Why It Matters!
Brian Gaunt, Ph.D. & Clark Dorman, Ed.S.
 Introductions
 Why history of PS matters
 Overview of context 1890-1970
 Behavioral Consultation as “anchor”
 Cross-walk: BC steps & Various
“Technology”
 Looking Ahead…
 “Differences in conceptions of the problem-
solving process have sharply divided
psychologists.”
 …requires defining the problem, observing and
collecting data, formulating a hypothesis,
testing the hypothesis, and drawing and
applying a conclusion.
 Rapid scale up for MTSS…CCSS…PBiS…
 NCLB: Implement EBPs – PS @ EBP.
 Integrating while implementing (ex. PBS, RtI, CCSS)
 Barrier: different “name-brand” models of PS.
 12 steps
 Goodwin & Coates, 1976
 7 steps
 Meyers, 1973; Curtis & Meyers, 1989
 6 steps
 Corrigan & Kaufman, 1966
 5 steps
 Deno, 1989; 2005; Todd et al., 2011
 4 steps
 Bergan, 1977; Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990
 NASDSE, 2006
Define the Problem
Is there a problem? What is it?
Analyze
Evaluate
Why is it happening?
Did our plan work?
Develop a Plan
What shall we do about it?
 Original BC Model Design: Bergan (1970; 1977)
 Problem Identification
 Problem Analysis
 Plan Implementation
 Plan Evaluation
 Model Variations : Collaborative Cons.; Conjoint-Beh
Cons.; Ecobehavioral Cons.; Instructional Cons.,
Organizational Cons; Systems Cons.














Beh. Consult. Research
Mannino & Shore, 1975
Bergan & Tombari, 1975
Bergan & Tombari, 1976
Medway, 1979
Medway, 1982
Albert, 1983
Medway & Updyke, 1985
Gresham & Kendall, 1987
West & Idol, 1987
Fuchs et al., 1992
MacLeod et al., 2001
Lewis & Newcommer, 2002
Burns & Symington, 2002
Guli, 2005
Component Analyses of PS
 Bergan & Tombari, 1976
 Fuchs & Fuchs, 1989
 Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bahr, 1990
 Fuchs, et al., 1996
 Flugum & Reshly, 1994
 Kovaleski, et al., 1999
 Telzrow, et al., 2000
 Burns, et al., 2008
 Todd, et al., 2011
 Ruby, et al., 2011
 “Although sufficient philosophical and
empirical evidence supports the validity
of the problem solving team theoretical
construct (see Burns, Vanderwood, &
Ruby, 2005) and efficacy within well
controlled university-based studies
(Burns & Symington, 2002),
implementation inconsistencies have
prevented widespread effectiveness
(Burns et al., 2005).”
(Pg. 234)
 “It is clear from our two studies that
training, whether it is the typical district
model…or more intensive support
provided by university faculty, is not
sufficient in settings that have not created
a culture of problem solving.”
(Pg. 251)
 Experimental Analysis of Behavior/Beh. Analysis

(Dewey, 1896; Thorndike, 1905; Watson, 1913; Pavlov, 1927; Skinner, 1938; Skinner, 1953; Bijou, 1955,1957;
Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968; Goldfried & Pomeranz, 1968).
 Research on Problem Solving (“sets”/S-R/S-R-S)

(Dewey, 1933; Rees & Israel, 1935; Bloom & Broader, 1950; Newell et al., 1958; Duncan, 1959; Miller et al.,
1960; Parnes, 1967; Johnson et al., 1968; Crutchfield, 1969; D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971).
 Consultation practice (MH/BC/Org)

(Caplan, 1950; Perkins, 1953; Sarason, et al., 1960; Michael & Meyerson, 1962; Cutler & McNeil, 1964; Bennis,
1965; Bergan & Caldwell, 1967; Englemann, 1967; Bergan, 1970; Reschly, 1976 [review])
 Professional Identity of School Psychology

(Thayer Conf, 1954; APA Div 16, 1958; Perkins, 1963; Tindal, 1964; Hyman, 1967; Bardon, 1968; Reschly, 1976
[review])
 Federal Policy Towards Education Equality & Access
Foundation for the Blind & American Federation of the Physically Handicapped (1940s); National Association for
Retarded Citizens (1950); National Adoption of Special Education Programs (1960s); Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (1965) & Amendment (1969); Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendment 1969); Handicapped
Children’s Early Education Assistance Act (1968)
 1950’s
 Thayer Conference (1954) – Define School Psych Role
 Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific
psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
 Sought to align/integrate the to “disciplines” of psychology
 APA Division 16 Created (1958)
 1970’s
 PL94-142 (1975) – Special Education is mandated
 Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of
scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
 Glass, G. V., Willson, V. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1975). Design
and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder, Col.:
University of Colorado Press.
 Exp Analysis of Behavior/Behavior Analysis
 Behavior Therapy/Behavioral Assessment
 Instructional Hierarchy/Task Analysis
 Consultation
 Pre-referral/PS Teams
 Curriculum-based Measurement
 Data Utilization
 Functional Assessment/Brief Experimental
Analysis
 Treatment Integrity/Implementation Science
 Several concepts, methods, and purposes can be identified
with behavioral assessment (Kratochwill & Sheridan, 1990):
 View human behavior (feelings, thoughts, and




behaviors) as they occur in specific situations rather
than manifestations of underlying personality.
Behavioral assessments should be empirically based
Role of situational influences on behavior.
Behavior, cognitions, and affect as direct targets of
assessment rather than signs of underlying cause.
Idiographic and individualized
 By nature are systems oriented
 Emphasis on contemporaneous controlling variables





