PSY 540 Milestone Four Guidelines and Rubric: Peer Review Discussion
Overview
This assignment marks the final milestone related to the final proposal. In this assignment, you will offer a constructive critique of a peer’s rough draft of the
proposal and respond to a peer’s critique of your own proposal. Part of the proposal-writing process in professional settings involves soliciting feedback from
trusted colleagues. Gaining outside insights from colleagues allows proposal writers to apply perspectives to their final product that they may not have
previously considered.
Through sharing your work with your classmates in this assignment, you will be able to use their valuable input to improve your own proposal. By participating in
the peer review process, you will also gain new insights about your proposal and perhaps your understanding of your selected topic.
In Module Six, you will post your rough draft of your final project proposal for your peers to review in the Module Seven discussion. In Module Seven, you will
review the essay of one of your peers. Be sure to prioritize posts that do not yet have a response.
You will most likely need to review your peer’s proposal several times to complete a comprehensive evaluation. Read the work in its entirety and then jot down
your first impressions or add comments in the margins. Then, you will need to read additional times to develop your formal review. Your peer review discussion
post should be three to four paragraphs long and address the elements and questions below:
Strengths: What areas of the proposal work well?
Areas of Additional Clarification: What areas of the proposal could benefit from additional clarification?
Remaining Questions: What remaining questions do you have related to your colleague’s chosen topic and proposal?
Reflection: Discuss how your peer’s work influences or informs your own proposal or your understanding of your topic.
Keep in mind that the intent of your peer review is not to provide your classmate with a number or letter grade. Instead, you are providing written feedback as to
the question prompts noted above. This assignment, as well as your response to your colleague’s review of your own work, will be graded using the rubric on the
following page. If you need additional information as to what to look for in your review of your colleague’s essay, refer to the Milestone Three Guidelines and
Rubric document.
Keep the following guidelines in mind as you formulate your review. In your review:
Include constructive feedback offering insights as to how your peer could improve his or her next draft.
Direct your review at the content of the proposal and not the author.
Ask clarifying questions whenever possible.
In addition to your initial post offering your review of a peer’s proposal, you are also required to respond to your peer’s review of your own work. In your
response post, consider your peer’s feedback and take the opportunity to work through areas noted for additional clarification and to address your peer’s
questions or explain how the feedback will influence your revisions for your final proposal.
Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: The peer review and accompanying peer review response should take the form of two discussion posts. You first post will be three to
four paragraphs long and will provide one of your peers with feedback. Second, you will respond to the feedback your peer provided on your own draft. This
response should be one to two paragraphs long and specifically address questions raised and offer clarification as requested by your reviewer. Both posts must
contain proper grammar and spelling and follow APA citations when appropriate.
Critical Elements
Strengths
Areas for Additional
Clarification
Remaining
Questions
Reflection
Peer Review
Response
Writing
(Mechanics)
Exemplary (100%)
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
notes specific examples or
passages from the submitted
draft
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides specific, actionable
recommendations
Proficient (90%)
Identifies what areas of the
proposal work well and provides
supporting explanation
Needs Improvement (70%)
Identifies what areas of the
proposal work well, but lacks
supporting explanation
Not Evident (0%)
Does not identify what areas of
the proposal work well
Value
20
Identifies areas in need of
additional clarification and
explains how these clarifications
could improve the proposal
Does not identify an area in
need of additional clarification
20
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
questions directly relate to
critical elements of the
assignment
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
explains connections with
concrete examples highlighting
similarities and differences
Poses questions that are
relevant to the topic and
proposal
Identifies additional
clarifications, but
recommendations lack
specificity and supporting
explanations
Poses questions that are not
relevant to the topic or proposal
Does not pose any remaining
questions
20
Discusses irrelevant connections
between the peer’s proposal,
student’s own proposal, and
student’s understanding of the
topic
Response fails to address all
peer’s questions or lacks plans
to incorporate relevant
feedback
Initial post and responses are
understandable using proper
citation methods where
applicable with a number of
errors in citations
Does not discuss connections
between the peer’s proposal,
student’s own proposal, and
student’s understanding of the
topic
Response is not provided
20
Initial post and responses are
not understandable and do not
use proper citation methods
where applicable
10
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
plans to incorporate feedback
are prioritized around the area
of greatest need
Initial post and responses are
easily understood, clear, and
concise using proper citation
methods where applicable with
no errors in citations
Discusses relevant connections
between the peer’s proposal,
student’s own proposal, and
student’s understanding of the
topic
Response addresses peer’s
questions and conveys plans to
incorporate relevant feedback
Initial post and responses are
easily understood using proper
citation methods where
applicable with few errors in
citations
Earned Total
10
100%
PSY 540 Milestone Three Guidelines and Rubric: Rough Draft
Overview
For your rough draft, you will submit a complete proposal that includes all the required elements of the final proposal and incorporates any relevant instructor
feedback you received on Milestones One and Two. In your rough draft, be sure to address all the following critical elements:
I.
Problem Statement
a) Describe the contemporary problem that is the focus of your proposal with full details with respect to your selected applied setting. Here,
consider how new developments or changes in your applied setting are creating new cognition-related challenges. For instance, you might note
that increased use of online education is presenting new challenges to students with ADHD.
b) Identify your selected area of cognitive psychology (attention, learning, memory, language, or decision making) and appropriate foundational
theories that apply to your selected problem. What are the foundational aspects of these theories, and how do they relate to your selected
problem? Carrying through with the previous example, you would indicate that your area of focus is attention and identify related theories that
can shed further light on the contemporary problem of attention demands on students with ADHD.
c) Describe performance issues in your selected applied setting based on limitations of human cognitive systems. What are some of the specific
issues related to your contemporary problem, the applied setting, and the limits of the human cognitive system? Here, you will further break
down your contemporary problem and explain how the problem relates to the applied setting, what we know about cognition, and how this
impacts performance.
d) Create a research question that addresses potential improvements to practices in the applied setting based on the strengths of human cognitive
systems. Remember that your research question should address your contemporary problem. For instance, in keeping with the previous
example, you might ask, “How can changes to online learning platforms better support increased attention to course materials for students with
ADHD?”
II.
Contemporary Relevance
a) Evaluate the utility of the theories you identified when describing your problem with respect to their strengths and limitations. Here, revisit the
theories you noted in critical element I, part b. How do the theories you identified further explain the problems and performance issues you
identified? What are the strengths and limitations of each theory in helping to understand your identified problem?
b) Which particular theory offers the greatest utility for practitioners to apply in addressing real-world issues specific to the contemporary problem
you selected? Defend your selection.
III.
Interpretation of Research Findings: Explain how each primary or secondary resource you selected supports your research question. This is where you
will apply sound methodological principles (by following the prompts below, a–b) to qualify the research results and statistical findings.
a) How do the research results and statistical findings apply to your research question and your proposed improvements?
b) Explain the strengths and limitations of the research results and findings in supporting the research question. This is where you will explain how
the research results and findings you have reviewed support your research question and identify specific gaps in the research. In other words, in
reviewing your sources, is there sufficient support for this research question? This is also where you will identify what research does not yet exist
that is necessary in supporting the application of your research question.
IV.
Methodological Principles: This is where you will look at your research question (critical element I, part d) and determine what types of strategies or
techniques you would use if you were to hypothesize improving upon the problem in your selected applied setting. Here, you might propose an
experiment, a new program or initiative, or adoption of new tools/technologies. Remember, you are not limited to a controlled experiment.
a) What socially responsible strategies and techniques could be used for improving upon human cognitive processes specific to your applied
setting? Here, consider how you could implement your proposed solution in a way that does not further aggravate the problem or put
participating parties at risk of new problems or performance issues.
b) What are the implications for using these strategies and techniques? Consider, who and what about the applied setting would be impacted by
this proposed solution? What would change, and how might these changes be received?
V.
Conclusion
a) What potential future direction do you see from implementation of your research specific to addressing the contemporary problem you cited in
critical element I, part a? Here, consider how implementation of your proposed solution or improvement can add to the existing body of
research on your topic. How might your proposed improvements and any follow-up research prove interesting to other applied settings?
Rubric
Please note that the grading rubric for the rough draft submission is not identical to that of the final project. The Final Project Rubric will include an additional
“Exemplary” category that provides guidance as to how you can go above and beyond “Proficient” in your final submission.
Guidelines for Submission: Your rough draft should be double spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, with one-inch margins and APA citations. Your draft
proposal should be a minimum of six pages, not including cover page and references, and use preapproved resources. (The submission should include a variety
of research and findings from at least three of the provided publications. Review the Final Project Document to access the list of approved publications provided
for you.)
Reminder: Please be sure to also post a copy of your Rough Draft to the Module 7 Peer Review discussion.
Critical Elements
Problem Statement:
Contemporary Problem
Problem Statement:
Selected Area
Proficient 100%
Describes a contemporary problem in
full detail with respect to the applied
setting
Explains aspects of foundational
theories, fully connecting them to
selected problem
Needs Improvement 80%
Describes the contemporary problem,
but with gaps in detail with respect to
the applied setting
Explains aspects of foundational
theories, but with gaps in connecting
them to selected problem
Not Evident 0%
Does not describe a contemporary
problem in any detail with respect to
the applied setting
Does not explain aspects of
foundational theories
Value
9
9
Problem Statement:
Performance Issues and
Limitations
Problem Statement:
Potential Improvements
Contemporary Relevance:
Utility Of Theories
Contemporary Relevance:
Apply
Interpretation of Research:
Question
Interpretation of Research:
Support
Methodological Principles:
Strategies and Techniques
Methodological Principles:
Implications
Identifies performance issues in the
selected fields (education, law,
mental health, or technology),
demonstrating clear connection to
the limitations of human cognitive
systems
Creates research question that
addresses potential improvements to
practices in the applied setting based
on the strengths of human cognitive
systems
Evaluate the utility of the
foundational theories for
practitioners with respect to their
strengths and limitations
Selects theory and defends with
explanation on how particular theory
offers the greatest utility for
practitioners to apply specific to
contemporary problem selected
Explains the research and research
findings with regard to how they
apply to proposed improvements
Explains the strengths and limitations
of the research results and findings in
supporting the research question
Recommends appropriate, socially
responsible strategies and techniques
for improving human cognitive
processes that are applicable to
applied setting
Explains implications of the strategies
and techniques in full detail with
respect to the applied setting
Identifies performance issues in the
selected applied setting (education,
law, mental health, or technology),
but connections to the limitations of
human cognitive systems are unclear
Does not identify performance issues
in the selected applied setting
(education, law, mental health, or
technology)
9
Research question addresses
potential improvements to practices
in the applied setting, but
connections to the strengths of
human cognitive systems are unclear
Evaluates the utility of the
foundational theories for
practitioners, but with gaps in
addressing their strengths or
limitations
Selects theory but is unclear on how
selection offers the greatest utility for
practitioners to apply in addressing
real-world issues specific to
contemporary problem selected
Explains the research and research
findings, but does not connect to
proposed improvements
Explains the research results and
findings, but does not address
strengths or limitations
Does not create research question
that addresses potential
improvements to practices in the
applied setting
9
Does not evaluate the utility of the
foundational theories
9
Does not select particular theory for
practitioners to apply in addressing
real-world issues
9
Does not explain how the research
and research findings apply to
proposed improvements
Does not explain the strengths and
limitations of the research results and
findings in supporting the research
question
Does not make appropriate, socially
responsible recommendations for
strategies and techniques for
improving human cognitive processes
9
Does not explain implications of the
strategies and techniques with
respect to the applied setting
9
Recommends appropriate strategies
and techniques for improving human
cognitive processes, but with gaps in
applicability to proposal
Explains implications of the strategies
and techniques, but with gaps in
detail with respect to the applied
setting
9
9
Conclusion
Articulation of Response
Explains potential future direction
from implementation of research
specific to addressing the
contemporary problem(s)
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Explains potential future direction
from implementation of research, but
with gaps in how it is specific to
addressing the contemporary
problem(s)
Submission has major errors related
to citations, grammar, spelling,
syntax, or organization that negatively
impact readability and articulation of
main ideas
Does not explain potential future
direction from implementation of
research study
5
Submission has critical errors related
to citations, grammar, spelling,
syntax, or organization that prevent
understanding of ideas
5
Earned Total
100%
Running head: MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
PSY 540 Milestone Three
Rough Draft
Sarah Bertles
Southern New Hampshire University
1
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
2
Problem Statement
From the time children start school at the young age of four or five, they begin to learn
and utilize executive functioning skills. Executive functioning are skills such as, paying
attention, managing time, planning and organization, starting a task and remembering to follow
through, managing impulsivity and emotions, as well as self-reflection. Each child will learn
these skills at a different pace. Teachers and other education professionals work with children on
their academics; reading, writing, and mathematics. However, these professionals are also in the
position to teach children how to act in a structured setting. Many children attend prekindergarten or daycare, so they head into grade school with some basic knowledge of how to act
in a classroom. Unfortunately, not all children have that luxury, or they may have a
learning/behavioral disability that causes them to lack these important executive functioning
skills. At such early ages, parents, caregivers, and teachers are just beginning to see
learning/behavioral disabilities such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in their
children. In an educational setting, children are responsible for navigating their day to day
requirements as a student. This means being able to focus in class, not disturb their fellow
classmates, and utilize executive functioning skills. Children in early grade school, may exhibit
early warning signs that educational professionals may not see as struggles in executive function.
Some of these signs may include, exhibiting frustration more easily than their peers, having
frequent meltdowns over little things, they may even have trouble following directions or
insisting things be done a certain way. Therefore, it is important for teachers and other
educational professionals to be able to analyze behaviors and have adequate behavior
intervention plans in place to help children that struggle with attention/learning/behavioral
disabilities.
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
3
ADHD has been long thought of as a behavioral disability, where children are
hyperactive and bouncing off the walls. While this may be the case for some children, the
primary problem for others is with attention. The area of cognitive psychology that relates to my
topic is, attention. Attention isn’t just about listening to someone when they are talking to you.
Attention encompasses all of the executive functioning skills mentioned above. Difficulties with
executive functioning skills and ADHD are closely related. All children that have ADHD have
trouble with executive functioning, but not all children with executive functioning issues have
ADHD. “Attention has been described as a filter of information, as a spotlight focused on an
aspect of the environment, and as glue that binds features of the environment together” (McBride
& Cutting, 2018, p. 79). As the brain filters information, it determines the irrelevant information
in the environment and allows us to choose what we want to pay attention to. Attention can also
be viewed as a spotlight. Our consciousness focuses on a specific stimulus in the environment.
This can be seen in children with ADHD when they hyperfocus on a specific task, such as
playing video games. Focused attention involves two stages of processing the information in the
environment. According to McBride & Cutting (2018), The first stage is our brain
subconsciously identifying the different features of a scene in the environment, while the second
stage is our brain consciously putting all of these features together to understand the scene as a
whole (McBride & Cutting, 2018, p. 85). There are several theories that relate to attention. Some
of these include, Broadbent’s filter model, Treisman’s attention theory, and the theory of mind.
Knowing that there are theories that relate to attention, I wonder if any of these theories can help
create effective behavior intervention plans to help children with impulsivity and attention.
Contemporary Relevance
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
4
One theory that I think is important to discuss is David Broadbent’s filter model.
Broadbent was a researcher, who first proposed that humans have a selected view of attention.
He believed that “our attention is limited by the amount of information we can focus on at a
particular time” (McBride & Cutting, 2018, p. 79). Humans only have a limited capacity of
attention, therefore, only a limited amount of information can be attended. This is important in
how everyone, including children learn how to focus and pay attention in school. In Broadbent’s
filter model, he believed that information was brought in from the environment to our senses,
then our brains are able to filter through the information by relying on characteristics (such as the
tone of someone’s voice). Next, the information that gets passed through the filter gets sent
through to our short- and long-term memories, depending on the importance of the information.
Children that lack executive functioning skills or have ADHD may not be able to filter out
information from the environment. The teacher may be telling the students instructions on how
to complete an assignment, but the student’s peers may be talking next to him, and their may be
other children in the hallway. All of these distractions jumble the thoughts and attention of the
child. Teachers have the opportunities and resources available to cater to the different learning
styles of their students. Behavior intervention plans are a great resource for children that may
not be able to filter out the external stimuli in the environment in order to pay attention in class.
Theory of mind (ToM) is another theory that can relate to children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder as well as children that have executive functioning difficulties. Theory of
mind is described as the ability to interpret one’s own mental and emotional state, as well as the
mental and emotional state of others. Children with ADHD and executive functioning
difficulties may exhibit ToM difficulties by lack of attention or impulsivity. In a study by,
Berenguer, Roello, Colomer, Baixauli, and Miranda (2018), research was completed to compare
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
5
children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) plus attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), ADHD, ASD, typically developing (TD) on executive function (EF), theory of mind
(ToM), and behavior problems. 124 children and their families were broken into groups based
on the child’s diagnosis and they completed a battery of assessments. Based on the data analysis,
the results show that children with ASD and with ADHD had significant differences of executive
functioning compared to children in the typically developing group. These groups also showed
differences in the application of ToM knowledge in the real world. However, the group with
ADHD showed more behavioral and hyperactivity problems. The group of children with
combined ASD and ADHD presented more executive functioning difficulties and more
behavioral difficulties. The results showed that inattention was also a significant variable with
ToM skills. This study has shown that children with ADHD and executive functioning
difficulties also share difficulties with inattention and ToM skills. Educators can utilize this
information to prepare intervention plans that can effectively teach children that suffer from
these difficulties.
Research Findings
School-based training programs for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) are created to allow students to learn at their full potential. The Challenging Horizons
Program-the afterschool version (CHP-AS), and the Challenging Horizons Program-the
mentoring version (CHP-M) are two school-based training programs that Evans, Schultz,
Langberg, Vaughn, Altaye, Marshall, & Zoromski, (2016) chose to utilize during their research.
326 students in grades sixth through eighth grade with a diagnosis of ADHD, completed a study
over the course of a year; with CHP-AS occurring twice a week. For CHP-M, each student was
paired with a mentor who was trained by one of the consultants and delivered the interventions
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
6
during school hours. The results of this study show that CHP-AS benefits young adolescents
with ADHD, by providing organizational and time management skills, as well as helped with
homework problems, academic functioning and inattentiveness.
The limitations of this study include the setting and the time period in which the study
was completed. This study was conducted over a two-year period that included a baseline and
follow-up. There was some missing data and gaps in the services, due to school holidays or
missed days of school. There was also a limited number of participants with significant social
impairment, partly because the parents rated their children as being in the normal range for social
functioning. The strength of this survey is that this study shows that behavior intervention
programs are ideal for teaching skills and that they are better than at home and classroom
accommodations.
Another study by authors, Nolan & Filter (2012), looked at functional assessments and
functional analysis technologies to facilitate post-international adoptees (PIA) students with
problem classroom behaviors. This study utilized functional based analyses to determine the
behaviors. Previous interventions have failed partly because they were based on the assumption
that the problems were maintained by escaping or attention-seeking. The participant population
included only one male student that was adopted from Eastern Europe and attended a public
elementary school in the Midwestern United States. According the study, this student grew up in
an orphanage and once in the United States was able to qualify for special education, based on
his diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He had many behavioral
problems that included inappropriate verbal and physical outbursts. These outbursts led to him
being continuously pulled from the classroom most days, resulting in the absence of instructional
time. The limitations of this study were there was only one participant, and the study was only
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
7
interested in post international adoption student. However, these functional analysis assessments
and technologies could be personalized to meet the needs of a variety of students.
The study tested the student using a functional analysis. It tested the student in four
conditions: play, alone, escape, and attention. It was conducted in five phases, including a
baseline and intervention phase. The results suggest that the student’s problem behaviors
occurred most frequently in the alone condition. The findings suggest that a combination of
noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and response cost (RC) are more effective at treating
problem behaviors.
A strength of the survey is that it suggests the functional analysis was able to reduce the
behaviors to a manageable level during the treatment. Like the research done by Evans, Schultz,
Langberg, Vaughn, Altaye, Marshall, & Zoromski, (2016), this study is useful for educators
because it allows them to identify ways a functional analysis is beneficial to children with
attention and impulsivity issues. Once a functional analysis is done to see what the problem areas
are for the student, a behavior intervention plan can be created. While they are called behavior
intervention plans, they help the students with a plethora of issues that a child may face in the
classroom. It is not just about trying to regulate behaviors, but to allow the child to be able to
focus and pay attention in class.
To evaluate the use of behavioral skills training (BST), and to teach educators in a
school setting how to implement the components of a student’s behavior intervention plan (BIP),
Hogan, Knez, & Kahng (2015), created a study that consisted of two phases. The first phase
consisted of the verbal instructions and modeling of the BST. The second phase consisted of the
rehearsal of the procedures. Based on the results, the research indicated that BST’s are effective
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
8
at teaching educators the different components of a BIP and that the educator’s implementation
improved after the training.
My research revolves around effective behavior intervention plans that can help children
with attention and impulsivity; therefore, this article has results and findings that I can utilize to
help me better understand behavioral skills training methods and how they affect behavior
intervention plans. The strength of this article is that it provides me with tangible data and gives
me a starting off point with my research. However, there are limitations to this study. The
participants of this study included four female instructional staff members that are not licensed
educators. They work in a nonpublic day school for children with autism and other
developmental disabilities. This can be a strength, due to the educational setting only focusing
on children with disabilities. The limitation is that it is a small participant pool and the lack of
experience within the participant pool. The study only included two students. Two staff
members were trained on student A’s BIP, while the other two staff members were trained on
student B’s BIP.
Methodological Principles
After researching attention in a school setting, I noticed that there aren’t a lot of programs
specifically geared towards children that have attention difficulties. Most intervention plans
focus their goals on disruptive behaviors. For this reason, the research question that I would like
to propose is, what are some effective behavior intervention plans to help children with
impulsivity and attention? I have found solid research that suggests intervention plans do work
for children. However, I will still need to research different types of plans, that focus the
interventions on techniques used to improve attention and impulsivity. I would also like to
expand the research, to include teaching strategies; this would be beneficial for general education
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
9
teachers to use in their classroom, as a whole. Many students, especially those just beginning
school lack attention. Most students are able to adjust, while others need individual education
plans (IEP) and specialized education to help them succeed. Those students that don’t quite meet
the qualifications for an IEP still benefit from intervention techniques. Also, many students with
IEP’s are mainstreamed into general education classrooms. For these reasons, I think there is a
greater need to teach all educators intervention techniques that can be used to help a larger
population of students.
Conclusion
Attention at school is not just a problem focusing on what the teacher is saying or staying
on task; it encompasses so many other behaviors. Some of these include, anxiety, which may be
caused by separation from family and worrying something might happen while they are apart; or
being embarrassed that they will say the wrong answer or worrying that their work isn’t perfect
enough. Some children have obsessive compulsive disorder or are affected by stress/trauma.
Lastly, attention could be disrupted due to learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. Sometimes,
teachers are the first ones to see these attention difficulties in children. This is because they are
in a structured setting, unlike the comforts of a child’s home. The best intervention is to first
acknowledge that there is a problem. The second-best intervention is teaching the professionals
the tools they need to provide strategies to their students. From this point, my research would
propose that educators learn how to personalize their classroom strategies to build confident
learners, manage disruptive behaviors, and provide tools for students that lack executive function
skills.
MILESTONE THREE ROUGH DRAFT
10
References
Berenguer, C., Roselló, B., Colomer, C., Baixauli, I., & Miranda, A. (2018). Children with
autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Relationships between symptoms and
executive function, theory of mind, and behavioral problems. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 83, 260–269. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.10.001
Evans, S.W., Schultz, B. K., Langberg, J. M., Vaughn, A., Altaye, M., Marshall, S. A., &
Zoromski, A. (2016). Evaluation of a school-based treatment program for young
adolescents with adhd. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, (1), 15. Retrieved
from https://search-ebscohostcom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgih&AN=edsgcl.452393241&site
=eds-live&scope=site
Hogan, A., Knez, N., & Kahng, S. (2015). Evaluating the use of behavioral skills training to
improve school staffs’ implementation of behavior intervention plans. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 24(2), 242-254. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s10864-014-9213-9
McBride, D.M., & Cutting, J. C. (2019). Cognitive psychology interactive ebook. 2nd ed.
Cengage Learning.
Nolan, J. D., & Filter, K. J. (2012). A function-based classroom behavior intervention using noncontingent reinforcement plus response Cost. Education and Treatment of Children,
35(3), 419. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohostcom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.42900594&site=ed
s-live&scope=site
Purchase answer to see full
attachment