kayti laam psychology 636 dr. neil schwartz csu chico 12/16/13 © 2013 kayti laam. csu chico....

BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION:

OLIVERKayti Laam

Psychology 636Dr. Neil Schwartz

CSU Chico12/16/13

© 2013 Kayti Laam. CSU Chico. [email protected]

Table of Contents

1. Problem Identification2. Problem Statement3. Class Schedule4. Sequential Analysis5. Behaviors to be Increased & Decreased6. Behaviors Measured7-8. Data Collection Sheet9. Problem Analysis10-12. Baseline Data 13-14. Reinforcers15. Reinforcement Menu16. Plan Implementation: In-Seat17. In-Seat Intervention Flow Chart 18. In-Seat Intervention Data Graphed19. Plan Evaluation: In-Seat Intervention


Table of Contents (Continued)

20-21. Intervention Effects on In-Seat Behavior22. Analyzing & Interpreting In-Seat Data23. Plan Implementation: Shaping Math Completed24. Math Completed Intervention Flow Chart25. Math Completed Intervention Data Graphed26. Plan Evaluation: Math Completed Intervention27-28. Intervention Effects on Math Completed Behavior29. Analyzing/Interpreting Math Completed Behavior30. Plan Evaluation31. Analyzing & Interpreting Data32. Maintenance33. Generalization34. Generalization Plan: In-Seat35. Generalization Plan: Math Completed36. Consultee & Client Reactions


Problem Identification


Mrs. Cooper’s Problem Statement

“Oliver is consistently off-task and distracts himself and others by wandering around the room. He often does not do his class work and when he does the quality of his work is lower than that of the other students.”


Oliver’s Class Schedule

8:15 – 10:00 Language Arts:Reading, Spelling, Workbook

10:00-10:15 Recess

10:15-11:15 Language Development (Grammar)

11:15-11:40 4/5 intervention (Accelerated Reading)

11:40-12:10 Lunch

12:10-1:20 Math

1:20-1:50 PE or Class Meetings

1:50-2:35 Language Development (History & Science)

8:15 - 9:00 DRI & Shaping In/Out of Seat Intervention

12:10 - 1:20 Shaping Class Work Intervention© 2013 Kayti Laam. CSU Chico. [email protected]

Antecedent

Direct Whole Class

Instruction

Individual Classwork

Redirected

Behavior

Out of Seat

Doesn’t Complete Work

Completes Work

Student responds with correct/wanted

behavior

Student does not respond with

correct/wanted behavior

Consequence

Redirected to appropriate

behavior

Given Positive Verbal/Tangible

Reinforcement (e.g. ‘Thank you,’ tickets, or

notes)

Required to stay in during recess or

SPARK (after school)

Sent to office to do work during

class time

Code

Redirection(prompt)

Positive Reinforcemen

t

Response Cost


Sequential Analysis

Behaviors to be Increased

Out-of-Seat

Wandering

Behaviors to be Decreased

In-Seat

Percentage of Class Work Completed


Behaviors Measured

In & Out of Seat Behavior

Percentage of Math Class Work Completed Each

Day© 2013 Kayti Laam. CSU Chico. [email protected]

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

M

T

W

8:15

8:20

8:20 8:30

8:20

8:25

8:25

8:25

8:30

8:30

8:35

8:35

8:35

8:40

8:40

8:40

8:45

8:45

8:45

8:50

8:50

8:50

8:55

8:55

8:55

9:00

9:00

9:00

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

*Look at him at each of the times listed & circle ‘I’ if he is in his seat or ‘O’ if he is out of his seat.

8:15

8:15


Data Collection Sheet (front)

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

IO

R

F

8:20 8:30

8:20 8:25

8:25

8:30

8:35

8:35

8:40

8:40

8:45

8:45

8:50

8:50

8:55

8:55

9:00

9:00

Monday: Tuesday:

Wednesday: Thursday: Friday:

Percentage or Ratio of Math Completed Each Day:

8:15

8:15


Data Collection Sheet (back)

ProblemAnalysis


Baseline Data:Percentage of time in/out seat

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OutIn

Days of Baseline

Perc

en

t of

Min

ute

s In

& O

ut

of

Seat


Mean: 43% (In-Seat)SD: 15%Median: 40%

*On Average, Oliver is in his seat 43% of the time.

Baseline Data:Math Work Completed

Work Completed:Mean: 20%SD: 11%Median: 23%


Baseline Data:Percentage of Math Completed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% compl...

Days of Baseline

Mean: 20%SD: 11%Median: 23%

% o

f Mat

h Co

mpl

eted


*On average,

Oliver completes

20% of math class work each

day

Oliver’s Token R+ For DRI & ShapingIn-Seat Behavior


Oliver’s Token R+For Shaping Math Class Work

This certificate is good for an activity of choice

from Oliver’s list!!!


Oliver’s Reinforcement Menu

Time on iPad playing educational games Fun educational worksheets / drawing on the

back

New worksheets and iPad games added throughout the phases to guard against satiation


Plan Implementation

:In-Seat DRI & Shaping

Intervention


Mrs. Cooper observes Oliver every 5 minutes from 8:15-9am

In his seat

Given R+ in the form of verbal

praise & a ticket

At 9am, trades tickets in for time on an iPad

or fun worksheet if he’s met the % required;

Continues being seated

Out of his seat

Given prompt “Please return to your seat so that you’re able to earn a ticket”

DRI & Shaping Intervention for

In-Seat Behavior: Phases 1 - 6

Phase % Required for R+

Days

1 30% 3

2 40% 4

3 50% 5

Phase % Required for R+ Days

4 60% 5

5 70% 5

*1 ticket = 1 minute of activity© 2013 Kayti Laam. CSU Chico. [email protected]

Percentage of time in & out of seat

1 3 5 7 9 12 15 17 18 20 22 25 27 29 310

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In Seat

BASELINE INTERVENTION

Mean: 43% SD: 15% Median: 40%

Criterion line

Aim line

% o

f tim

e in

/out

of s

eat

Days

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Mean: 60%SD: 26%Median: 70%© 2013 Kayti Laam

CSU Chico. [email protected]

Phase 4



Mean: 65%SD: 12 %Median: 65%

Plan Evaluation:

In-Seat Intervention

DRI & Shaping Intervention Effects on In-Seat Behavior

Baseline – Phase 1

Means:43% - 60%

Phase 1 – Phase 2

Means:60% - 65%

% Change =

8.3%

Phase 2 – Phase 3

Means:65% - 62%

% Change = - 4.6%

Phase 3 – Phase 4

Means:62% - 74%

% Change = 19%


Baseline Phase 4

0102030405060708090

100Out of Seat

Overall Intervention Effectson In-Seat Behavior

% Mean Change from Baseline to Phase 4 =

72%

43%

74%

Per

cent

age

of t

ime

In &

Out

of

Sea

t

Mean Percentage

Baseline SD 15% Phase 4 SD 10%:

Variability decreased by 33% © 2013 Kayti Laam. CSU Chico. [email protected]

Analyzing & InterpretingIn-Seat Data

Oliver’s in-seat behavior is steadily and gradually increasing. When comparing baseline to phase 4 means you see a 72% increase, while the variability of this behavior has decreased by 33% overall. This shows that Oliver is in his seat more frequently and consistently than he was before treatment implementation.

As of phase 4, criterion has been met, while his in-seat behavior is still gradually increasing. Therefore, after two weeks of maintaining his in-seat behavior at or above criterion, generalization strategies will be implemented.

© 2013 Kayti Laam [email protected]

Plan Implementation

:Shaping Math Work

Intervention


Assigned individual seat work (math)

Completes % of work required to receive R+

R+Praised and given

certificate

Earns R+ of choice off his menu by trading in the

certificate he earned within 10 mins of receiving it

Does not complete % of work required to earn R+

Given a verbal prompt “If you complete problems, you will

get a certificate to choose an activity from your list.”

Shaping Intervention for Completed Class Work:Phases 1 - 5

Phase

% Work Completed

Required for R+

Minutes allowed to do activity

Days

1 15% 4 3

2 20 % 4 4

Phase

% Work Completed Required for R+

Minutes allowed to do activity

Days

3 30% 5 5

4 40 % 6 5

5 50 % 7 5© 2013 Kayti Laam [email protected]

Percentage of Math Completed

1 3 5 7 9 110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% completed

Days


% o

f Mat

h Co

mpl

eted

Baseline Intervention

aim line

criterion

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3


Mean:25%

SD: 16%Median:

15%

Mean: 31%SD: 9%

Median: 33%

Mean: 56%SD: 10%

Median: 60%

Mean: 58%SD: 8%

Median: 60%

Phase 4

Plan Evaluation:Math Completed

Intervention


Shaping Intervention Effects on Math Work Attempted

Baseline – Phase 1

Means:20% - 25%

Phase 1 – Phase 2

Means:25% - 31%

% Change =

24%

Phase 2 – Phase 3

Means:31% - 56%

% Change =

80%

Phase 3 – Phase 4

Means:56% - 58%

% Change = 4%


Overall Intervention Effectson Math Completed Behavior

Mean Percentage0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Base-line

20%

58%

% o

f Mat

h Co

mpl

eted


Baseline SD 11% Phase 4 SD 8%:

Variability decreased by 27%

% Change from

Baseline to Phase 4 =190%

Analyzing & InterpretingMath Completed Data

Oliver’s percentage of math attempted has steadily increased from baseline to phase 4.

Oliver met criteria a phase sooner than expected, therefore after two weeks of maintaining this behavior (i.e. staying above criteria with little variability) generalization strategies should be implemented.

Since Oliver has met criteria, but is still only attempting half of his work, Mrs. Cooper & I are going to adapt our intervention to include more phases so that he will continue to do more math problems. Therefore, the criterion line will increase & more phases will be added.

Once Oliver has met the new criterion & maintained this behavior for two weeks with little variability, generalization strategies will be implemented.


Plan Evaluation

Analyzing & Interpreting Data

Maintenance & Generalization


Analyzing & Interpreting Data

The two behaviors focused on in this intervention are interconnected. Specifically, if Oliver is in his seat more often, he is more likely to be attempting class work than when he is out of his seat. Similarly, increasing Oliver’s amount of class work attempted will increase his in-seat behavior, because in order to work he needs to be seated.

Therefore, increasing Oliver’s in-seat behavior will likely increase the amount of work he is attempting & increasing the amount of work he attempts will also increase the amount of time he is in his seat.


Maintenance

Once Oliver’s target behaviors have been at or above criterion & stable for 2 weeks, generalization strategies can be implemented. Preferably, once the mean variability has

decreased by 50% at criterion for 2 weeks. Oliver’s in-seat behavior variability has

decreased by 33%, therefore as more data is collected we will see if this variability continues to decrease.


Generalization Generalization is achieved through thinning

of the reinforcers & replacing tangible reinforcers with natural reinforcers at a frequency that is consistent with the average classroom environment.

For Oliver, this means gradually thinning his extra tangible reinforcers while replacing them with positive verbal reinforcement & classroom tickets that Mrs. Cooper hands out to all students for good behavior.


Oliver’s Generalization Plan:In-Seat Behavior

Begin thinning reinforcers & replacing them with natural reinforcers: 1st Week:

2 tickets = 1 minute of activity; verbal positive reinforcement given at each interval when he is seated.

2nd Week: Verbal positive reinforcement given for in-seat behavior at each interval; at

the end of the time period choice of activity is given.

3rd Week: Verbal positive reinforcement given for in-seat behavior at each interval; at

the end of the time period Mrs. Cooper gives him a positive note & a high five.

4th Week & On: Mrs. Cooper provides verbal reinforcement & tickets consistent with that of

her average classroom environment.


*Observation & monitoring during generalization is key; if desired behavior begins to decline, these plans should be adjusted. Intervention plan should be reinstated if necessary.

Oliver’s Generalization Plan:Math Work Completed

Begin thinning reinforcers & replacing them with natural reinforcers: 1st Week:

Certificate replaced with personal positive note written by Mrs. Cooper.

Choice of activity for the last 4 minutes of the math period.

2nd Week: Verbal positive reinforcement & classroom tickets given for math

work completed throughout math period. Mrs. Cooper gives personal positive note & high five at end of math

period.

3rd Week & On: Mrs. Cooper provides verbal reinforcement & tickets consistent with

that of her average classroom environment.


*Observation & monitoring during generalization is key; if desired behavior begins to decline, these plans should be adjusted. Intervention plan should be reinstated if necessary.

Mrs. Cooper’s Reactions

“These plans have worked well. Oliver’s behavior has greatly improved.”

“Although time consuming, these interventions are working and it was worth it!”


Oliver’s Reactions “I’m really good at math!”

kayti laam psychology 636 dr. neil schwartz csu chico 12/16/13 © 2013 kayti laam. csu chico....

Documents

inout of seat intervention

seat behavior22

seat data23

seat intervention flow

intervention effects

seat wandering behaviors

intervention data graphed26

ratio of math