This study further examined the use of presession pairing in classroom settings with four elementary students with various levels of academic and behavioral functioning, which was implemented by classroom teachers to improve student behavior. The results indicate that a brief (2 to 5 min) interaction between students and their classroom teacher in identified preferred activities lead to an increase in on-task behavior and a reduction in problem behavior during subsequent academic instructional time. On-task behavior immediately increased for all four participants, with an increasing trend for two participants. The decrease in problem behavior was marked for one participant (Fiona) but modest for the other three participants.
These data expand upon the previous literature in several ways. First, these results support the findings of Kelly et al. (2015) that presession pairing is an effective antecedent intervention for escape- and attention- maintained problem behavior in students. This study expanded those findings to students with varying disabilities and academic levels. Additionally, this study showed the ease of implementation of presession pairing by teachers within the natural classroom setting. In this study, presession pairing did not interfere with typical classroom instruction, which indicates that this type of antecedent intervention may be practical for teachers to implement without requiring excessive time or resources (Taylor & Fisher, 2010), allowing teachers to prevent problem behavior in advance as shown in the literature on antecedent interventions (Kern, Choutka, & Sokol, 2002; Conroy & Stichter, 2003).
Anecdotally, the researcher noted that the teachers began using a more positive approach during instructional time following a few intervention sessions. At the outset of the study one teacher reported that she was having behavioral and academic issues with most of her students. At the end of the study, this teacher reported that her whole class was better and she was very happy. The researcher noted an increase in overall positive interactions between the teachers and all students, shifting from a focus on reprimanding problem behavior to praising appropriate behavior. This positive effect was also reflected in the social validity surveys of both the teachers and students. Specifically, the teacher responses to the open-ended questions indicated that that intervention was easy to implement and improved the behavior of their entire class, not just the target students. Teacher participants reported that they planned to continue using the intervention after the study ended, emphasizing buy-in and ease of implementation within the classroom.
The participants in this study all exhibited mild or moderate problem behavior and off task behavior, indicating that a presession pairing intervention may greatly benefit students who do not require intensive individualized behavior interventions in school. Therefore, presession pairing may be considered as a possible Tier 2 intervention within a multi-tiered system of supports for students exhibiting off task and mild, attention- or escape- maintained problem behavior in the classroom. To date, there has been no research testing the efficacy of presession pairing as a Tier 2 intervention. However, this study suggests that the entire class may benefit from this intervention and that the intervention can be tailored to one or a few students needing additional behavioral support in the classroom. Further research should be done to establish presession pairing as an evidence-based Tier 2 intervention.
There are several possible mechanisms to explain the effects of this research. First, the presession pairing activity may facilitate the establishment of the teacher as a conditioned
reinforcer. Through joint engagement, the teacher paired herself with the preferred activities. This explanation may be shown if the students’ on-task engagement maintain and problem behaviors remain low in routines temporally removed from the presession pairing activity or when the activity is not used. This may also be tested by removing the interaction component in future research. If the effects maintain solely from the activity, without any pairing with the teacher, the mechanism may not be conditioning the teacher as a reinforcer. A second possible explanation is that the presession pairing activity may satiate the students with attention and/or escape maintained problem behavior by providing them with attention and a break from academics. Finally, presession pairing may be involved in behavioral momentum, with the engagement in the preferred activity increasing the probability of engagement in academic demands. Future research should seek to determine which mechanism is responsible for the increases in on task engagement and decreases in problem behavior for the four students in this research.
Limitations. There were a few limitations of this study. First, there was no evaluation of maintenance and generalization of the intervention. Due to time constraints, follow-up data were not collected. However, teachers anecdotally reported that they continued to use the presession pairing intervention after data collection ended. Future research should collect maintenance data to show whether the presession pairing activity continues to be effective over time. The
intervention was also not tested for routines other than the one targeted instructional time. Future studies should test the efficacy of the presession pairing intervention in several academic
routines. Also, new guidelines suggest collecting at least five baseline data points before introducing the intervention to show experimental control in using a multiple baseline design of
meet this criterion, though they met the previous standard of at least three baseline data points. Finally, the FBA procedures in this study did not include a true functional analysis with
experimental manipulation of consequences for each possible function of behavior because the functional consequence was not delivered contingent on problem behavior during the demand trials. Instead the behavior was recorded and the trial was ended immediately without
consequence (e.g., the work was not removed). This modification was made to ensure that students did not miss out on instruction and the interference with typical classroom routines was minimal. However, future researchers may want to include a standard functional analysis or implement the trial-based FA procedures suggested by Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, and Carreau (2011) to ensure the correct behavioral function is identified.
