection of the null hypothesis with a P
less than .01. The univariate F tests, using factors Student Response
and Parental Attitude, caused the rejection of the null hypothesis of a
common means with a P less than .01.
The hypothesis, in a second multivariate analysis, when the dependent
variables were the original variables, was also rejected by the
findings with a P less than .01. The variables which contributed to the
rejection of the null hypothesis of common means with P less than .01,
on the univariate tests, were student attitude, response to parents,
grade point average change, vocational education, counseling, home atmosphere,
and parental cooperation.