rather than historical causes
Emphasis on instability of behavior over time
Collection of data that are relevant for treatment
Reliance on multi-method assessment strategies
Embrace low level inferences
Use of repeated measurement
 EAB/Behavior Analysis
 Empirical evaluation of treatment (Bijou, 1970; Kazdin &
Hersen, 1980)
 Treatment utility of assessments (Hayes et al., 1987)
 Target Selection/Guidelines (Mash & Terdal, 1981; Nelson &
Hayes, 1979)
 BC Consultation/CBM: Notable Research
 Bergan & Tombari (1976):
 PID – Plan Imp (.776); Plan Imp – Plan Solution
(.977)
 Flugum & Reschly (1994):
 Typical plans have no behavioral definition
 Telzrow et al., (2000);
 Clearly identified goal & Data on Student RtI
were significant
 Treatment Utility of Assessment (Hayes et al., 1987)
 Instructional Hierarchy (Haring & Eaton, 1978; Ardoin
& Daly, 2007; Martins & Eckert, 2007)
 Functional Analysis (Carr, 1977; Iwata et al., 1982; Carr &
Durand, 1985; Lentz & Shapiro, 1986; Daly et al., 1997; Daly, et
al., 1999; Dixon et al., 2012)
 Eco-Behavioral approach to generating
hypothesis (Gallessich, 1973; Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Ysseldyke & Christenson, 1987)
 Brief Exp. Analysis (Derby et al., 1992; Daly &
Martins, 1994; Duhon et al., 2004; Martens & Gertz, 2009)
 Notable Research:
 Telzrow et al., (2000): within-child hypotheses is typical
 Twernbold et al., (1996): Function vs. “Empiric”
(Behavior)
 Beavers et al., (2004): Function vs. “Empiric” (Reading)
 “Empiric” = standard protocol
 Treatment Plan Design
 Treatment acceptability (Kazdin, 1981; Easton & Erchul,
2011; Eckert & Hintz, 2000; Nastasi & Truscott, 2000).
 Stakeholder participation in planning (Elliott et
al., 1991; Nastasi & Truscott, 2000).
 Availability of relevant evidence-based
knowledge (Gresham, 2004)
 Match: problem severity & intervention
intensity (Gresham, 2004)
 Treatment Implementation Monitoring
 Performance feedback/Coaching (Codding et al.,
2005; Duhon et al., 2009; Mortenson & Witt, 1998; Noell et al., 2002)
 Multiple sources, types, and dimensions (Sanetti
& Fallon, 2011)
 Science is still emerging (Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009;
Sheridan et al., 2005)
 Organizational Capacity
 Research to practice gap (Detrich & Lewis, 2013; Forman
et al., 2005)
 Comprehensive Data “Systems” (e.g.,Firestone &
Gonzales, 2007; Honig & Venkateswaren, 2012;Ikemoto & Marsh, 2007;
Kerr et al., 2006; Wayman, 2005; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006)
 Purpose:
 Cronbach (1975) – recants ATI approach in favor of
monitoring response to treatment.
 Framework for determination of LD (Heller, Holtzman, and
Messick, 1982).
 EBI selection is insufficient; Experimentally observe effect on
target student(s) (Gresham, 2004; Rilley-Tillman et al. 2012)
 Impact on Educator Behavior (e.g., instruction)
 CBM – progress monitoring (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin,
1984; Wesson et al., 1984)
 Formative Assessment (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986)
 Formative evaluation vs. Progress monitoring
(Fuchs et al., 2003; Burns, 2008)
 Procedures and “data”
 Student response data (Fuchs, L. S., 2003)
 Implementation fidelity data (Noell & Gansle, 2006)
Student Performance Outcomes
Developing Decision
Rules
Implementation Fidelity
Good
High
Moderate
Low
Questionable
Poor
 Implications across steps, tiers & levels of education
 Tech alone is insufficent (need aligned roles/respon.)
 With or without PS, barriers exist in “using data for
decision-making”:
 Different conceptions about “data” (Coburn & Talbert;
2006).
 Timely Access (Lachat & Smith, 2005)
 Lack of appropriate data (Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Kerr et al.,
2006; Protheroe, 2001)
 Limited Tech (Chen et al., 2005)
 Inefficient or incorrect entry and mgmt (Lachat & Smith,
2005)
 Lack of Educator Skills (Cizek, 2000)
 A search for the historical influences on
Problem-Solving research and practice
requires review of:
 Philosophy/Epistemology & Psychology
 Psychology & Behaviorism
 Psychology & School Psychology
 School Psychology & Behavior Therapy,
Systems Change, Education, Policy/Politics.
 “Problem solving as a service delivery approach is
atheoretical. Interventions from different perspectives
are neither accepted nor rejected on theoretical
grounds. The approach is pragmatic.”
Reschly, 2004
 “Thinking, problem solving, concept formation, and
decision-making are important behavioral functions
which impinge upon nearly every other area of
psychology.”
Gagne’, 1959
 Continue movement from “correlational” education to
“experimental” education as foundation (Reschly, 2004)
 MTSS @ org. framework to support stronger
empiricism in education
 Cost-Benefit/Situational research on problem solving
components (e.g., Noell & Gresham, 1993; Beavers et al., 2004).
 Reconcile FBA/BIP and RtI Problem Solving processes
 “academic problems” and “behavior problems” as false
dichotomy; explore common “critical” components.
 Functional view of teacher’s use of data.
 Ecological view of “data systems”