Future directions. There are several directions for future research. As stated above, further research should be conducted to test the efficacy and ease of implementation of presession pairing as a Tier 2 intervention. The intervention was effective for four elementary aged students exhibiting off task and mild problem behavior in general and special education settings. Next, it should be tested across a wider range of disabilities, behaviors, and ages. Also, research should be done to test whether teacher self-efficacy does improve following the use of presession pairing activities. Researchers may include a pre- and post-test of teacher self-efficacy or optimism so that these results can be reported. Additional research questions include whether there is a difference in effects based on the length of the presession pairing activity and whether there may be a delay between presession pairing and the targeted routine (e.g., Would a
presession pairing activity in the morning show effects during afternoon instructional time?). Despite these limitations, the study demonstrated that presession pairing may be a viable antecedent intervention that can be implemented by teachers in natural classroom settings where
mild problem behavior occurs. Presession pairing reduced student problem behavior and
increased on task behavior without any manipulation of consequences. There may be benefits to incorporating a presession pairing activity prior to many instructional routines.
REFERENCES
Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., & Good, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. Journal of Special Education, 40, 160-170. doi: 10.1177/00224669060400030401
Bessette, K. K., & Wills, H. P. (2007). An example of an elementary school paraprofessional- implemented functional analysis and intervention. Behavioral Disorders 32, 192-210. doi: 10.1177/1088357616673561
Blacher, J., Howell, E., Lauderdale-Littin, S., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Laugeson, E. A. (2014). Autism spectrum disorder and the student teacher relationship: A comparison study with peers with intellectual disability and typical development. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 8, 324-333. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2013.12.008
Bloom, S. E., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., Roscoe, E. M., & Carreau, A. B. (2011). Classroom application of a trial-based functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 19-31. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-19
Braithwaite, K. L., & Richdale, A. L. (2000). Functional communication training to replace challenging behaviors across two behavioral outcomes. Behavioral Interventions 15, 21- 36. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(200001/03)15:1<21::AID-BIN45>3.0.CO;2-#
Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behaviors: Preliminary results from a single-case experiment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 15- 25. doi:10.2307/1593681
Carbone, V. J., Morgenstern, B., Zecchin-Tirri, G., & Kolberg, L. (2010). The role of the reflexive conditioned motivating operation (CMO-R) during discrete trial instruction of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 110– 124. doi: 10.1177/1088357610364393
Cariveau, T., & Kodak, T. (2017). Programming a randomized dependent group contingency and common stimuli to promote durable behavior change. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 121-133. doi: 10.1002/jaba.352
Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C., Smith, C. E., & McLaughlin, D. (1999). Comprehensive multi-situational intervention for problem behavior in the community: Long-term maintenance and social validation. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 5–25. doi: 10.1177/109830079900100103
Conroy, M., & Stichter, J. P. (2003). The application of antecedents in the functional assessment process: Existing research, issues, and recommendations. The Journal of Special
Education, 37, 15-25. doi: 10.1177/00224669030370010201
Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The State of Learning Disabilities: Facts, Trends and Emerging Issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2014.
Eisenhower, A. S., Baker, B. L., & Blacher, J. (2007). Early student-teacher relationships of children with and without intellectual disability: Contributions of behavioral, social, and self-regulatory competence. Journal of School Psychology 45, 363-383. doi:
10.1016/j.jsp.2006.10.002
Fisher, W. W., DeLeon, I. G., Rodriguez-Catter, V., & Keeny, K. M. (2004). Enhancing the effects of extinction on attention-maintained behavior through noncontingent delivery of attention or stimuli identified via a competing stimulus assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 171-184. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-171
Gay, R. L. (2016). Exploring barriers to implementing a school-wide positive behavioral intervention and support program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis.
Gresham, F. M., McIntyre, L. L., Olson-Tinker, H., Dolstra, L., McLaughlin, V., Van, M. (2004). Relevance of functional behavioral assessment research for school-based interventions and positive behavioral support. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 19-37. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2003.04.003
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5, 54- 72. doi: 10.1007/BF03391818
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36- 147
Harrison, J. R., Vannest, K., Davis, J., & Reynolds, C. (2012). Common problem behaviors of children and adolescents in general education classrooms in the United States. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 55-64. doi:
Heyvaert, M., Saenen, L., Campbell, J. M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2014). Efficacy of behavioral interventions for reducing problem behavior in persons with autism: An updated quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 2463-2476. doi: 10.1177/1063426611421157
Horner, R. H., Day, H., & Day, J. R. (1997). Using neutralizing routines to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 601–614. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1997.30-601
Hulac, D., Benson, N., Nesmith, M. C., & Wollersheim Shervey, S. (2016). Using variable interval reinforcement schedules to support students in the classroom: An introduction with illustrative examples. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 6, 90-96. doi: 10.5590/JERAP.2016.06.1.06
Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P. E., Wang, W., Kincaid, D., Dunlap, G., & Strain, P. (2009). Randomized controlled trial of the prevent-teach-reinforce (PTR) tertiary intervention for students with problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 213-225. doi:10.1177/1063426609337389
Iwata, B.A., & Dozier, C.L. (2008). Clinical application of functional analysis methodology. Behavior Analysis Practice in Practice, 1, 3-9. doi: 10.1007/BF03391714
Kelly, A. N., Axe, J. B., Allen, R. F., Maguire, R. W. (2015). Effects of presession pairing on the challenging behavior and academic responding of children with autism. Behavioral Interventions 30, 135-156. doi:10.1002/bin.1408
Kemp, D. C., & Carr, E. G. (1995). Reduction of severe problem behavior in community
employment using a hypothesis-driven multicomponent intervention approach. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 229–247. doi:
10.1177/154079699602000401
Kern, L., Choutka, C. M., & Sokol, N. G. (2002). Assessment-based antecedent interventions. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 113-130. doi: 2002-01013-008
Kern, L., Mantegna, M.E., Vorndran, C.M., Bailin, D., & Hilt, A. (2001). Choice of task sequence to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 3- 10. doi: 10.1177/109830070100300102
Koegel, L., Matos-Freden, R., Lang, R., & Koegel, R. (2012). Interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive school settings. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19, 401-412. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2010.11.003
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial
Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., Lancioni, G. E., Aguilar, J., & Fragale, C. (2010). The effects of an abolishing operation intervention component on play skills, challenging behavior, and stereotypy. Behavior Modification, 34, 267-289. doi: 10.1177/0145445510370713
Lang, R., Shogren, K. A., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., O’Reilly, M., Baker, S., & Regester, A. (2009). Video self-modeling to teach classroom rules to two students with Asperger’s.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 483-488. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.10.001
Langthorne, P., McGille, P., & Oliver, C. (2014). The motivating operation and negatively reinforced problem behavior: A systematic review. Behavior Modification, 38, 107-159.
doi: 10.1177/0145445513509649
Lloyd, B. P., Weaver, E. S., & Staubitz, J. L. (2016). A review of functional analysis methods conducted in public school classroom settings. Journal of Behavioral Education 25, 324- 356. doi: 10.1007/s10864-015-9243-y
Luczynski, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2013). Prevention of problem behavior by teaching functional communication and self-control skills to preschoolers. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 46, 355-368. doi: 10.1002/jaba.44
March, R. E., Horner, R. H., Lewis-Palmer, T., Brown, D., Crone, D., Todd, A. W., & Carr, E. G. (2000). Functional Assessment Checklist: Teachers and Staff (FACTS). Eugene, OR: Educational and Community Supports. Available at http://www.pbis.org/tools.htm. Martens, B. J., Witt, J. C., Elliot, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments
concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191-198. doi: 10.1037//0735-7028.16.2.191
Martinez, J. R., Werch, B. L., & Conroy, M. A. (2016). School-based interventions targeting challenging behaviors exhibited by young children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic literature review. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities 51, 265-280).
McGill, P. (1999). Establishing operations: Implications for the assessment, treatment, and prevention of challenging behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 393–418.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-393
McKissick, C., Hawkins, R. O., Lentz, F. E., Hailley, J., & McGuire, S. (2010). Randomizing multiple contingency components to decrease disruptive behaviors and increase student engagement in an urban second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 944- 959. doi: 10.1002/pits.20516
Moes, D. R., & Frea, W. D. (2002). Contextualized behavioral support in early intervention for children with autism and their families. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
32, 519-533. doi: 10.1023/A:1021298729297
Montes, G., Lotyczewski, B. S., Halterman, J. S., & Hightower, A. D. (2012). School readiness among children with behavior problems at entrance into kindergarten: Results from a US national study. European Journal of Pediatrics 171, 541-548. doi: 10.1007/s00431-011- 1605-4
Montgomery, J., Martin, T., Shooshtari, S., Stoesz, B. M., & Heinrichs, D. J. (2013).
Interventions for challenging behaviours of students with autism spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities: A synthesis paper. Exceptionality Education International 23, 2-21.
Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., & Kumar, K. (2005). Instructional adaptation in the management of escape-maintained behavior in a classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7, 216-223. doi: 10.1177/10983007050070040301
Morgan, P. L., & Sideridis, G. D. (2013). Academic and behavioral difficulties at school: Introduction to the special issue. Behavioral Disorders, 38, 193-200. doi:
10.1177/019874291303800402
Mueller, M. M., & Nkosi, A. (2007). State of the science in the assessment and management of severe behavior problems in school settings: Behavior analytic consultation to schools.
International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3, 176-202.
Mueller, M. M., Nkosi, A., & Hine, J. F. (2011). Functional analysis in public schools: A summary of 90 functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 807-818.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-807
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of k-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children 71, 59-73.
O’Neill, R., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment for problem behaviors: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole in Snell, M. & Brown, F. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Edrisinha, C., & Andrews, A. (2005). An examination of the effects of a classroom activity schedule on levels of self-injury and engagement for a child with severe autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 305-311. doi: 10.1007/s10803-005-3294-1
Peterson, C., Lerman, D. C., & Nissen, M. A. (2016). Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 286-293. doi: 10.1002/jaba.284 Pierce, J. M., Spriggs, A. D., Gast, D. L., & Luscre, D. (2013). Effects of visual activity
schedules on independent classroom transitions for students with autism. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 60, 253-269. doi:
10.1080/1034912X.2013.812191
Rispoli, M. J., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Lang, R., Kang, S., Lancioni, G., & Parker, R. (2011). Effects of presession satiation on challenging behavior and academic engagement for children with autism during classroom instruction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 607-618.
Robacker, C. M., Rivera, C. J., & Warren, S. H. (2016). A token economy made easy through ClassDojo. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52, 39-43. doi:
10.1177/1053451216630279
Roscoe, E. M., Rooker, G. W., Pence, S. T., & Longworth, L. J. (2009). Assessing the utility of a demand assessment for functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 819-825. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009
Sansosti, F. J. (2009). Teaching social behavior to children with autism spectrum disorders using Social StoriesTM: Implications for school-based practice. The Journal of Speech and
Language Pathology – Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 170-179. doi: 10.1037/h0100257 Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Peck-Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the
bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296. doi:
10.1177/019874290102600407
Schatz, R. B., Peterson, R. K., & Bellini, S. (2016). The use of video self-modeling to increase on-task behavior in children with high-functioning Autism. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 32, 234-253.
Scholastic & The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Primary Sources (2014). America’s Teachers on Teaching in an Era of Change. Retrieved from
http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/PrimarySources3rdEditionWithAppendix.pdf Scott, T. M., & Eber. L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school
processes: School-wide, specialized, and intensive examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 131-143. doi: 10.1177/10983007030050030201
Slocum, S. K., & Vollmer, T. R. (2015). A comparison of positive and negative reinforcement for compliance to treat problem behavior maintained by escape. Journal of Applied
Sprague, J. R., & Thomas, T. (1997). The effect of a neutralizing routine on problem behavior performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 325-334. doi:
10.1023/A:1022827622948
Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Gresham, S. (2002). Behaviorally Effective School Environments. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior
problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches. Washington, DC, USA: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Taylor, B. A., & Fisher, J. (2010). Three important things to consider when starting intervention for a child diagnosed with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3, 52–53. doi:
10.1007/BF03391765
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016-014), Chapter 2.
Vancraeyveldt, C., Verschueren, K., Van Craeyevelt, S., Wouters, S., & Colpin, H. (2015). Teacher-reported effects of the Playing-2-gether intervention on child externalizing problem behavior. Educational Psychology, 35, 466-483. doi:
10.1080/01443410.2013.860218
Wilder, D. A., Masuda, A., O’Connor, C. (2001). Brief functional analysis and treatment of bizarre vocalizations in an adult with schizophrenia. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 34, 65-68. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-65
Wright-Gallo, G. L., Higbee, T. S., Reagon, K., & Davey, B. J. (2006). Classroom-based functional analysis and intervention for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 421-436.
Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer
Teacher-Implemented Presession Pairing to Increase Student On-Task Behavior and Reduce Problem Behavior in Public School Classrooms
PARTICIPANTS NEEDED FOR A POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION