Effects of behavior support team composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans.

This study examined how the composition of a behavior support team affected use of assessment information in the design of behavior support plans. Specifically, we examined if typical teams designed behavior support plans that differed in (a) technical adequacy and/or (b) contextual fit when (1) teams did not include behavior specialists, (2) teams included behavior specialists, or (3) behavior specialists worked alone. Fifty-eight school personnel on 12 behavior support teams from typical elementary schools and 6 behavior specialists participated in the study. Vignettes describing hypothetical students with functional behavior assessment outcome information were used to develop 36 behavior support plans (12 by teams alone, 12 by specialists alone, and 12 by teams with specialists). Results were assessed by 3 expert behavior analysts for technical adequacy and by all 64 team members for contextual fit. Technical adequacy tended to be rated high if specialists alone or teams including a specialist designed the plan. Contextual fit tended to be rated high when teams alone or teams including a specialist designed the plan. Team members ranked plans developed by the team alone and plans developed by the team with a specialist as preferred for implementation over plans developed by a specialist alone. Implications for the selection of behavior support team membership are discussed.

**********

Throughout the United States, teams of school personnel assemble regularly to develop individualized behavior support plans for students who perform chronic problem behavior. The goals embedded in these plans typically focus on redesigning a student's environment to (a) reduce problem behavior, (b) improve social and academic performance, and (c) reduce the behavioral barriers that hinder educational opportunities for peers. Recent research suggests that successful development of socially appropriate behavior is most likely if problem behavior is identified early and appropriate interventions are implemented (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995; Walker & Shinn, 2002). The effects of interventions for problem behavior are enhanced when the elements of an intervention are based on the hypothesized function of the student's problem behavior (Bergstrom, Horner, & Crone, 2004; Carr et al., 1999; Didden, Duker, & Korzilius, 1997; Filter, 2003; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005; Miltenberger, 1990; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004). This function-based support is a critical element of a larger schoolwide approach to positive behavior support (Crone & Horner, 2003; Horner, 2000; Horner, Sugai, Todd & Lewis-Palmer, 2005; Sugai & Horner, 2002; Walker et al., 1996). The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) made functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and positive behavior support legal requirements for schools serving students with disabilities (Prasse, 2002; Yell & Shriner, 1997). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA retains this emphasis on supporting students using FBA-guided positive behavior support (20 U.S.C. [section] 1400 et seq.).

At this time, however, there is debate about the standards for how to implement function-based behavior support most effectively and how to monitor its effects (Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, 1998). Fiscal cuts and increased expectations make the inefficient and ineffective allocation of resources unacceptable. In a study assessing the use of FBA information in the design of behavior support, Hsiao and Albin (2000) found that access to FBA information did not affect the behavioral support recommendations of behavior support teams. In a follow-up study with similar results, Mitachi and Albin (2001) suggest that at least one member of a behavior support team needs formal training in behavioral theory if school personnel are to use FBA information effectively. Mitachi and Albin recommend that future research assess the critical features that predict when FBA information is and is not used to guide the design of behavior support plans.

Benazzi, Nakayama, Sterling, Kidd, & Albin (2003) assessed the ability of 68 school personnel with self-reported training in behavioral theory to apply FBA information to the selection of interventions for a student's behavior support plan. The authors found that individuals with training in behavioral theory used FBA information to guide their design of behavior support plans. Study participants were not only more likely to select intervention strategies that were consistent with the FBA hypotheses, they were also more likely to reject intervention strategies that were contraindicated by FBA hypotheses.

Nelson et al. (1998), Hsiao and Albin (2000), Mitachi and Albin (2001), and Benazzi et al. (2003) emphasize the need to define the features of behavior support planning that will result in plans that are both implemented with fidelity and likely to change student behavior. Current literature suggests that the use of FBA information is important for selecting effective behavior support elements. Similarly, current literature recommends that the members of a behavior support team include individuals who are knowledgeable about the student, the local context, and formal behavioral theory.

A behavior support plan is a detailed description of how a student's environment should be redesigned to promote appropriate behaviors and to decrease or extinguish inappropriate behaviors (Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). Interventions are specific procedures for redesigning the environment and should be selected based on functional assessment information about (a) the antecedent events that occasion the problem behavior, (b) operational descriptions of the problem behavior(s), and (c) the specific consequences that maintain the problem behavior(s) (O'Neill et al., 1997). Antecedent manipulations strive to alter access to the events that function as establishing operations and discriminative stimuli for problem behavior. New teaching objectives focus on building appropriate behaviors that serve the same function as the problem behaviors. Consequences are redesigned both to minimize reinforcement of problem behavior and to increase reinforcement of desired alternative behaviors. In this way, FBA information functions as the cornerstone of a technically strong behavior support plan (Carr, Langdon, & Yarbrough, 1999; Horner, Albin, Sprague, & Todd, 2000; O'Neill et al., 1997; Sugai, Horner, & Sprague, 1999).