Developing Effective
Behavior Intervention Plans:
Suggestions for School Personnel
K IM K ILLU
With federal mandates to develop and implement programs for students with disabilities who have behavior problems that impede their
educational performance, school personnel are faced with increasing
responsibility for developing individualized interventions. Developing
interventions that appropriately, effectively, and efficiently address the
relationship between learning and behavior problems is a complex task
that requires a host of essential elements and procedures. For intervention team members who lead and design the functional behavior
assessment and behavior intervention plans, specific issues to consider
in developing and monitoring these plans are discussed.
Keywords:
behavior intervention plans; assessment; intervention
ehavioral difficulties that interfere with a
student’s school performance have long
been a challenge for educators. To address
this issue, the 1997 reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) required educators to develop and implement
behavior intervention plans (BIPs). When IDEA 1997 was
reauthorized in 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), BIPs were included
B
again. These plans consider the relationship between
student learning and behavior problems that impede
classroom performance. Behavior intervention plans outline strategies and tactics for dealing with the problem
behavior along with the role that educators must play
in improving student learning and behavior. Although
many students respond positively to conventional classroom behavior management strategies (e.g., establishing
classroom rules, redirection) many others require specially
© 2008 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
10.1177/1053451207311610
http://isc.sagepub.com
140 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
XX,NNOO..3,X,JSANUARY
EPTEMBER
XXXX (PP. (140–149)
PP. XX–XX)
VOLOL. 43,
2008
designed interventions to address the relationship between
learning and behavior (Morgan & Jenson, 1988). Educators
are increasingly placed in a position to develop specialized
interventions, yet developing an intervention plan that
appropriately and effectively addresses the relationship
between student learning and the problem behavior is a
complex task. Despite good faith efforts to develop a plan
that best meets a student’s behavioral needs, educators may
find that their plans do not achieve desired results. This
article examines specific issues that must be considered and
addressed by school personnel who design and monitor the
BIP process to enhance the effectiveness of BIPs.
Functional Behavior
Assessment
With IDEIA 2004, a functional behavior assessment
(FBA) is required prior to the development of a BIP for
students with disabilities who have behavioral challenges
that impede functioning in the educational environment.
Practitioners have sought to analyze the factors involved
in student behavior, and fortunately for educators, a
behavioral technology for the assessment of challenging
behavior exists. Functional behavior assessment involves
using several methods to determine the causal and maintaining factors for a behavior that lead to the development
of intervention strategies to meet the individualized and
unique needs of the student. The FBA mandate in IDEIA
continues to reflect a change in practice from onedimensional approaches that simply seek to increase
desired responses or eliminate problem behavior, to a
multifaceted process that focuses on examining the contextual variables that set the occasion for problem behavior, linking assessment results to intervention planning,
and seeking to develop positive instructional or behavioral
strategies and supports to address more appropriate and
functional skills.
Discussions and examples of FBA methodology are
abundant in the literature. Several comprehensive resources on the design and execution of FBAs, and the relationship between the outcomes of an FBA and the subsequent
development and execution of BIPs, are available for
practitioners (Crone & Horner, 2003; Crone, Horner, &
Hawken, 2004; Florida Department of Education, 1999;
O'Neill et al., 1997). The underlying theme to the FBA is
that all behavior has a function and occurs for a reason.
Determining this function is achieved through a process
that usually involves a wide variety of strategies. The primary outcome of the FBA that summarizes these findings is a hypothesis statement that describes the problem
and the variables correlated with its occurrence and nonoccurrence (Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan-Burke,
1999–2000). Developing this hypothesis is achieved
through the following:
1. consensus on the problem behavior,
2. a precise definition of the target behavior (Alberto &
Troutman, 2006),
3. a review of the student’s records and past interventions,
4. interviews with the student or all relevant parties
(O’Neill et al., 1997),
5. team discussion,
6. assessment scales (e.g., Durand, 1988),
7. direct observation and measurement of the target
behavior,
8. scatterplot data (Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer,
1985),
9. assessment of antecedents to and consequences of
the target behavior,
10. identification of reinforcers (DeLeon & Iwata,
1996; Fisher et al., 1992; Holmes, Cautela,
Simpson, Motes, & Gold, 1998; Pace, Ivancic,
Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985),
11. examination of the ecological context to the problem
behavior (Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991), and
12. analog experimentation of the proposed hypothesis
(O’Neill et al., 1997).
It should be stressed that conducting an FBA is a
comprehensive process supported by data and not simply
a matter of those involved with a student achieving consensus on the problem and speculated causes. This process
may involve multiple sources (teachers, parents, peers) and
multiple environments and contexts (e.g., group activities vs. independent activities, different classrooms, classroom vs. playground or lunchroom). Due to the necessity
of examining all of these variables, a team-based
approach is essential (Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Colvin,
1999). Once the function or reason for the behavior is
determined, appropriate intervention strategies can be
developed and implemented. The relationship between
developing interventions based on assessment information has been established, for example, in the Curriculum
Based Measures (CBM) literature where student assessment is linked to instruction (Deno, 1985). Research indicates that using CBM results in more effective instructional
plans (Deno, Marston, & Tindal, 1986). Similarly, an
established body of research indicates that successful interventions depend on identifying the environmental correlates of problem behavior (e.g., Dunlap et al., 1993) and
that identifying function serves to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of behavioral intervention (Lalli,
Browder, Mace, & Brown, 1993; Umbreit, 1995).
Mandating FBAs within IDEIA improves the overall
effectiveness of behavioral interventions. Failure to conduct a comprehensive FBA may result in programming that
is insufficient to deal with the target behavior. Functional
behavior assessments provide information on factors such
as the most appropriate course of intervention, strategies
and support systems, whether there are multiple functions
VOL. 43, NO. 3, JANUARY 2008 141
to the target behavior, the conditions under which the
behavior occurs, and the most effective reinforcer. Lack
of attention to these variables affects the integrity of the
plan. The intervention developed may work to change
the target behavior, but the strategy developed may not
be comprehensive enough to be most efficient, effective,
and relevant. For example, often an FBA is conducted and
a plan is developed to be used in multiple environments.
However, the same behavior may serve different functions
in different environments (e.g., different classrooms).
Interventions developed within a plan should ensure that
the setting events and function are addressed, appropriate
and effective supports are designed and made available,
and the occurrence or non-occurrence of the behavior
results in consequences that alter the future probability
of the behavior. Similarly, the same behavior may also
serve multiple functions within the same environment. It
is context that dictates function, not type or form of the
behavior. Conducting the FBA process across environments is the most effective means to determine this.
Assess Antecedent Variables
and Setting Events
Traditionally, assessment of problem behavior involved
examination of antecedents that trigger the occurrence
of the target behavior and consequences that serve to
maintain it. Subsequent intervention focused on manipulating the antecedent and consequent events to increase
the occurrence of a desirable behavior or decrease the
occurrence of an undesirable behavior. More recently,
however, greater emphasis has been placed on examining
behavior within its context (Horner, 1994; O’Neill et al.,
1997; Sugai, Horner, & Sprague, 1999; Sugai, LewisPalmer, & Hagan, 1998). This emphasis has intensified
with the emergence of the philosophy and practices of
positive behavioral support. Within the framework of
the traditional three-term contingency (i.e., AntecedentBehavior-Consequence [A-B-C]), events and conditions
that are more distant to the target behavior’s direct and
immediate antecedent (Smith & Iwata, 1997) are a focus
of investigation. These conditions or events, referred to as
setting events, serve to temporarily change the effectiveness of reinforcers and punishers, thus altering a student’s
response to environmental events and situations. For
example, a student’s argument with a peer earlier in the
morning may serve to affect his or her on-task behavior
later in the afternoon, despite modifications made to the
curriculum and instructional strategies to facilitate greater
on-task behavior. A poor night’s sleep resulting in fatigue
may serve to make a student more argumentative with
peers, despite programming in place designed to promote
more prosocial behavior. Setting events may occur just
prior to a target behavior, or even days before. They may
involve environmental factors (e.g., method and delivery of
142 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
instruction, curriculum, the physical setting, number of
people in the environment), physiological factors (e.g.,
illness, medical conditions, side effects of meds) or social
factors (e.g., family circumstances, interactions with peers
on the school bus; Jolivette, Wehby, & Hirsch, 1999; Kern,
Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, & Falk, 1994). Assessing for, examining, and evaluating the presence (or absence) of setting
events, referred to as a structural analysis (see Stichter &
Conroy, 2005), is similar to the FBA process with the focus
shifted to antecedent and contextual factors rather than
maintaining variables.
The implications of examining the setting and contextual factors on the development of an efficient, effective,
and relevant BIP cannot be underestimated. Interventions
may focus on manipulating setting events (e.g., preventing
the occurrence of a setting event, removing a setting event,
minimizing/maximizing the effects of a setting event) so
as to set the occasion for the occurrence of more desired
behavior. Programming may also focus on manipulating
other antecedents when setting events are in effect (e.g.,
modifying events so they are less aversive). Although school
personnel may not have access to setting events outside
of the school environment (or even be aware of them),
operating within the contingencies and context that one
does have access to and can control can make a significant
difference in the effectiveness of an intervention.
Establish the Validity
of Reinforcers
Many intervention plans focus on using rewards, contingent upon the occurrence of desired behavior. By using
these rewards, teachers apply the principle of positive
reinforcement, where a response is followed by the presentation of a stimulus (i.e., the reward), thereby increasing
the future probability of that response (Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 2007). Yet a serious flaw may result from the
simple delivery of a reward. Unless the future occurrence
of the behavior increases after the reward is presented,
reinforcement has not occurred. A common programming
strategy is using a reinforcement system or token system
where a student receives a reward for desired behaviors.
Rewards may not necessarily serve as reinforcers (Maag,
2001). As many intervention plans rely on this strategy for
developing or increasing the occurrence of target behaviors, plans may be abandoned or may be seen as ineffective or unsuccessful when there is no resulting increase in
behavior. Without a corresponding increase in a target
behavior, the presentation of a reinforcer is not reinforcement. An often underutilized strategy in programming is using negative reinforcement (see Cooper et al.,
2007). Like positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement results in an increase in the future probability of a
response. The difference, however, is that the response is
followed by the termination or reduction of a stimulus.
For example, a teacher develops a system in which students receive one homework pass for every 10 consecutive
days that homework is submitted. Assuming a student’s
homework submission rate increases, the process of negative reinforcement has been in operation. The function
of the behavior under the negative reinforcement paradigm is to escape or avoid an aversive stimulus. Improving
behavior is neither a simple nor a quick fix, but educators
have strategies at their disposal to determine what reinforcers (positive or negative) may be more effective under
the circumstances (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996; Fisher et al.,
1992; Holmes et al., 1998; Northup, George, Jones,
Broussard, & Vollmer, 1996; Pace et al., 1985).
The same argument holds true for using punishment
in an attempt to discipline a student. The overriding,
desired effect is to decrease the future occurrence of the
inappropriate behavior. If the behavior did not decrease,
then punishment has not occurred. A frequent disciplinary strategy is to send a student to the principal’s office
when misbehavior occurs. It is assumed that the effect of
this action will punish the student and result in a decrease
in the future occurrence of the misbehavior. However, if
the target behavior did not decrease in frequency, punishment has not occurred. In fact, the strategy may have served
to negatively reinforce the target behavior instead. The
important consideration for reinforcement and punishment
is that they are not things, but rather effects (Maag, 2001)
and these effects impact the occurrence/nonoccurrence
of desirable and undesirable behaviors. Reinforcement
and punishment are not events but a process that results
in the increase or decrease of a behavior; reinforcers and
punishers must function as such rather than look like such.
Describe and Specify Target Behaviors
and Intervention Strategies
Oftentimes, several individuals will note problem
behavior with a student. The different perspectives and
vocabulary of these individuals can lead to a variety of
terms used to describe the problem behavior. These terms
may be general or specific, but the resulting consensus can
have an impact on the effectiveness of a BIP. For example,
a student may be described as “aggressive.” Such broad
descriptors can have different meanings for different
people. Does the student hit others, destroy property, or
verbally threaten others? Achieving consensus on the
target behavior among all of those implementing the BIP
ensures that the plan is implemented consistently, under
appropriate conditions. A description of a target behavior
should be so specific that an individual unfamiliar with
the student should be able to identify the student and
the target behavior when it occurs. The term operational
definition (Alberto & Troutman, 2006) has been used to
describe the precision with which target behaviors should
be identified. To minimize the differing interpretations
of the same target behavior, a clear description of the
observable and measurable characteristics of the target
response is essential. Without a clear definition of the
BIP’s focus, it is very likely that a plan will be inconsistently implemented, thereby minimizing its overall effectiveness and relevance.
When establishing definitions of target behaviors,
the notion of response class (i.e., a set of behaviors that
have a similar function but vary in their basic elements or
topography) must be considered. For example, a student’s
attempt to avoid difficult classroom work may take many
forms. She or he may verbally refuse to comply with instructions, engage in tantrum behaviors, or slam the book shut.
The similarity between all of these responses is that they
serve to avoid work. One must not assume, however, that
the same response classes will serve- the same function in a
different environment, or even in the same environment
with a different context. Function dictates the type of intervention, not the setting, definition or types of behavior.
Occasionally, generic, nonspecific BIPs are developed
and designed to improve a student’s behavior without
operationally defining the behavior or focusing on specific
target behaviors. For example, a student will receive reinforcement or a reward for the absence of any problem
behavior in a given period of time (e.g., if the student is
good for the entire class period, he or she will receive a
reward). These generic approaches may not provide the
specificity and results that a more direct focus provides
(e.g., providing a student with a reinforcer if 80% of
math problems are completed correctly within a class
session). Furthermore, as the consequence is not provided for a specific response, such interventions may
have minimal impact on the acquisition or development
of new target responses. Along similar lines, a lack of
specificity in the BIP itself is another cause for concern.
Just as target behaviors must be specifically described, the
intervention itself must be clearly outlined. For example,
designing a BIP that states a teacher will modify the way
she or he interacts with a student gives very little information as to how those interactions are modified. Should the
teacher modify the delivery of instruction and if so, how?
Should the teacher provide more verbal praise or corrective feedback? In addition to delineating the strategies to
use, a BIP must indicate the necessary resources and support along with the expectations of those carrying out the
outlined procedures. Those implementing the BIP must
know what to do and what not to do when the target
behavior occurs (or does not occur). Specifically outlining procedures ensures that the plan is implemented as
intended with little room for interpretation.
Consistently Collect Data
Although the process of measuring student performance is not new to teachers, the practice is generally limited
VOL. 43, NO. 3, JANUARY 2008 143
to measuring academic response by recording students’
grades on tests or other measures of work performance.
Many teachers see little value in measuring and recording
the occurrence of other student behavior in the classroom
(Alberto & Troutman, 2006), and behavioral interventions
are often developed with little consistency and attention
to necessary details such as monitoring and evaluation
(Buck, Polloway, Kirkpatrick, Patton, & Fad, 2000). If a
student’s behavior warrants implementing a BIP, it stands
to reason that steps must be taken to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan in changing that behavior. Just as
teachers use different strategies to measure students’ academic performance in the classroom to evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction, a measurement of student
behavior allows for evaluation of student performance and
the effectiveness of the plan. Data should reflect progress
toward the intervention’s goal.
As previously discussed, contributing to the success of
a BIP involves developing specific definitions of the target
behavior. To effectively evaluate these behaviors, planned
observation and measurement of their occurrence is essential. Without observation and measurement, there is no
standard, objective method for determining the effectiveness of a BIP. A BIP may be prematurely modified or discontinued, or an ineffective plan may continue and prolong
the student’s exposure to ineffective strategies. To evaluate
the effectiveness of a BIP, the student’s behavior should be
observed, measured, and recorded before, during, and after
implementing the BIP, and the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the target behavior should be continuously
assessed. Continuous measurement of student behavior
reduces the likelihood of error in the intervention process
(Cooper et al., 2007). Without data to represent student
performance, the teacher is forced to rely on perception
and opinion to assess the effectiveness of a BIP. A myriad of
factors can cloud the accuracy of one’s perception and
opinion. The chance of error in evaluation of performance
is much less when direct and objective measures are used.
144 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
Without data, no objective basis exists for judging improvement or decline in performance. Furthermore, continuous
assessment of student performance and data collection
improves the quality and efficiency of the decision-making
process (Horner, Sugai, & Todd, 2001). That is, if an intervention is found to be unsuccessful, continuous evaluation
allows for the teacher to change the intervention. Data
must be used to assist with understanding, analysis, intervention, evaluation, and decision making (Sugai & Horner,
2005). Researchers have suggested that teachers who frequently and continuously collect data are better decision
makers than teachers who do not (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986;
Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 1989).
Maag (2003) outlined several reasons for measuring
and recording behavior. First, to accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of the intervention, a precount, or baseline,
is necessary. Without baseline data, no standard of comparison exists between pre- and postintervention occurrences of behavior, and there is no objective means of
determining whether the intervention was effective. Second,
measurement of the behavior allows the practitioner to
determine whether the behavior targeted for measurement is the problem behavior (Levitt & Rutherford,
1978). Oftentimes, behaviors targeted for measurement
may not be the problem. Behaviors targeted for measurement should be those that are the true problem or
those targeted for intervention. For example, disruptive
behavior is often the focus of intervention. Though disruptive behavior may certainly be a concern, it may also
consist of several other responses such as roaming the room,
talking with peers, or playing with objects. The true problem, however, is that the student does not complete work
or attend to task. By collecting data on one response,
other information is indirectly obtained on other related
responses (Maag, 2003). As these other responses are better suited for intervention, it is more appropriate to measure their occurrence. Third, measurement of behavior
assists with determining the severity of the problem.
Because perceptions may be biased, data allow for an
objective assessment of the degree to which the behavior
occurs and its severity, relative to the occurrence of other
students in the classroom. Data collection may reveal
that the degree to which the behavior occurred was not
as severe as perceived to be.
Implement Plan Accurately
and Consistently
Central to the effectiveness of a BIP is the fidelity of
the plan’s implementation and several issues may contribute
to the BIP’s integrity. Procedural integrity (also referred to
as treatment fidelity) refers to the accuracy and consistency of implementation (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968;
Gable, Quinn, Rutherford, Howell, & Hoffman, 2000;
Peterson, Homer, & Wonderlich, 1982) and can result
from factors such as a poorly defined target behavior or a
poorly developed plan. As previously discussed, a poorly
defined target behavior may affect accurate implementation of the plan. A poorly developed plan, at best, results
in inconsistent implementation, and at worst, incorrect
implementation; yet both are likely to negatively impact
the effectiveness of the intervention. As Gresham,
MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, and Bocian (2000)
indicated, the degree of treatment fidelity is directly related
to the effectiveness of the plan; that is, a more accurately
and consistently implemented plan increases the likelihood
of producing positive behavior changes. Intervention is
effective only to the degree to which it is reliably implemented. Furthermore, if a plan is poorly understood,
difficult to implement, or inefficient, and thus poorly
implemented, it is unlikely that appropriate decisions
regarding the plan and a student’s progress can be made.
Just as data should be taken on student performance, data
on program implementation provides team members with
a measure of accountability. With increased emphasis on
accountable systems, it would behoove educators and
researchers to develop more practical and direct methods
of ensuring and monitoring treatment integrity.
A second, and often overlooked reason for poor procedural integrity, is the social validity of the plan. Social
validity is defined as an intervention’s acceptance by its
consumers; those who implement the plan or benefit from
its implementation. Gunter and Denny (1996) noted that
acceptability is based upon the judgment of those implementing the plan. The complexity of the plan, the perceived effectiveness of the plan, the teacher’s knowledge
of the plan’s implementation, the willingness and ability
of school personnel to execute the plan, and the social context of the plan all impact acceptance (Gresham et al. 2000;
Gunter & Denny, 1996; Quinn, 2000; Scott et al., 2004; &
Sugai & Horner, 2002; Wilson, Gutkin, Hagen, & Oates,
1998). Plans viewed as demanding, ineffective, or those
that go against the philosophical beliefs of those who
implement them are less likely to be implemented correctly
or consistently and may even be abandoned. Furthermore,
with a greater focus on accountability being placed on the
educational system, treatment integrity is strongly related
to treatment effectiveness. It benefits educators to develop
and maintain collaborative relationships with all involved
in the intervention process and discuss concerns about
the intervention process that may impact its utility and
acceptance in the classroom. Teachers have indicated that
they are better able to solve behavioral problems when
collaboration among team members occurs (Giangreco,
Cloninger, Dennis, & Edelman, 2000).
Address Student Skill Deficits
Maladaptive behaviors that serve as the focus of BIPs
undoubtedly interfere with a student’s ability to effectively interact with the environment, yet the reduction
of these target behaviors does not necessarily result in
a functional improvement in the classroom (Ferritor,
Buckholdt, Hamblin, & Smith, 1972). Ferritor et al. (1972)
found that reducing disruptive classroom behavior does
not always result in a corresponding improvement in academic performance. As important as reducing inappropriate behavior is, it is equally important for BIPs to address
instruction in constructive and productive social and classroom behaviors. Knowledge of the inappropriate behavior’s function is particularly important here, as knowing
the function is critical for identifying relevant replacement behaviors that serve the same function as the target
response. Many inappropriate behaviors are the result of
a skill deficit rather than a performance deficit. Simply
addressing the removal of an inappropriate behavior fails
to address a possible skill deficit because the student has not
learned an alternative, appropriate response. Particularly
relevant to the classroom is the lack of academic skills
that may impede classroom performance and the behavioral problems that often accompany these skill deficits
(e.g., a student’s off-task behavior during silent reading
time is not due to his or her refusal to follow directions but
rather to poor reading skills). Rather than developing a
plan only to eliminate the undesired behavior, intervention must also focus on remediating the academic deficiencies correlated with the target behavior, the nature of
which may be more appropriately addressed in an individualized education program (IEP). Generally the function of a given behavior, though the focus of intervention,
is not usually a cause for concern, but rather the behavior used to achieve that function is. A plan that focuses on
teaching a functional, alternative replacement behavior
(e.g., teaching a student to recruit teacher reinforcement
rather than calling out in class) allows the student to
receive the same outcomes as the targeted undesirable
behavior but by emitting a more desirable and adaptive
functional response. A concurrent focus of intervention
can address the acquisition of an alternative behavior
that serves the same function as the target behavior.
Program for Generalization
and Maintenance
The ultimate expectation of a BIP is that the intervention will result in lasting behavior change across a
variety of environments that the student is expected to
encounter. Unfortunately, simply implementing a BIP
and successfully modifying behavior does not guarantee
sustained and generalized behavior change. The desired
change resulting from the implementation of a BIP may
be short-lived, or the target behavior may not extend
into other environments. Two types of outcomes are
most often the concern with behavioral programming:
stimulus generalization and response maintenance.
Stimulus generalization refers to the occurrence of a
behavior in a different setting or under different conditions than in which it was trained (Alberto & Troutman,
VOL. 43, NO. 3, JANUARY 2008 145
2006; Cooper et al., 2007). For example, if the focus of a
BIP is to teach a student to raise his or her hand rather
than call out answers in the classroom, stimulus generalization has occurred when the student raises a hand,
rather than calling out answers, in classrooms other than
the classroom in which the BIP was in effect. The student
also participates in a variety of questions and situations.
The second type of outcome is response maintenance,
when a learned behavior continues long after the programmed contingencies in a BIP have been removed
(Cooper et al., 2007). For example, as in the same situation
just discussed, response maintenance would occur if the student continued to raise a hand, rather than call out answers,
throughout her or his educational career. Generalization
and maintenance rarely occur without specific programming for their occurrence. Unfortunately, a “train and hope”
(Stokes & Baer, 1977) approach is often used with BIPs,
where the student is taught a skill and those implementing
it hope that it remains in the student’s repertoire across
settings and time. Although a technology for generalization and maintenance is established in the literature
(Alberto & Troutman, 2006; Cooper et al., 2007; Stokes &
Baer, 1977; Stokes & Osnes, 1988), these strategies are not
often addressed in behavioral programming. Addressing
generalization and maintenance issues in a BIP has an
impact on programming design. When generalization and
maintenance are addressed in programming, programming
objectives change as generalization and maintenance
objectives differ from typical programming objectives
that focus on acquisition of behavior (Haring & Liberty,
1990). For example, the conditions under which the behavior occurs, materials used, schedule of reinforcement, or
other performance criteria, differ when considering generalization and maintenance. Consequently, the BIP should
be designed to reflect the conditions that the student will
encounter in the real world environment.
Students may also need to be taught self-monitoring
and self-management strategies to maximize generalization
and maintenance (see Todd, Horner, Vanater, & Schneider,
[1997] for an example of integrating self-management into
the BIP process). Within generalization objectives, conditions reflecting the natural environment are addressed
rather than objectives that address the successful acquisition
of the skill. Thus, the criteria for successful performance
differ. Because the criteria are not the same, it stands to
reason that the design and execution of a BIP must also
differ if these criteria are to be addressed.
Focus on Demonstrated Behavior
Change, Not “Just Talk”
The intent of behavioral planning is to change specific
student behavior. As such, programming must focus on
the student actually emitting a desired response. Rather
than focusing on a specified response, a plan may simply
146 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
focus on the student verbally reporting what the appropriate response should have been. For example, when a
student responds to the teacher’s request to begin working
by throwing the book across the room and tipping over
the desk, a BIP may indicate that she or he talks with the
school social worker about more appropriate ways to
handle anger. Unfortunately, simply focusing on verbalizations as a behavior change strategy is not likely sufficient
enough to establish a desired behavior change.
Correspondence training involves individuals making
verbal statements about future behavior. Correspondence
is established through programming that reinforces
the individual’s stated intention (Baer, Williams, Osnes,
& Stokes, 1984; Guevremont, Osnes, & Stokes, 1986a,
1986b; Stokes, Osnes, & Guevremont, 1987). However,
follow-through to the actual emission of the desired
response is essential, especially for the acquisition of new
behaviors. Without the follow-through established with
correspondence training, it is likely the programming will
only serve to establish verbal reports of a desired response
rather than the actual desired response.
Provide Sufficient Time, Staffing,
Resources, and Supports
Despite good faith efforts to ameliorate a student’s
problem behavior, barriers may exist that prohibit effective implementation. First, time is an important factor to
consider. Time refers not only to the time to implement
the plan but also time to allow progress to be made.
Second, sufficient personnel must be on board to implement the plan, especially if the plan is implemented across
multiple environments (e.g., different classrooms, home
and community). Some individuals may think that time
and resources are insufficient to implement the program
while still addressing the needs of other students, but
resources are a key factor in the development and execution of BIPs. These may include materials to implement
programming, ongoing consultation, or training. Support
is not limited to school personnel but to the supports
students require to facilitate their social and learning outcomes, to prevent problem behaviors, and to promote
positive, appropriate, and functional behavior change
(Carr et al., 2002; Horner, Albin, Sprague, & Todd, 1999).
Rather than focusing on means to eliminate undesirable
behavior, positive behavioral support strategies seek to
promote student achievement through understanding of
the unique factors involved in a student’s behavior, individualizing interventions, and providing the necessary
supports to achieve desired and sustained outcomes (see
Crone & Horner, 2003; Florida Department of Education,
1999; Sugai & Horner, 2002). Effective practices require
sustained support (Sugai & Horner, 2005). Resources may
even include feedback on a teacher’s performance of the
plan’s implementation. Codding, Feinberg, Dunn, and
Pace (2005) found that providing performance feedback
to teachers improved treatment integrity of the plan in the
classroom. Moreover, teachers rated performance feedback
as valuable to the intervention process (Codding et al.,
2005; Noell, Duhon, Gatti, & Connell, 2002). It would be
inappropriate and naïve to assume that programming can
be adopted and accurately implemented without adequate
resources, training, or support.
Conclusion
As the practice of intervention planning grows within
the educational arena and educators become more comfortable with its development and practice, the necessary
and essential requirements inherent in an appropriately
developed and effective plan will become more mainstream.
Figure 1 provides a summary checklist for designing more
Essential BIP Elements
Functional Behavior Assessment
• Consensus on problem
• Review of records & past interventions
• Interviews with all relevant parties
• Team discussion
• Assessment scales
• Direct observation & measurement of the target behavior across settings & context
• Scatterplot
• A-B-C analysis
• Reinforcer preference assessment
• Ecological analysis
• Hypothesized statement of the behavior’s function
• Analog experimentation of proposed hypothesis
Antecedent Variables & Setting Events
• A-B-C analysis
• Determine the presence or absence of setting events
• Contextual factors
• Environmental factors
• Physiological factors
• Social factors
Validity of Reinforcers
• Reinforcer preference assessment
• Corresponding increase in the target behavior when reinforcement is used
• Corresponding decrease in the target behavior when punishment is used
• Data to verify change in target behavior
Clear Description of Target Behavior & Intervention Strategies
• Observable, measurable, definable, & precise definition of the target behavior
• Examination of similarities & differences between multiple target responses
• Intervention focuses on a specific response or class of responses
• Clear outline of BIP’s procedures, specifying what one should/should not do when the
behavior does/does not occur
• Specific resources & support necessary to execute the plan
Consistent Data Collection
• Data collection system for continuous measurement of the target behavior is established
• Data & student performance is continuously evaluated
• BIP is modified, if necessary, based upon evaluation of the data
Accurate & Consistent Implementation
• BIP is accurately implemented
• BIP is consistently implemented
• Data is collected on BIP implementation
• Social validity of the plan is established
• Collaborative process is maintained
Student Skill Deficits Addressed
• Skill vs. performance deficits are determined
• Skill deficits are remediated within a BIP or IEP
• Establish a functional & adaptive replacement behavior
Generalization & Maintenance Programming
• Long-term outcomes for the target behavior are established (environmentally, contextually,
Figure 1. Checklist for designing, implementing, and evaluating effective behavior intervention plans.
Note. BIP = behavior intervention plan; IEP = individualized education program.
VOL. 43, NO. 3, JANUARY 2008 147
effective BIPs. Although this discussion has focused on
the development of individual plans, practitioners should
be aware that to provide effective interventions, not only
must BIPs address issues specific to an individual student,
but specific systems inherent to the school that also serve
as contextual factors and that may contribute to the occurrence of undesirable behaviors (Todd, Horner, Sugai, &
Sprague, 1999). Effective interventions are not developed
in isolation, but rather are the product of individual and
cumulative efforts and global and specific assessment strategies. Future resources should be directed toward training
educators on more effective practices to improve the
quality of intervention programming to most effectively
meet the educational needs of students with behavior
problems in the classroom and other school settings.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kim Killu, PhD, is an associate professor of special education
at the University of Michigan–Dearborn. Her current interests
include applied behavior analysis, the assessment and treatment
of severe behavior disorders, and functional behavior assessment/
behavior intervention planning policy and practice. Address:
Kim Killu, University of Michigan–Dearborn, School of
Education, 19000 Hubbard Dr., Dearborn, MI, 48126; e-mail:
kimkillu@umd.umich.edu
REFERENCES
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for
teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 1, 91–97.
Baer, R. A., Williams, J. A., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F. (1984).
Delayed reinforcement as an indiscriminable contingency in verbal/
nonverbal correspondence training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
17, 429–440.
Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Kirkpatrick, M. A., Patton, J. R., & Fad,
K. M. (2000). Developing behavioral intervention plans: A sequential
approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 3–9.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P.,
Sailor, W., et al. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an
applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 4–16.
Codding, R. S., Feinberg, A. B., Dunn, E. K., & Pace, S. M. (2005).
Effects of immediate performance feedback on implementation
of behavior support plans. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
38, 205–219.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice
Hall.
Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford.
Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2004). Responding to
problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program. New York:
Guilford.
DeLeon, I., & Iwata, B. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging
alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
148 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Tindal, G. (1986). Direct and frequent
curriculum-based measurement: An alternative for educational decision making. Special Services in the Schools, 2, 5–27.
Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerezel, M., Clarke, S., Williams, D., Childs,
K., et al. (1993). Functional assessment of classroom variables for
students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
18, 275–291.
Durand, V. M. (1988). The motivation assessment scale. In M. Hersen &
A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques
(pp. 309–310). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Ferritor, D. E., Buckholdt, D., Hamblin, R. L., & Smith, L. (1972).
The noneffects of contingent reinforcement for attending behavior
on work accomplished. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 7–17.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C., Bowman, L., Hagopian, L., Owens, J., & Slevin, I.
(1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers
for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
Florida Department of Education (1999, November). Facilitator’s guide:
Positive behavioral support. Tampa, FL: Bureau of Instructional
Support and Community Services.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Stecker, P. M. (1989). The effects of curriculumbased measurement on teachers instructional planning. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 51–59.
Gable, R. A., Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. G., Howell, K. W., &
Hoffman, C. C. (2000). Addressing student problem behavior: Part III:
Creating positive behavioral intervention plans and supports.
Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Dennis, R. E., & Edelman, S. W.
(2000). Problem solving methods to facilitate inclusive education. In
R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective
education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd ed., pp. 293–327). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Atwater, J. (1991). Ecobehavioral
analysis in the classroom: Review and implications. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 1, 59–77.
Gresham, F., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. B., & Bocian,
K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 198–205.
Guevremont, D. C., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F. (1986a). Programming
maintenance after correspondence training interventions with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 215–219.
Guevremont, D. C., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F. (1986b). Preparation
for effective self-regulation: The development of generalized verbal
control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 99–104.
Gunter, P., & Denny, K. (1996). Research issues and needs regarding
teacher use of classroom management strategies. Behavioral Disorders,
22, 15–20.
Haring, N. G., & Liberty, K. A. (1990). Matching strategies with
performance in facilitating generalization. Focus on Exceptional Children,
22, 1–16.
Holmes, G., Cautela, J., Simpson, M., Motes, P., & Gold, J. (1998).
Factor structure of the school reinforcement survey schedule:
School is more than grades. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8,
131–140.
Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future
directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401–404.
Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., & Todd, A. W. (1999).
Positive behavior support for students with severe disabilities. In
M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed., pp. 207–243). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
Prentice Hall.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Todd, A. W. (2001). Data need not be a
four-letter word: Using data to improve school-wide discipline.
Beyond Behavior, 11, 20–22.
Jolivette, K., Wehby, J. H., & Hirsch, L. (1999). Academic strategy identification for students exhibiting inappropriate classroom behaviors.
Behavioral Disorders, 24, 210–221.
Kern, L., Childs, K., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using
assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom
behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7–19.
Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown, D. K. (1993). Teacher
use of descriptive analysis data to implement interventions to decrease
students’ problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
26, 227–238.
Levitt, L. K., & Rutherford, R. B. (1978). Strategies for handling the disruptive student. Tempe: Arizona State University, College of
Education.
Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the
disuse of positive reinforcement in schools. Exceptional Children,
67, 173–186.
Maag, J. W. (2003). Targeting behaviors and methods for recording
their occurrences. In M. J. Breen & C. R. Fiedler (Eds.), Behavioral
approach to assessment of youth with emotional/behavioral disorders: A
handbook for school-based practitioners (2nd ed., pp. 297–333). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Morgan, D., & Jenson, W. R. (1988). Teaching behaviorally disordered students: Preferred practices. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Noell, G. H., Duhon, G. J., Gatti, S. L., & Connell, J. R. (2002).
Consultation, follow-up, and implementation of behavior management interventions in general education. School Psychology Review,
31, 217–234.
Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T.
(1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility
of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 29, 201–212.
O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., &
Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment for problem behavior: A
practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/ Cole.
Pace, G., Ivancic, M., Edwards, G., Iwata, B., & Page, T. (1985).
Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18,
249–255.
Peterson, L., Homer, A. L., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1982). The integrity
of independent variables in behavior analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 15, 477–492.
Quinn, M. M. (2000). Creating safe, effective, and nurturing schools:
New opportunities and new challenges for serving all students. In
L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Positive academic and behavioral
supports: Creating safe, effective, and nurturing schools for all students
(pp. 1–5). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral
Disorders.
Scott, T. M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., &
DeShea, L. (2004). Using functional behavior assessment in general
education settings: Making a case for effectiveness and efficiency.
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201.
Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1997). Antecedent influences on behavior
disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 343–375.
Stichter, J., & Conroy, M. (2005). Using structural analysis in natural
settings: A responsive functional assessment strategy. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 14, 19–34.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.
Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1988). The developing applied technology
of generalization and maintenance. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, &
R. L Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance (pp. 5–19).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Stokes, T. F., Osnes, P. G., & Guevremont, D. C. (1987). Saying and
doing: A commentary on a contingency-space analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 161–164.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (Eds.). (2002). Introduction to the special
series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130–136.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2005). Schoolwide positive behavior supports:
Achieving and sustaining effective learning environments for all students. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, N. A. Neef, S. M. Peterson, D.
M. Sainato, G. Cartledge, et al. (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in
education: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 90–102).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. (1999). Functional assessmentbased behavior support planning: Research-to-practice-to-research.
Behavioral Disorders, 24, 223–227.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure,
43(1), 6–13.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan-Burke, S. (1999-2000). Overview of
the functional behavior assessment process. Exceptionality, 8(3), 149–160.
Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing
school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors:
A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 72–82.
Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Effective
behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a
team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23–27.
Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H. Vanater, S. M., & Schneider, C. F. (1997).
Working together to make change: An example of positive behavioral
support for a student with traumatic brain injury. Education and
Treatment of Children, 20, 425–440.
Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatterplot
for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 18, 343–351.
Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment and intervention in a regular
classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a student with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 267–278.
Wilson, P. C., Gutkin, T. B., Hagen, K. M., & Oates, R. G. (1998).
General education teacher’s knowledge and self-reported use of classroom interventions for working with difficult-to-teach students:
Implications for consultation, prereferral intervention and inclusive
services. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 45–62.
VOL. 43, NO. 3, JANUARY 2008 149
9 The Behavior Analyst and the Individual Behavior Change Program (Guideline 4) As alluded to in
Chapter 4, in the early evolution of the field, behavior analysts had a modus operandi of carrying out
behavior change programs that could be described positively by supporters as “fluid” and by
detractors as “making it up as they went along.” In the beginning, behavior programs were just
extensions of laboratory procedures with adaptations for humans and the settings they occupied.
Nothing was written down, and there was no approval process per se. Data were always collected,
usually with precision and consistency, and the results were so novel and amazing that all of those
involved would marvel at the effects they were seeing with these primitive procedures. With success
came recognition of the seriousness of the mission these early leaders had undertaken. The
pioneers of behavior analysis quickly realized that these were not just experiments in behavior
change but rather a totally new form of therapy—data based to be sure but therapy nonetheless.
And therapy required a new level of care, consideration, thoughtfulness, and responsibility. It
became clear that better record keeping would be required. By the mid-1980s, behavior analysis
practitioners were fully in compliance with standards of the time, which required that the client, or a
surrogate, actually approve the program in writing before it was implemented. The pioneers of
behavior analysis quickly realized that these were not just experiments in behavior change but rather
a totally new form of therapy. As a field, we are primarily interested in developing behavior change
programs that teach new, appropriate, adaptive behaviors using nonharmful reinforcers whenever
possible. This increased responsibility and accountability also meant that other protocols must be
followed as well, such as using least restrictive procedures,* avoiding harmful consequences
(including both reinforcers and punishers), and involving the client in any modifications to programs
that might be made along the way. Skinner (1953) had always been against the use of punishers,
but it took the field of behavior analysis quite a while to codify some statement on this. It was the
vetting of these Guidelines that finally resulted in a concise and cohesive position: “The behavior
analyst recommends reinforcement rather than punishment whenever possible.” The essence of this
aspect of the Guidelines is to inform consumers and to remind behavior analysts that, as a field, we
are primarily interested in developing behavior change programs that teach new, appropriate,
adaptive behaviors using nonharmful reinforcers whenever possible. A great deal of “clinical
judgment” goes into the decision of when to stop treatment. One interesting feature of Guideline 4.0
is that we make it explicit that our form of therapy involves “ongoing data collection.” When
compared with other forms of treatment, this presents one of the most unique and valuable features.
Ongoing, objective data collection helps the behavior analyst understand the effect of treatment, and
the consumer is able to make an ongoing evaluation of the worth of the treatment as well. At the
onset of a behavior change program, most of the focus is on finding just the right treatment and
implementing it correctly, under safe conditions. One additional requirement for behavior analysts is
that some consideration be given to the termination criteria. Basically, we need to ask, “When will we
stop treatment?” It is presumed that termination comes when the consumer's behavior has been
sufficiently changed to warrant cessation, but what is the criterion? There is a great deal of “clinical
judgment” involved in this decision, and of course the client or his or her surrogate must also be
involved. By requiring that some thought be given to what level of behavior change is desired, the
Guidelines prevent open-ended treatment that goes on and on. If the behavior analyst is treating
self-injurious behavior (SIB), for example, he or she must indicate, and get approval for, some level
of acceptable behavior change. “Zero SIB for 2 weeks” might be one such goal. Or, if the behavior
change program involves an adaptive behavior, the goal might state, “Carl will be able to completely
dress himself, without any assistance, for 3 consecutive days.” As often happens, the client or the
client's surrogate might at that point decide to terminate treatment, or, as often happens, another
goal might be set such as, “Carl will be able to ride the bus independently for 1 week” or “Carl will be
able to complete a full work day with no SIB or inappropriate behavior.” THE BEHAVIOR ANALYST
AND THE INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAM (4.0) The behavior analyst (a) designs
programs that are based on behavior analytic principles, including assessments of effects of other
intervention methods, (b) involves the client or the client-surrogate in the planning of such programs,
(c) obtains the consent of the client, and (d) respects the right of the client to terminate services at
any time. Behavior analysts base their programs on basic principles of behavior, use behavioral
methods to evaluate their programs, and involve clients or their legal representatives in the planning
of those programs. See also 2.09c for a further discussion of the evaluation of “other” intervention
models. Behavior analysts inform clients of their right to end services at any time. CASE 4.0:
MASSAGE MESSAGE Jerry was a Board Certified assistant Behavior Analyst (BCaBA) who had
previously worked for years as a massage therapist. One of the first cases he received in a group
home for developmentally disabled adults involved a female client who would apparently “out of the
blue” run down the hall and hit another client in the back. She would laugh and then go in her room
and sit on her bed. Jerry felt that she was tense and that this was the cause of her bursts of
unpredictable aggression. He wrote an informal program that involved shoulder rubs for this client
following any such incident. As Jerry's supervisor, how would you handle this situation?
DESCRIBING CONDITIONS FOR PROGRAM SUCCESS (4.01) The behavior analyst describes to
the client or client-surrogate the environmental conditions that are necessary for the program to be
effective. Prior to the implementation of a program, the behavior analyst describes to the client or the
client's representative the conditions believed necessary for the program to work effectively. This
can actually be a rather complex matter because it has to be stated as a series of contingency
statements. It is almost always necessary to find the function of the behavior and then to find some
way to gain control over the key maintaining variables. If this includes reinforcement, some way of
making it contingent on appropriate behavior has to be arranged on a consistent basis without
causing satiation. And the program has to be designed in such a way that the client does not
suddenly engage in escape behavior. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT PRECLUDE
IMPLEMENTATION (4.02) If environmental conditions preclude implementation of a behavior
analytic program, the behavior analyst recommends that other professional assistance (i.e.,
assessment, consultation, or therapeutic intervention by other professionals) be sought. In most
circumstances a behavior analyst, having conducted a behavioral assessment, is going to
recommend some sort of behavioral treatment. However, if no BCaBA or Board Certified Behavior
Analyst (BCBA) is available to implement the treatment, or if there are no resources available to fund
a behavioral treatment, the behavior analyst will refer the case to another professional. One key
condition is the cooperation of the major parties involved in the case. For in-home services, it is
essential that both parents be on board with the treatment; if one is not and sabotages the
intervention, obviously there can be no progress. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT HAMPER
IMPLEMENTATION (4.03) If environmental conditions hamper implementation of the behavior
analytic program, the behavior analyst seeks to eliminate the environmental constraints, or identifies
in writing the obstacles to doing so. Behavior programs require certain minimum conditions (e.g., a
stable environment, some control over reinforcers, consistency in the delivery of consequences,
cooperation of key parties) to be effective. The behavior analyst will identify these “environmental
constraints” and will attempt to modify or eliminate them prior to implementing a behavior program. If
this is not possible, then the behavior analyst will put in writing a description of these conditions and
attempt to resolve them. CASE 4.03: COMPETING AGENDA Dr. Patti S., a Doctoral-level BCBA
(BCBA-D), was providing behavioral services to a large inner city preschool program for children
with disabilities. The program did a good job with regard to providing the support necessary for
behavioral programming to be effective. However, a new early childhood administrator came to the
district and decided that prekindergarten staff would be intensively trained off-site in the High Scope
(developmental) curriculum model. This newly required intensive training for staff resulted in classes
being short-staffed nearly every day. The staff members who remained at the facility were
scrambling to meet the basic needs of the children and no longer had time to, for example, take data
or to implement interventions. What is Dr. S.’s first step in handling this situation? APPROVING
INTERVENTIONS (4.04) The behavior analyst must obtain the client's or client-surrogate's approval
in writing of the behavior intervention procedures before implementing them. It is an obligation of the
behavior analyst to gain the client's approval, in writing, before a program is begun. CASE 4.04:
MAKING ASSUMPTIONS Juan, a newly certified BCBA, had just started working in a privately
owned school for children with autism. He had been asked to work with Carl, a child who has been
shrieking and slapping himself in the face. Juan arrived at the school after the previous BCBA
resigned. She left behind a functional analysis and a note that said a treatment plan was needed.
Due to the self-injurious nature of the behavior, Juan wanted to begin treatment immediately. He told
the teacher he assumed the parents would be fine with this because they knew a functional
assessment had been conducted by the previous BCBA. Since the functional assessment had been
completed, can Juan begin the treatment? REINFORCEMENT AND PUNISHMENT (4.05) The
behavior analyst recommends reinforcement rather than punishment whenever possible. If
punishment procedures are necessary, the behavior analyst always includes reinforcement
procedures for alternative behavior in the program. Behavior analysts have a bias in favor of the use
of reinforcers in behavior change programs and against the use of punishment. In some cases,
where punishment is the only alternative, reinforcers for other behaviors should always be included
as part of the program. CASE 4.05: UNNATURAL CONSEQUENCES From Case 4.04, Juan
decided that Carl's face slapping is maintained by self-reinforcement and is serious enough to
warrant a punishment procedure as an intervention. When Carl slapped his face, Juan wanted Carl's
hands to be firmly pulled away from his face and for the therapist to say in a loud voice, “No!” What
else does Juan need to do before submitting this program for approval? AVOIDING HARMFUL
REINFORCERS (4.06) The behavior analyst minimizes the use of items as potential reinforcers that
may be harmful to the long-term health of the client or participant (e.g., cigarettes, or sugar or fatladen food), or that may require undesirably marked deprivation procedures as motivating
operations. Although some reinforcers may be quite effective for some clients, if those reinforcers
could be harmful in the long-term they should be avoided if at all possible. Behavior analysts should
avoid the use of establishing (motivating) operations that involve significant degrees of deprivation.
CASE 4.06: STAY SWEET Mark was the BCaBA assigned to one house in a residential facility for
verbal, ambulatory adults with moderate to severe mental retardation. He was supervised by a
BCBA who came to the facility for only an hour or so each week. Because of this, Mark was called
on to draft most of the behavior programs and to plan interventions. Eddie was an extremely active
client who was constantly leaving whichever activity in which he was supposed to be involved. If he
was scheduled to be in the house, he would leave and wander around the grounds. If Eddie was
scheduled to be in the education building, he would often leave and go to his bedroom. Mark
decided that because Eddie liked sweets a good intervention would be to start reinforcing Eddie with
candy or a small glass of Coke every 10 minutes throughout the day if Eddie was where he was
supposed to be. Are there any special considerations for this reinforcement schedule that is so rich
with unhealthy food? ONGOING DATA COLLECTION (4.07) The behavior analyst collects data, or
asks the client, client- surrogate, or designated others to collect data needed to assess progress
within the program. Behavior analysts always collect data and continue data collection to evaluate a
program's effectiveness. The behavior analyst or some other designated person involved with the
behavior program might do this. CASE 4.07: ESCALATION PLAN Michelle, a BCBA, was working
with Doug, a 14-year-old who was in a special education class for teenagers with emotional
disorders. At home, Doug engaged in mild aggressive behaviors toward his younger brother, which
included pushing him or hitting him with a light slap. Doug's brother would yell and start to fight back.
Doug's mother told Michelle that the behaviors were not severe enough to really hurt anyone;
however, she was concerned that the intensity of the aggression could escalate if it wasn't stopped
now. Michelle planned an intervention and sent detailed notes to Doug's mother about how to handle
aggressive outbursts. Michelle told the mother she would call every week or so to see how things
were going. Is there anything else Michelle should have done? PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS (4.08)
The behavior analyst modifies the program on the basis of data. Behavior analysts are “online” with
the programs they implement, which means that they continue to look at the data to determine if the
program is working and, if necessary, make changes to the program to ensure success. CASE 4.08:
PATIENCE In Case 4.07, Michelle was eventually prompted by her supervisor to implement
treatment for the aggression in Doug's home. After 2 weeks of data collection, although Michelle was
sure her intervention would be effective, the data showed that Doug's behavior was not improving.
The behavior program for aggression had been highly effective with other students. Should Michelle
just keep trying with this program? How long should she try before she changes to another
approach? PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS CONSENT (4.09) The behavior analyst explains the
program modifications and the reasons for the modifications to the client or client-surrogate and
obtains consent to implement the modifications. If it is necessary to make changes to the behavior
program, the behavior analyst explains the reasons for the changes to the client or his or her legal
representative and receives consent for the changes. CASE 4.09: SLIGHT MODIFICATION Shakira
is a BCBA working in a special education classroom. Students spend part of the school day in the
classroom, and they are mainstreamed the remainder of the day. Tawana is a tall, lanky 12-year-old
who swears and becomes disruptive in class. She is on a behavior program that worked well until
recently when the program became ineffective. Knowing her clients very well, Shakira quickly figured
out that Tawana was bored with the reinforcers. Shakira planned some changes in the intervention,
including changing the reinforcers, reinforcement schedule, and adding consequences for
misbehavior. Because the behavior plan was already in effect, Shakira was certain that all of the
permission forms that were previously signed would cover the new version of the program. Was she
correct in assuming this? LEAST RESTRICTIVE PROCEDURES (4.10) The behavior analyst
reviews and appraises the restrictiveness of alternative interventions and always recommends the
least restrictive procedures likely to be effective in dealing with a behavior problem. In determining
alternatives in behavior programs, the behavior analyst will always try to use the least restrictive
method, which is, at the same time, still likely to be effective. CASE 4.10: SIT AND WATCH Jason, a
10-year-old with learning disabilities and social acting out, was mainstreamed into an elementary
school physical education class. Jason would frequently disrupt the whole class with his antics. He
would squeal loudly if he missed the ball, and he would make every attempt to run in a humorous
manner so that other students would laugh. The coach was frustrated and was ready to implement
his own behavioral intervention that was to have Jason run around the track each time he
misbehaved. The school principal sent Dr. David K., a BCBA-D, to meet with the coach and discuss
alternatives. Dr. K. suggested that the first intervention simply be that when Jason acted out he
would be sent to the bench to sit and watch. Dr. K. explained to the coach that this was a procedure
that was research based and known to be effective. For what other reasons was “sit-and-watch”
preferable to running around the track? TERMINATION CRITERIA (4.11) The behavior analyst
establishes understandable and objective (i.e., measurable) criteria for the termination of the
program and describes them to the client or client-surrogate. At the onset of behavior programming,
the behavior analyst will specify some criterion for determining when to end the program: for
example, if the goal was to treat head banging, the criterion might be zero incidents in a 2-week
period. CASE 4.11: WHEN TO TELL Dr. N. was consulting with clients who were senior citizens
living in a residential facility. Mrs. Baker refused to walk anywhere. She sat in a wheelchair day after
day, and within a short period of time she no longer had the strength to walk to the dining room or
down the hall. The medical staff identified walking as the number one goal for Mrs. Baker. Dr. N.
knew that behavioral services for this activity would probably be needed only for a few weeks.
Should Dr. N. tell Mrs. Baker he will be working with her until she improves, or should he wait until
he is ready to terminate her services? TERMINATING CLIENTS (4.12) The behavior analyst
terminates the relationship with the client when the established criteria for termination are attained,
as in when a series of planned or revised intervention goals has been completed. When the
previously established goal has been met, the behavior analyst will inform the client that behavioral
services are no longer required and will close the case. CASE 4.12: EXTENDING TREATMENT In
Case 4.11, Dr. N. was exactly correct when he told the facility administrator he would have Mrs.
Baker out of the wheelchair and walking again in record time. Dr. N. used very systematic shaping to
add some distance to each day's walk. By the end of 2 months, Mrs. Baker could walk to the dining
room using a cane. Dr. N. told Mrs. Baker she was ready to “graduate” and walk on her own. She
began to say she didn't want Dr. N. to leave the facility. The more he thought about it, Dr. N. decided
he could expand and extend Mrs. Baker's walking program. He could try to get her to walk without
the cane or to walk a greater distance, such as to the yard outside. When a client is doing extremely
well, is it a good idea to extend programming? RESPONSES TO CASES CASE 4.0: MASSAGE
MESSAGE As Jerry's supervisor, you would first need to remind him that he is now a behavior
analyst and that it is time to leave massage therapy behind and begin thinking in terms of
contingencies of reinforcement. It would appear that Jerry needs some on-the-job training on how to
analyze cases like this one, including data collection. He will also need to be trained on the
importance of working with the legal representatives of the clients, including their right to terminate
services. CASE 4.03: COMPETING AGENDA Dr. S. Needs to identify in writing for the principal and
school's prekindergarten district administrator the environmental (staffing) problems that are
hampering the implementation of behavioral programs. CASE 4.04: MAKING ASSUMPTIONS
According to the Guidelines, Juan needs to obtain the client's or client-surrogate's (in this case, the
parents) permission for the intervention procedures and could use this as an occasion to meet the
parents. CASE 4.05: UNNATURAL CONSEQUENCES Because behavior analysts should
recommend reinforcement rather than punishment whenever possible, Carl's program needs to have
some reinforcement procedures for alternative behaviors, such as holding and playing with a toy,
raising his hand to get the teacher's attention, or using a musical instrument or art materials. CASE
4.06: STAY SWEET The Guidelines state that behavior analysts should minimize reinforcers that
may be harmful to the health of the client. It is possible that this much sugar could have a negative
effect on Eddie's blood sugar level. If Eddie was responsive to very small amounts of these
reinforcers, such that at the end of the day, he had received only one-half Coke and one-half bag of
candy, this might be acceptable. Any food reinforcers would, of course, have to be approved by the
medical staff and dietician. And, if this program was successful, Mark would want to stretch the
schedule to 15 minutes, then 20 minutes, and so on, so that the total amount of sugar per day was
not excessive. CASE 4.07: ESCALATION PLAN Whenever an intervention is implemented, data
should be collected to evaluate the results of the intervention. It is appropriate for behavior analysts
to train clients, professionals, and client-surrogates (in this case, parents) to take data. Because
Doug is aggressive in the home setting, the parents need to be taking data at home. The behavior
analyst should design a data collection system and train the parents. CASE 4.08: PATIENCE
Behavior analysts must modify behavior programs on the basis of data, but what is not known, and
which must be decided in each case, is how much data. When do you know when it is time to quit a
procedure and try something different? This is a difficult question that certainly requires careful
thought and input from experienced behavior analysts who understand the client and the setting
where the behavior occurs. In this case, because the program has been successful with other
students, we need to know more about those cases and the circumstances surrounding the
assessment of effectiveness. CASE 4.09: SLIGHT MODIFICATION When a behavior program is
modified, the behavior analyst needs to explain the modifications and to obtain consent again. In this
case, consent would come from the parents. The changes should also be explained to Tawana.
CASE 4.10: SIT AND WATCH Because this is the first attempt at a behavior plan for Jason, the
behavior analyst needs to start with the least restrictive procedures. “Sit-and-watch,” which is a brief
time-out, is a better starting point than the physically grueling, and potentially dangerous, task of
running around a track in the hot sun. CASE 4.11: WHEN TO TELL Dr. N. Needs to establish criteria
for the walking program and explain the criteria to the facility administrator. He also needs to explain
to Mrs. Baker, in terms she can understand, that as soon she can walk a certain distance she will
“graduate” from her walking program. If she has family members, they should also be consulted on
this matter. CASE 4.12: EXTENDING TREATMENT In general, the behavior analyst needs to
terminate the relationship when the established criteria are obtained. In this case, if the administrator
and Mrs. Baker's family wished to further extend her goals, having Dr. N. stay on the case a while
longer would be appropriate. * The term least restrictive does not always make sense when applied
to procedures as opposed to environments. In the original Wyatt v. Stickney (1971) case, a patient
kept in an institution (clearly restrictive with locked wards and seclusion rooms) who could be treated
in the community (clearly less restrictive by comparison) was entitled to be treated in “the least
restrictive environment.” When applied to treatments, “least restrictive” suggests that some
procedures like time-out are probably more restrictive than Differential Reinforcement of other
Behaviors (DRO), for example. A physical or mechanical restraint is likewise more restrictive than
time-out. Or is it? Time-out requires that the person be removed from the environment, perhaps to a
place where he or she cannot see others. Is this more or less restrictive? And what about
punishment? Is a sharp “no!” contingent on behavior “Restrictive”? other aversive stimuli such as
water mist or lemon juice would also be included in this category.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment