Sample Protocols
Copyright by the Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis
5777 West Century Boulevard, Suite 675
Los Angeles, California 90045 USA
Telephone: +1 (310) 649-0499
www.iaba.com
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Table of Contents
Checklist for Evaluating Protocols ................................................................................... 3
Sample Protocol .............................................................................................................. 4
Data Collection Protocol .................................................................................................. 6
Cascading Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO-C) Prootocol ................ 9
Periodic Service Review................................................................................................ 12
PSR Session Protocol ................................................................................................... 16
Attendance Protocol ...................................................................................................... 20
Assessment Protocol .................................................................................................... 24
Testing Protocol ............................................................................................................ 27
Monitoring and Communication Protocol ...................................................................... 30
Recreation Protocol ....................................................................................................... 32
Coping Skills Protocol ................................................................................................... 35
Building Rapport Protocol ............................................................................................. 38
Interactional Style Protocol ........................................................................................... 41
Reactive Strategy Protocol ............................................................................................ 44
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
IABA
Checklist for Evaluating Protocols
1.
Name of consumer.
2.
Name of protocol.
3.
Date of initial implementation.
4.
Dates of any revisions.
5.
Lists or otherwise describes in step by step detail how to implement the
procedure or method.
6.
It clearly describes the frequency and method for determining and
documenting procedural reliability.
7.
It clearly describes the method for data collection and data summary that
should be used to evaluate the success of the procedure, including the
frequency and methods for determining and documenting observational
reliability.
8.
It clearly indicates the Pass/Fail criteria, i.e., the criteria indicating success
requiring the plan to move on to the next step and the criteria indicating
failure requiring a revision of the method to assure success.
9.
Every protocol should have the name and dated signature of the person
who prepared the protocol.
10.
Every protocol should have a dated approval from the level of
management above the person preparing the protocol.
11.
Variations to these protocol requirement should either be because of non
applicability or explained and documented on the appropriate PSR
Variations Form.
Prepared by: Gary W. LaVigna
Signature:
Date Implemented: January 20, 1997
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Sample Protocol
Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior
with Progressively Increased Reinforcement (DROP)
Name: Cindy Sample
Date Protocol Developed: April 24, 2000
Protocol Name: Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior with Progressively
Increased Reinforcement (DROP)
General: This is a focused support strategy for aggression in a DROP schedule for
reinforcement. It is intended to communicate clearly to Cindy that she should not be
aggressive toward other people and provide her with a strong incentive and reminder
not to act in this way. Based on Cindy’s team believing that in fact, Cindy does not like
to hit the people who support her and based on her very negative reaction to failure,
this schedule is designed to provide some positive reinforcement to her, even on those
days in which she has had aggressive behavior. The message that we want to convey
to her at these times is that we appreciate the effort she has made to control her
behavior and we know she will do better on the following day.
This schedule is designed to cover a daily interval, encompassing her time with both
STEP and SCIP support staff. The review of her success, either for not being
aggressive or for trying hard not to be aggressive should be done at the end of each
day, just before retiring for the evening. The staff carrying out this daily review and
provision of the agreed upon number of “stamps,” see below, should base the
assessment of Cindy’s behavior on the data sheet, which should be kept up in an
accurate and timely manner by all assigned staff.
Materials: Chart with 42 boxes, each being large enough for a rubber stamp of Cindy’s
initials, i.e., “NC,” to be posted and visible in Cindy’s bedroom. At the top of the chart
should be a colored drawing of a specially wrapped present and coupons exchangeable
for a fantasy night out:
1.
Cindy should receive two stamps for the first day in which aggression does not
occur. The date the stamps were entered should also be indicated. Staff should
explain this with a very bubbly and enthusiastic tone as you are reviewing her
data sheet while standing in front of the chart.
2.
Cindy should receive three dated stamps for the next consecutive day/second
day in which no aggression occurs, provided as described above.
3.
Cindy should receive four dated stamps for the next consecutive day when
aggression does not occur, provided as described above.
4.
Cindy should receive five dated stamps for the next consecutive day when
aggression does not occur, provided as described above.
5.
Cindy should receive six dated stamps for the next consecutive day when
aggression not occur, provided as described above.
6.
Six dated stamps will then be earned for each consecutive day, thereafter, during
which aggression does not occur.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
7.
If an incident of aggression occurs during that day, then Cindy would receive one
dated stamp for that day. Progression to two and then on up to six would restart
for the first day in which the aggression does not occur. It is very important on
these days to acknowledge that while Cindy was aggressive earlier in the day,
we know she tried and wanted to acknowledge that with a stamp. The bubbly
enthusiasm should be no less on these days and we should further convey our
full conviction that she will be even more successful the following day and will not
be aggressive toward others.
8.
When Cindy has accumulated 42 signatures, she should immediately be given a
coupon which can be exchanged the following night (or very soon thereafter) for
a "special fantasy night-out" which will be planned for Cindy and her special staff.
Based on staff judgment of how Cindy is doing this can include either a night out
at a restaurant or at an agreeable staff member’s home. The night should
include more than dinner. Preparation (e.g., hair, dress and make-up) should be
special, a rose on her dish, and a small present for her to unwrap are examples
of the kinds of special touches that staff should arrange as part of the evening.
Pass/Fail Criteria: This and the other focused support strategies will be considered to
be working if each month shows improvements toward the objectives established in
Cindy’s plan. Hence, it is only after the second month of reliable data collection that we
can begin to determine if the plan is working as intended. If this “Pass” criterion is not
met, the “Fail” criterion will be considered to have been met, and this procedure should
be revised as determined by a clinical review.
Data Collection: In addition to the Daily Sheet kept by staff recording Cindy’s
aggression and its severity throughout the day, a simple log should be recording and
describing each night out that Cindy is able to enjoy under the provisions of this plan
and how she responded to it.
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the Senior or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist covering the
end-of-day review (for content and tone) the maintenance of the log, and the up to date
status of the chart. The results of this checklist review should be summarized in the
procedural reliability check file and if less than 100% fidelity is determined, a concrete
plan of correction should be indicated.
Prepared by: Gary W. LaVigna
Date Implemented: April 24, 2000 or as otherwise indicated.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Data Collection Protocol
Lack of Progress and Exhibited Progress (LPEP)
Student’s Name: Sampson Jones
Date: September 30, 2004
Revised 11/1/04; 12/9/04; 3/7/05
Objective:
1) To reduce the occurrence of LPEP from 100% of the observation intervals to
90% of the observation intervals within three months from the initiation of the
plan and to 40% of the observation intervals within a year.
2) To reduce the level of LPEP from its current level of 12 to an average of 5, with a
range of from 1 to 7, within three months, and to an average of 4 with a range of
from 1 to 7, within a year.
General: A 15-minute, partial interval behavior recording method should be utilized to
measure and quantify the occurrence of Sampson’s Lack of Participation and Exhibited
Progress (LPEP). Specifically, a standardized data sheet should be developed and
available for each setting, each day. At the top of the data sheet, there should be
indicated space to enter that day’s date, the time period covered, the setting, the activity
and the name of the person filling out the data sheet. There should then be a column
for the four 15-minute intervals for each hour (indicated down the left hand column) of
the time period covered by the observation sheet. At the end of each 15-minutes of
observation, the assigned observer should indicate whether or not LPEP was observed,
and if so, the highest level observed based on the 12-point scale provided in the
definition.
These data should be collected for consecutive 15-minute intervals throughout the
entire school day and summarized weekly on a graph to determine if progress is being
made toward the measurable objectives that have been established. Specifically, the %
of observation intervals in which LPEP was observed for the week should be entered,
as should the average level and the range of levels for the week.
Schedule: Partial interval recording will take place during all hours of Sampson’s
school day. His behavior will be measured across a series of 15-minute intervals. At the
end of each 15-minutes of observation, the assigned observer should indicate whether
or not LPEP was observed, and if so, the highest level observed based on the 12-point
scale provided in the definition. It is not necessary to count the number of times a
particular topography occurs during an interval.
Materials: To perform data collection, staff need to have 1) Sampson’s data collection
sheets, 2) Access to a clock or watch, and 3) A pen/pencil.
Definition of Lack of Participation and Exhibited Progress (LPEP):
Topography: Sampson’s LPEP at school can include a number of separate
topographies. These include his physical absence from school, his not being in the
assigned school area, inappropriate physical actions directed toward other people (such
as spitting at, scratching, kicking, grabbing or pulling them or getting within their
personal space, such as moving his face to less than one and a half feet away),
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
engaging in other off-task behavior such as getting out of his seat, removing his shoes,
or manipulating non-instructional material, not doing what he was asked to do, such as
read out of a book, physically prompted participation in order to get him to do what he
was asked to do, verbally prompted participation, but with staff being within three feet,
and independent participation but without demonstrating the indicators of progress
established by his IEP team for each class period.
Levels of LPEP:
1)
Did not demonstrate or exhibit the indicators of progress established by
staff for the interval. (This refers to Sampson’s behavior in school and not
to the sessions in which his progress is being assessed or in which he is
being tested for earning class credit, both of which will have their own
criteria.)
2)
Participated but with support staff within 3-feet.
3)
Participated but with staff facilitation.
4)
Participated but with staff verbal prompting.
5)
Participated but with staff physical prompting.
6)
Not doing what he was asked to do at all during the interval.
7)
Engaging in off-task behavior, including, but not limited to his finger
tapping, taking off his shoes, out of context laughing or other noises,
requests for unscheduled food, sensory integration, something to drink, or
the opportunity to go to the restroom, arm waving and other form of
repetitive, stereotypic behavior.
8)
Getting into another person’s personal space.
9)
Grabbing, spitting at, pulling or otherwise touching another person in any
way that has not been invited.
10)
Hitting, biting, kicking or otherwise physically aggressing against another
person in such a way that harm or injury could occur.
11)
Not being in or leaving the assigned school area.
12)
Lack of physical presence in any school area.
Steps to follow for staff to fill out Sampson’s Daily Data Sheet:
1.
A primary person should be assigned for each hour of the school day to
be responsible for filling out the Data Sheet.
2.
For each 15-minute interval through out the day, the primary person
should record whether or not LPEP occurred and if so, the highest level
observed based on the 12-point scale provided above.
3.
In addition, the appropriate code should be entered for each 15-minute
interval to indicate if the scheduled class provided the setting and activity
for the interval or whether it was an unscheduled activity or class. If either
class and or activity was unscheduled, a short comment describing the
variation should be entered in the space provided on the data sheet.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Data Summary: These data should be summarized weekly on a graph to determine if
progress is being made toward the measurable objectives that have been established.
Specifically, the % of observation intervals in which LPEP was observed for the week
should be entered, as should its average level and range for the week.
Reliability: The accuracy and reliability of both the occurrence and the level data
should be evaluated using an inter-rater reliability check methodology. Specifically, for
10% of the observation intervals each month, the BICM or other person should be
assigned to serve as a second observer. An index of reliability should be calculated
each month by the BICM for both occurrence and level by dividing the number of
agreements between the two independent observers by the number of agreements and
disagreements. The % scores would then be determined by multiplying the resulting
numbers by 100. These numbers should be entered each month into a Reliability Index
Log. Any % score of 80% or better should be taken as an indicator of accuracy and
reliability and that conclusion should also be indicated in the Log. Any score below 80%
should be taken as an indicator of a lack of accuracy and reliability in the data. This
should also be indicated in the Log and a corrective plan of action should be entered in
the Corrective Plans section of the Log.
Fail criteria: Two months in a row without an acceptable level of observational
reliability.
Pass criteria: No consecutive months without an acceptable level of
observational reliability.
Prepared by:
__________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by:
__________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Cascading Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO-C)
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: September 30, 2004 (amended 11/1;12/9/04; 3/7/05)
Protocol Name: Cascading DRO
General: This is a focused support strategy to decrease the occurrence and level of
Lack of Participation and Exhibited Progress (LPEP) in school. A Cascading Schedule
of Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior is recommended to give Sampson a
strong incentive to participate and exhibit progress in school. Accordingly, for each day
Sampson attends school, he will mark boxes on a paper based on his behavior as
measured by the levels established for LPEP as defined on the data collection protocol
and as indicated below. Specifically, the number of boxes filled for each day will
cascade down the scale for each level not exhibited by Sampson that day, based on
the highest level exhibited that day.
Materials: Chart with 500 boxes, each being large enough for a check, to be discreetly
placed in a notebook in Sampson’s desk in his “home room.”
Procedure:
1.
For each day that Sampson attends school, he will earn filling in boxes on his
chart based on his behavior as measured by the levels established in the
definition for LPEP. (Alternatively, he could write the number representing his
earnings in a daily record, or through some other method of his choosing, to
keep track o fhis progress toward his selected special opportunity.) Specifically,
the number of boxes filled each day will cascade down the scale for each level
not exhibited by Sampson that day, based on the highest level exhibited that
day, as follows:
If the highest Level Observed that day was:
12)
11)
10)
9)
8)
7)
6)
Lack of physical presence in any school area.
Not being in the assigned school area.
Hitting or otherwise physically aggressing against another
person.
Grabbing, pulling or otherwise touching another person in
any way that has not been invited.
Getting into another person’s personal space
Engaging in off-task behavior which disrupts others around
him including but not limited to taking off his shoes, out of
context laughing or other loud noises, requests for
unscheduled food, more than one use of the bathroom per
half hour period, arm waving, running in circles and other
forms of repetitive, stereotypic behavior (excludes quiet
finger tapping)
Not doing what he was asked to do at all during the interval.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
The
Number of
Boxes
Filled Will
Be
1*
3
5
8
11
14
17
47
5)
4)
3)
2)
1)
Participated but with staff physical prompting.**
Participated but with staff verbal prompting.**
Participated but with staff facilitation.**
Participated but with support staff within 3-feet.
Did not exhibit the indicators of progress established by staff
for the interval. (e.g. did not open book or do assignment)***
No LPEP for the entire school day
20
23
27
31
35
40
* For wanting to go to school (and actually immediately delivered upon his next
arrival).
** Refer to the data collection protocol for the distinctions between prompting
and facilitation.
*** As indicated on the data collection protocol, this refers to Sampson’s
behavior in school, not to the daily assessment of his academic progress or the
formal testing to determine if he has earned academic credit.
2.
Staff should explain this with a warm and sincere tone as you are reviewing his
data sheet while standing in front of the notebook with the chart.
3.
If Sampson does not go to school for an entire day, he would still “earn” one box
in acknowledgement that he wanted to go to school. In this case, the chart would
be marked with the same tone provided immediately upon his return, with one
box earned for each day missed.
4.
Whenever 500 spaces have been filled in by Sampson, they will be immediately
exchangeable for a coupon worth a trip to Disneyland or some similar
amusement park or attraction. That is, if he was filling boxes at the maximum
rate of 40 per day, it would take him 12 or 13 school days to earn the coupon. In
contrast, if he earned an overage of 18 a day, it would take him 27 or 28 school
days. The payoff should be specified in advance, and not obtainable any other
way.
Pass/Fail Criteria: This and the other focused support strategies will be considered to
be working if each month shows improvements toward the objectives established in
Sampson’s plan. Hence, it is only after the second month of reliable data collection that
we can begin to determine if the plan is working as intended. If this “Pass” criterion is
not met, the “Fail” criterion will be considered to have been met, and this procedure
should be revised as determined by a clinical review.
Data Collection: Based on 15-minute, partial interval data collection method. (See
separate data collection protocol.)
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the BICM or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist covering the
end-of-day review (for content and tone), and the up to date status of the chart. The
results of this checklist review should be summarized in the procedural reliability check
file and if less than 100% fidelity is determined, a concrete plan of correction should be
indicated.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Periodic Service Review
Sampson Jones
March 7, 2005
PSR Review date:____________________
Facilitator:__________________________
Participants:___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__
+/0
Periodic Service Review (PSR):
a.
b.
Implementation: A "+" is scored if PSR graph shows at least two
data points for previous 30 days.
___
Progress: A "+" is scored if PSR graph shows current status of at
least 85% or best score ever was achieved within previous 30
days.
___
Data Collection:
a.
b.
c.
Data Collection: A "+" is scored if Data Sheet has been fully filled
out for each school day for the previous 30 day period.
___
Monthly Reliability Report: A "+" is scored if Reliability file has
formal reliability report for prior month and meets established
criteria.
___
Summary Graphs: A "+" is scored if summary graphs of LPEP and
episodic severity are up to date.
___
Ecological Strategies:
a.
b.
Mainstream Curriculum. A "+" is scored if Sampson’s current
course enrollment reflects the number of regular education courses
needed to graduate in a four year high school program, or highest
number of regular education courses ever (including at least one
on his first semester back in school.
___
Regular Education.
1)
2)
Regular Education-Attendance. A "+" is scored if there is a
protocol on file for supporting Sampson’s attendance for
each regular education class in which he is enrolled. (Prorated credit is provided.)
___
Regular Education-Assessment. A "+" is scored if there is a
protocol on file for assessing Sampson’s progress for each
regular education class in which he is enrolled. (Pro-rated
credit is provided.)
___
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
3)
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
4.
Regular Education-Testing. A "+" is scored if there is a
protocol on file for testing Sampson’s mastery of course
content for each regular education class in which he is
enrolled, for purposes of credit toward high school
graduation. (Pro-rated credit is provided.)
___
Full School Day. A "+" is scored if there is an approved and current
IEP in the file aimed at Sampson's achieving a high school degree
and providing for a full six-hour school day.
___
Monitoring and Communicating. A "+" is scored a weekly progress
report was sent to Dr. Jones for each school week since the
previous PSR review, and that it included all of the required
information, including a summary PSR graph and a discussion of
those results, along with a quantitative report of Sampson’s
demonstrated academic and behavior progress (or lack thereof) for
that week
___
Rich Sensory Diet. A "+" is scored if there is daily schedule in the
file for each day of the previous month for which Sampson was
scheduled to receive rich sensory input throughout his day, to
coincide either with each class or with the transition to or from each
class.
___
Computer Assisted Instruction. A "+" is scored if a written plan has
been developed and updated every semester for using the
computer more productively, both as a means of instructions, as a
medium to develop Sampson’s independence in responding to test
items, and as a means of testing Sampson’s mastery of course
content.
___
Interactions with Typical Peers. A "+" is scored if there is a plan of
activities with typical peers for the current month in the file and it
reflects completion prior to the start of the month and Sampson's
involvement in its creation.
___
Complaint Box. A "+" is scored if the minutes of the last IEP Team
Meeting indicates that Dr. Watt’s provided a complaint box to solicit
Sampson's concerns and questions and reported them to the
group.
___
Positive Programming:
a.
b.
General Skills-Playing Scrabble with Typical Peer. A "+" is scored if
the last scheduled training session has been carried out and
training data were collected and summarized.
___
Functionally Equivalent Skills.
1)
Responding to Hard Questions. A "+" is scored if the last
scheduled training session has been carried out and training
data were collected and summarized.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
___
47
2)
c.
2)
2)
___
Spontaneous Communication. A "+" is scored if the last
scheduled training session has been carried out and training
data were collected and summarized.
___
Assertiveness. A "+" is scored if the last scheduled training
session has been carried out and training data were
collected and summarized.
___
Tolerating Interruptions. A "+" is scored if the last scheduled
training session has been carried out and training data were
collected and summarized.
___
Focused Support: Incentive Scheme. A "+" is scored if a procedural
reliability check was carried out for the DRO-C protocol in the previous
month and if the Pass Criterion was met.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
6.
Fluent Responding. A "+" is scored if the last scheduled
training session has been carried out and training data were
collected and summarized.
Coping and Tolerance Skills.
1)
5.
___
Functionally Related Skills.
1)
d.
Responding to Giving an Incorrect Response. A "+" is
scored if the last scheduled training session has been
carried out and training data were collected and
summarized.
___
Rapport Building. A "+" is scored if a procedural reliability check
was carried out for the Rapport Building protocol in the previous
month and if the Pass Criterion was met.
___
Interactional Style. A "+" is scored if a procedural reliability check
was carried out for the Interactional Style protocol in the previous
month and if the Pass Criterion was met.
___
Script for Incorrect Response. A "+" is scored if a procedural
reliability check was carried out for the Interactional Style protocol
in the previous month and if the Pass Criterion was met.
___
Script for Coming Home from School. A "+" is scored if Dr. Jones
Reported at the last IEP meeting that the script has been
developed and is being used.
___
Gradual Transition. A "+" is scored if Sampson’s school attendance
records for the previous month indicate that he attended full time,
or for the greatest number of hours for a single month since his
return.
___
Reactive Strategies-Scripts. A "+" is scored if there are scripts in the file
indicating how staff are to respond to LPEP, including the different levels
of episodic severity that have been defined and they are dated within the
prior three months.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
___
47
7.
Staff Development and Management Systems.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Protocols. A "+" is scored if there is an active protocol for all items
listed on the active protocol list following the agreed upon format.
(Pro-rated credit is provided, e.g., 5/12=.42)
___
Three Tiered Training. A "+" is scored if staff training records
indicate they have been trained to the third tier for each of their
responsible protocols. (Pro-rated credit is provided.)
___
Procedural Reliability Checks. A "+" is scored if Checks have been
carried out for all active protocols as scheduled for prior month and
agreed upon standard has been met. (Pro-rated credit is provided.)
___
Team Meetings.
1)
2)
8.
Protocol Sub-committee. A "+" is scored if last scheduled
meeting was held and minutes show standard agenda was
followed.
___
IEP Team. A "+" is scored if a meeting was held in previous
month and minutes show standard agenda was followed.
___
Quarterly Review and Progress Report. A "+" is scored if last quarterly
progress report follows standard format and is dated within prior four
months.
___
Score Achieved
___
Score Possible
___
Percentage of Score Achieve to Score Possible
___
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
IABA
PSR Session Protocol
1. Initial Implementation Date:
2. Dates Revised:
3. Step by step method:
a. A trained member of the team should facilitate the scoring of the PSR
score sheet with at least one other or, if possible, more representatives of
the team present. That is, there should be a least one direct service staff (if
position is presently filled) and one other member of the team present at
the PSR session, in addition to the facilitator.
b. A PSR session is not carried out in a top-down review, i.e., are you doing
what you need to do, but rather in the spirit of a team holding itself
accountable, i.e., are we doing what we said we wanted to do. Hence:
1) The facilitator does not have to be a member of the management team.
2) The tone and words used should be in the Team spirit not the top-down
spirit.
c. The following are the materials that should be present and available before
a PSR session begins:
1) The relevant PSR score sheet.
2) The Operational definitions for each item on the score sheet.
3) All permanent records or products needed to score the PSR score
sheet. If the PSR session is taking place in the field, this means special
care in making sure the necessary “Office” records are available and if
the session is taking place in the office, this means special care in
making sure the “field” records are available.
4) The relevant PSR graphs.
5) A listing and description of the Service Units that comprise the relevant
department (not applicable for STEP).
6) A roster of the total team assigned to the relevant Service Unit,
including the assigned members from the management team,
consultants, etc. The team should not be comprised exclusively of
direct service staff.
7) A written statement that indicates how Service Units and/or consumers
are to be randomly selected for PSR review.
d. The representatives of the team being reviewed and the consumer
selected should be indicated on the PSR score sheet and should have
been selected in accordance with the random selection procedure
described in “c. – 7” above. The facilitator’s initials next to the selected
consumer’s name will indicate that the random selection procedure was
followed.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
e. All items scored on the PSR should be done so based on permanent
products records, including those items that require a spot check review or
direct observations. For the later, those spot check reviews and/or direct
observations should have taken place at a separately scheduled time, with
the results documented in a permanent record to be used for the PSR
review. The only exceptions to this may be those spot check reviews and
direct observations that can be carried out in such a way that the PSR
session itself, including the spot checks and direct observations, last no
more than 30-minutes.
f. The actual documentation should always be visually reviewed. The team
should not rely on memory to score any item.
g. The items on the PSR score sheet and the operational definitions should
be so clear as to lead to an easy consensus among the team members
present as to whether or not a standard was met. If there is not an
immediate consensus, the documentation and the operational definition
should be reviewed to see if the appropriate scoring can be clarified and a
consensus reached. If there is no consensus, the standard should be
scored as unmet with an asterisk indicating the lack of consensus. (The
item and copies of the documentation should be referred to the Director for
clarification. In such cases, the operational definition will almost certainly
need to be rewritten to eliminate the ambiguity that exists. This may lead to
a service-wide revision of the PSR.)
h. The facilitator should model positive reactions to unmet standards. One
way to do this is to be positive about having the information necessary to
work together to improve services. If any member of the team makes a
negative statement, the facilitator should, after listening actively, take some
time to help that person reframe their reaction in positive terms. This
requires attention to both the spirit and content of what is being said.
i.
Team members should be invited to make comments on the score sheet to
explain the reasons for an unmet standard, if they choose to do so.
j.
After the PSR score sheet has been completed, the facilitator should
calculate the PSR percentage score and bring the PSR graph up-to-date.
The graph should then be visually displayed to all present team members.
k. The facilitator should make only positive comments about the results,
regardless of what they are. This might be accomplished by making
positive comments about the visibility the team has about where it is, which
is much better than not knowing; by commenting on the specific standards
that are being met, especially those that might be recent accomplishments;
and by characterizing unmet standards not as deficiencies, deficits or
problems (bad things) but opportunities to improve the quality of services
(good things). Remember to use both a positive tone and spirit as well as
positive words.
l.
If staff make negative statements after or while viewing the PSR graph, the
facilitator should help them reframe their reactions in positive terms, as
described above.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
m. The facilitator should then pose the question: “What opportunities should
we take advantage of between now and our next PSR session?”
n. A list of tasks, person responsible and target dates should be developed.
o. Members of the team not present at the PSR session, whose names are
included on the team roster may be assigned by consensus with
responsibility for a task.
p. This process of taking advantage of opportunities should also be done in
the Team rather than the top-down spirit.
q. The facilitator should then use the channels that have been set up to
assure that every member of the Team sees that updated graph within one
working day. Upon review, each team member should initial and the graph.
r. Supplemental responsibilities should be recorded on the task list by and
distributed to everyone on the team as determined by the facilitator.
s. The completed PSR score sheet should be filed in the relevant PSR
notebook or other agreed upon place within one working day.
4. Procedural reliability checks of the implementation of this protocol should be
carried out quarterly for each facilitator. However, if the reliability score is
below 90%, checks should be carried out weekly until 90% or above is
achieved for 3 consecutive sessions. The results of these procedural reliability
checks should be filed.
5. Observational reliability should be assessed as called for on the Management
PSR for the service.
6. Fail Criteria: Inability of any facilitator to meet procedural criteria at 90% level
for two or more procedural reliability checks in a row. This failure should be an
indicator that the procedural steps may need to be clarified with revised
descriptions. Such revisions should be developed and adopted by all services
within three months of meeting the fail criteria or a written explanation should
be provided by the Directors.
7. Pass Criteria: The fail criteria has not been met. If the fail criteria has not been
met, this protocol should be kept in use.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
8. Variations to these protocol requirements because an item does not apply
should be documented and explained on the appropriate PSR Variations
Form.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Attendance Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Regular Education-Attendance
Materials:
Tracking materials prepared for each day.
Schedule:
For each regular education class that Sampson attends each day.
General:
An important part of Sampson’s plan is to separate three different issues
with regards to his participation in regular education. It is thought that separation of
these issues will contribute to his ability to earn high school credit and, ultimately, his
regular high school diploma. For each regular education class in which he is enrolled,
separate consideration should be given to the expectations that will be placed on him in
that class, how his progress and attention in that class is assessed on a daily basis, and
how he ultimately will be tested for his mastery of the course content for purposes of
receiving class credit toward graduation. This protocol addresses his attendance in
regular education classes.
As with all staff interactions with Sampson, the appropriate basic protocols should also
be followed, including the “Interaction Protocol” and the “General Communication
Protocol.”
Steps:
1.
Global Preparation. Sampson should be prepped for each regular education
course for which he is enrolled. At a minimum, the following should be
covered with Sampson at least a week, but no more than a month, prior to
the first scheduled class of the course.
a. Sampson should be given a one page, or less, written description of the overall
course contents and the rationale for including it as one of the requirements for
high school graduation.
b. This written overview should be discussed with Sampson and he should be
encouraged to ask any questions he may have about the course.
c. Sampson should be given a one page, or less, written description of what will be
expected of him when he attends class. This will include the expectations that:
1)
He will attend each of the scheduled classes (except for excused
absences).
2)
He will listen to the lectures and do the reading that he is assigned
to do in class.
3)
It will be clarified that he will not be asked to respond to any
questions.
4)
Any interim testing that is to count toward successful completion of
the course will be addressed in the “Regular Education-Testing”
Protocol.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
2.
5)
When the class is assigned a paper/pencil activity in the class room,
Sampson will also be given an activity to engage in, as selected by
his IEP team for that course.
6)
He will be asked to listen and/or read the material that is presented
during the class.
7)
He will be given an outline of major points that will be covered to
help him track what is presented. His use of this mechanism will be
optional.
Daily Preparation. Sampson will be oriented to each upcoming class prior to
entering the room.
a. Sampson should be given a one-page outline covering the main teaching points
that will be covered that day. This could be prepared by the paraprofessional
based on a once a week discussion with the course instructor.
b. He should be asked to read and review that outline.
c. He should then be given time to ask any questions he wants to ask.
d. He should be reminded to use the outline to track what is covered in class.
e. He should be reminded to pay attention and “soak up” the material that is
presented.
3.
Daily Tracking. In class each day, Sampson should have the outline or list of
teaching points that are going to be covered that day, prepared by the
paraprofessional based on her weekly meeting with the course instructor. He
should be encouraged to use it, if he would like, to track what is being
presented.
4.
LPEP. Staff should follow the reactive strategy and DRO-C protocols
throughout the class.
5.
Homework: The paraprofessional should facilitate Sampson’s competing the
homework assignment during the next scheduled resource period or as
otherwise arranged. This assignment may be as given by the course
instructor, as adapted by the paraprofessional, or as otherwise determined by
Sampson’s IEP team.
6.
Tutoring: In addition to the homework described above, Dr. Jones should feel
free to provide a tutor or to provide the tutoring herself to further assist
Sampson’s progress in the course.
7.
Course Instructor Guidelines:
a. Proved preferential seating (by the door) in the back or front of the class. His
paraprofessional should be on his right.
b. Greet Sampson the same as you would any other student, but don’t ask him
direct questions.
c. Don’t make him the center of attention in the class.
d. Do not ask him any questions during class.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
e. He may exhibit anxiety behavior, such as tapping, moving around in his seat,
vocalizing or leaving the classroom. His aide will work with him and they will
leave if he is disrupting other students.
f. If the class is taking a test or doing group work, Sampson will observe or leave.
He will not, at this point, participate.
g. Sampson may come to class late. Please do not call attention to him.
h. The plan is for Sampson to sit in on your class. Testing and assessment of his
progress (grades) will take place outside of class.
i.
The course instructor will be coordinating with Special Education staff and
consultants regarding assessment of Sampson’s progress.
j.
If problems arise, please discuss them with the aide and/or Special Education
staff. Do not discuss them directly with Sampson or in his presence.
8.
Specific Course Considerations. If in discussion with the teacher of the
course, additional considerations should be addressed, these should be
incorporated and added to this protocol.
Comments
Facilitation, e.g., non-directive physical contact with his paraprofessional, should be
provided throughout the class session as needed.
Fail criteria: A statement by the course instructor stating that Sampson is
unacceptably disrupting the class and/or unacceptable levels of LPEP based on
IEP Team review are the fail criteria for this protocol. (See data collection protocol
for LPEP.)
Pass criteria: Acceptable levels of LPEP based on monthly IEP team reviews.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the BICM or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist covering the
above. The results of this checklist review should be summarized in the procedural
reliability check file and if less than 100% fidelity is determined, a concrete plan of
correction should be indicated.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Assessment Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Regular Education-Assessment
Materials:
board.
Assessment materials, if any; access to a computer; access to a chalk
Schedule:
For each regular education class that Sampson attends each day.
General:
An important part of Sampson’s plan is to separate three different issues
with regards to his participation in regular education. It is thought that separation of
these issues will contribute to his ability to earn high school credit and, ultimately, his
regular high school diploma. For each regular education class in which he is enrolled,
separate consideration should be given to the expectations that will be placed on him in
that class, how his progress and attention in that class is assessed on a daily basis, and
how he ultimately will be tested for his mastery of the course content for purposes of
receiving class credit toward graduation. This protocol addresses the daily assessment
of his progress in regular education classes.
As with all staff interactions with Sampson, the appropriate basic protocols should also
be followed, including the “Interaction Protocol” and the “General Communication
Protocol.”
Steps:
9.
Preparation of assessment materials and methods. Based on a weekly
meeting with the course instructor and based on material covered in class on
homework assignments, the paraprofessional, will prepare “assessment”
questions to ask Sampson after each day’s class, in order to determine
whether or not he is making progress.
a. To the greatest extent possible, the format for this daily assessment should be
the same as has been decided for the ultimate “testing” at the end of the course
to determine if formal credits toward graduation have been earned.
b. Accordingly, this may include paper/pencil multiple-choice questions, multiplechoice questions presented on the computer, the use of the caulk board, or any
other medium decided by the IEP team or as indicated on the “testing” protocol.
c. The number of content questions may be as few as three or as many as ten.
d. A number of warm-up questions should also be prepared in order to “prime”
Sampson’s response to the formal assessment questions.
e. The paraprofessional should feel comfortable in asking the Special Education
Teacher or outside BICM for advice, guidance and support, should this be
necessary.
f. The resource room, special education classroom, lunch room or other area
should be pre-planned to carry out this assessment process.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
10.
Daily Assessment. Sampson will be assessed regarding the progress he is
making following each regular education class he attends.
a. The paraprofessional should bring Sampson to the planned assessment area for
the class in question.
b. The warm-up questions should be asked.
c. The assessment questions should be asked.
d. Facilitation should be provided through out, as necessary.
e. The communication protocol should be followed throughout.
11.
Daily Recording. A record should be entered in an “Assessment Log” daily.
These entries will form part of the basis for determining the Level of LPEP
that occurs for each day.
12.
LPEP. Staff should follow the reactive strategy and DRO-C protocols
throughout the assessment process.
Comments
Facilitation, e.g., non-directive physical contact with his paraprofessional, should
be provided throughout the class session as needed.
Fail criteria: Unacceptable levels of LPEP based on monthly IEP Team review are
the fail criteria for this protocol. (See data collection protocol for LPEP.)
Pass criteria: Acceptable levels of LPEP based on monthly IEP team reviews.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the BICM or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist covering the
above. The results of this checklist review should be summarized in the procedural
reliability check file and if less than 100% fidelity is determined, a concrete plan of
correction should be indicated.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Testing Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Regular Education-Testing
Materials:
Testing materials; access to a computer; access to a chalk board; and/or
access to other material decided on by the IEP team for testing.
Schedule:
For every regular education class for which Sampson was enrolled.
General:
An important part of Sampson’s plan is to separate three different issues
with regards to his participation in regular education. It is thought that separation of
these issues will contribute to his ability to earn high school credit and, ultimately, his
regular high school diploma. For each regular education class in which he is enrolled,
separate consideration should be given to the expectations that will be placed on him in
that class, how his progress and attention in that class is assessed on a daily basis, and
how he ultimately will be tested for his mastery of the course content for purposes of
receiving class credit toward graduation. This protocol addresses the end-of-course
testing on the basis of which Sampson will or will not be given course credit toward his
high school graduation.
Steps:
1.
Preparation of testing materials and methods.
a. The method and content by which Sampson’s “final grade” will be calculated
should be determined prior to the start of the course, or at the latest, within the
first week of the course.
b. The method and content should be determined by the IEP Protocol
Subcommittee and the course instructor of the relevant regular education
course.
c. The Subcommittee’s recommendations should be submitted to the IEP Team for
formal approval.
d. The testing method should employ the multiple choice format (not true/false) or
other format to be determined by the Subcommittee.
e. The responses required by Sampson should involve his marking a sheet a
paper, his marking a chalk board, his hitting the right computer key, or other
response as determined by the Subcommittee.
f. The testing method should allow flexibility during the testing itself to allow
Sampson to indicate his preferred response mode at that time.
g. Test content should be acceptable to the course instructor, while the test format
should be determined by the Subcommittee as a whole.
h. The people who will administer the test should be identified. These should
include his instructional aide or communication consultant as the person directly
administering the test and a school district representative (member of the IEP
Team) to audit the process for procedural reliability.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
i.
A checklist for procedural reliability should be developed for monitoring the
testing session. At a minimum, this should cover:
1)
The agreed upon method for test item presentation.
2)
The agreed upon use of facilitation.
3)
The absence of any prompting.
4)
The following of the general communication protocol.
5)
Other procedures determine by the Subcommittee.
2.
Test Administration. The end of course test should be administered in
accordance with the procedural reliability checklist referred to above.
3.
Test Scoring. The results of the test should be scored.
a. If the agreed upon criteria have been met, course credit should be granted
as agreed.
b. If the agreed upon criteria have not been met, up to three retests may be
requested by the IEP team, not before three months have elapsed since
the previous testing, nor more than six
Comments
If the criteria for credit is still not met after three retests, at the request of the IEP team,
the course may be repeated by Sampson in accordance with the established protocols,
or as otherwise determined by the IEP team.
Fail criteria: Not meeting the pass criteria
Pass criteria: Sampson getting course credit without having to retake the course.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: A procedural reliability check should be carried for each testing
session based on the prepared checklist. The results of this checklist review should be
summarized in the procedural reliability check file and if less than 100% fidelity is
determined, a concrete plan of correction should be indicated.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Monitoring and Communication Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Monitoring and communication.
Materials:
Pro-forma for completing weekly monitoring and communication report.
Schedule:
Weekly.
General: In addition to participating on the IEP team, for Dr. Jones, Sampson’s mother,
to feel that her son’s educational and behavioral needs are being appropriately
addressed by the school, there must be transparency in what the school is doing and in
the progress that Sampson is making. Therefore, a weekly report format should be
followed that summarizes the status of IEP implementation (see Periodic Service
Review protocol) and Sampson’s demonstrated academic and behavioral progress (or
lack thereof) that week (see Assessment Protocol). Such weekly reports will help Dr.
Jones prepare for the monthly IEP team meetings and preclude the need for her to
question Sampson about what is happening.
Steps:
1.
Prepare Weekly Report: The should be done by the external BICM or other
staff designated by the IEP Team.
2.
Report Contents: The end of course test should be administered in
accordance with the procedural reliability checklist referred to above.
a. Up-to-date PSR graph with narrative.
b. Up-to-date LPEP behavioral graphs with narrative.
c. Summary of weekly assessment data with narrative.
d. Recommendations for coming week.
3.
Weekly Report Distribution. The report should be distributed weekly to all
members of the IEP Team, including Dr. Jones and all external consultants.
Fail criteria: Not meeting the pass criterion
Pass criteria: At each scheduled IEP meeting, a standard agenda item should address
whether the standard format for the week report is OK or if it should be changed to
better meet the Team’s needs. If a change is necessary, the format should be revised
for the next week’s report
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: Each weeks report should be reviewed by someone on the IEP
Team other than the preparer and checked to see if it includes all of the required
information in the agreed upon format. If not, it should be corrected before distribution.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Recreation Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: General Skill: Recreation/scrabble
Materials:
Scrabble board game.
Schedule:
Weekly.
Objective: Given one non-disabled peer and the invitation to play a game of scrabble to
completion and within normal time limits, Sampson will play with no more than natural
reminders from his peer, without staff prompting, proximity, or presence, alternating
turns and following the rules, 4 x 5 times, within six months and 5 x 5 in a year.
General: There is a general consensus that Sampson would benefit from developing his
social interaction skills. Further, as described above, Sampson would probably agree
with this, particularly with regards to interactions with his non-disabled peers. A place to
start in this important area would be to teach him how to play an age-appropriate,
interactive board game for which he already knows the rules and has demonstrated
some competence. Accordingly, it is recommended that Sampson be taught how to
play scrabble with the need for prompting or facilitation.
Method. A discrete trial, forward chaining, partial task presentation method should be
used. Each trial should be preceded by showing and having Sampson review a social
story that illustrates the sequence of what is going to happen. That is, the story will
show pictures of:
a. Sampson’s friend asking him to play;
b. Sampson and his friend setting up the board and selecting their beginning
pieces;
c. Sampson’s friend taking the first turn;
d. Sampson taking his first turn;
e. A card that says time passes and Sampson and “_____” take turns until the
end of the game.
f. A picture that is ambiguous as to who is taking a turn, indicating that the last
turn is taken.
g. Sampson and his friend calculating who has won.
h. The friend saying “that was a great game, Sampson, thanks for playing with
me. I was particularly impressed when you played the word _________. I’ll
put the game away and then we can get a snack;
i.
Sampson and ________ sitting around a table enjoying a bag of Doritos and
some squirt.
After the social story has been reviewed, Sampson’s friend should ask him to
play the game and then he should set up the game board. The steps that should be
addressed in the forward chaining process, with Sampson’s first step, i.e., coming over
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
and sitting down to position himself to play, followed by his friends making the first word
on the board and then saying “your turn,” is that Sampson will take his turn, as
appropriate, one turn after the other, until the game is over and someone has won.
Each subsequent step should be followed by his friend taking another turn and then
saying “your turn,” (or words to that effect). When the last word has been spelled out
and the game is over, Sampson and his friend should determine who is the winner and
his friend should then say saying “That was a great game, Sampson, thanks for playing
with me. I was particularly impressed when you played the word _________. I’ll put the
game away and then we can get a snack(or words to this effect). This should act as a
natural reinforcer.
The forward chaining process should be explained to Sampson. That is, he
should understand that initially, he only has to sit down without the prompting or
proximity of the teacher, for the game to be considered successfully over. After the
pass criterion has been met, (I suggest only one correct trial), the number of moves that
Sampson takes, one by one, would be added to the chain, for each subsequent trial,
until he is able to play an entire game. At that point, the teacher should fade his or her
presence from the room, until the entire process and playing of the game can occur
without any adult presence.
Finally, two to three sessions (i.e., trials) should be scheduled each school week.
Further, Sampson should always have the right to continue playing beyond the number
of steps reached in the formal forward chaining process. A script for how his friend
should handle this should be developed.
DATA: The results of each session should be recorded in an "instructional log" created
for this purpose. The entry should include:
1. A description of which scenario was employed.
2. An indication of what instructional Step was worked on.
3. A general measure of LPEP
4. An pass/fail indication for the session.
a. Pass: Sampson seems to have mastered the step and is ready to move
ahead to the next Step.
b. Fail: Sampson still seems hesitant and uncertain in working through the
step and is not ready to move ahead to the next Step.
5. General comment by staff (optional).
6. A summary chart should be kept up to date, showing which steps have been
introduced, the date introduced, and the date each step was mastered.
PASS CRITERION: After a session has been passed, Sampson can move to the next
step.
FAIL CRITERION: If one week goes by without Sampson moving ahead to the next
Step, this protocol should be reviewed and revised accordingly.
Procedural Reliability: Procedural reliability checks should be carried out once a month.
If based on a checklist developed for the above. If a 90% or better score is not
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
obtained, a plan of corrective action should be entered into the procedural reliability
check log.
Comments: If the IEP team decides, an alternative recreational skill objective can be
established and a corresponding protocol developed as an alternative to the one
proposed here. For example, the objective might be, “given the opportunity to play a
basket ball game with a typical peer (such as “horse”), Sampson will play the game
from start to finish with his peer, with out prompting or facilitation by staff (but allowing
cheers and encouragement from the sidelines) and with only natural prompting from the
peer, and without LPEP, 5 out of 5 times by 12/30/05.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Coping Skills Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed: March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Coping Skill-Tolerating interruptions.
Schedule:
Thrice weekly.
Objective: When his expected schedule is interrupted and when given a good reason
for the interruption, with the promise that he can return to the originally scheduled
activity, Sampson will stop and perform the alternative task without exhibiting the
indicators of anxiety or LPEP, without prompting, facilitation or proximity, 5 x 5 times,
within a year.
General: As many people with movement disturbance exhibit, the indicators of LPEP
can appear and escalate when Sampson’s expected routine or schedule is interrupted.
The following is a recommendation on how to proceed in this important area.
Method. His ability to deal with an interruption in his ordered universe could be taught
by utilizing the following instructional steps:
(1)
Role Play Practice: A scenario should be developed portraying a situation
in which:
(a)
Sampson is transitioning to the next activity on his schedule.
(b)
Staff apologizes for having to ask him to do something else first,
which will result in a brief (1 to 5-minute) interruption.
(c)
Sampson says, "No problem, the world won’t come to an end."
(d)
Staff says thank you and proceeds with asking him to perform the
new task.
(e)
Sampson maintains an adaptive or even calm level, without any
indicators of LPEP, and performs the alternative task.
(f)
The interruption ends and the schedule is resumed.
(g)
Sampson has the opportunity to enjoy something nice.
(2)
Video Role Play. This scenario could be video taped and edited to show
Sampson’s performance at the mastery level. He should view this video at
least once a day for a week before moving on to the next step. To
motivate his viewing of the video, it can be used as a leader into a taped
TV show that he would like to see.
(3)
Prompted Role Play. Once Sampson becomes familiar with the
"scenario", staff and he should play their respective roles, with staff
providing the necessary prompts to Sampson for him to play his part.
(4)
Unprompted Role Play. Reliance on the prompts should be gradually
faded until staff and Sampson can role play the situation without them.
(5)
Prompted Generalization Trials. Generalization trials should be scheduled
throughout the day in which the "scenario" is reenacted by staff and
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Sampson. Initially, this may require the use of prompts (e.g., cue cards)
for Sampson to perform his role.
(6)
Unprompted Generalization Trials. Prompting should be gradually faded
until staff can initiate the "scenario" any time during the day and Sampson
will respond appropriately.
(7)
Use of Sufficient Exemplars. A sufficient number of "scenarios" should be
developed to allow variations in the person introducing the interruption, so
as to assure generalization.
(8)
Fluency Should be Established. Fluency can be measured by how fast a
scenario can be played out without hesitation or the need for prompting.
New exemplars should be developed until Sampson can deal with having an
activity interrupted without exhibiting anxiety or the indicators of LPEP. A similar
sequence of steps can be used to teach Sampson how to deal with other
scenarios that now cause him to become anxious.
DATA: The results of each session should be recorded in an "instructional log" created
for this purpose. The entry should include:
1.
A description of which scenario was employed.
2.
An indication of what instructional Step was worked on.
3.
A general measure of LPEP
4.
An pass/fail indication for the session.
a.
Pass: Sampson seems to have mastered the step and is ready to
move ahead to the next Step.
b.
Fail: Sampson still seems hesitant and uncertain in working through
the step and is not ready to move ahead to the next Step.
5.
General comment by staff (optional).
6.
A summary chart should be kept up to date, showing which steps have
been introduced, the date introduced, and the date each step was
mastered.
PASS CRITERION: After a session has been passed, Sampson can move to the next
step.
FAIL CRITERION: If two weeks goes by without Sampson moving ahead to the next
Step, this protocol should be reviewed and revised accordingly.
Procedural Reliability: Procedural reliability checks should be carried out once a month.
If based on a checklist developed for the above. If a 90% or better score is not
obtained, a plan of corrective action should be entered into the procedural reliability
check log.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Comments: An alternative coping/tolerance skill can be selected by the IEP Team,
along with a comparable protocol
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Building Rapport Protocol
Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed : March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Building Rapport
Materials:
None
Schedule:
As a final activity of each day, Sampson and his aide should develop a
schedule of activities for the following day.
Responsible Person:
Instructional aide.
General Statement: It was identified that Sampson is less likely to exhibit LPEP if his
support staff have established a positive and trusting relationship with him. Accordingly,
a protocol is necessary that standardizes how this initial rapport can be established
most efficiently. This protocol is to provide some guidelines for activities that Sampson
and his aide can plan together. These activities are intended to develop a positive
rapport between the two to set the stage for the formal Individualized Education Plan
and the Behavioral Support Plan. That is, the primary purpose is to establish a mutually
trusting and respectful relationship which will then form the foundation for more goal
oriented activities. At this time, attempts should not be made to engage Sampson in
formal educational activities, except to the extent that they may fit into the guidelines
established in this protocol.
Method:
General:
1.
Follow the guidelines established in the communication and DRO-C protocols.
2.
The last activity of the day should be for the aide and Sampson to schedule the
following, or next scheduled day.
3.
The activities scheduled should be from one of the following categories.
a. It may be an activity that Sampson likes and the aide wants to experience it in
order to appreciate what Sampson enjoys and to share these experiences
with him.
b.
It may be an activity that the aide likes and Sampson wants to experience it
in order to appreciate what the aide enjoys and to share these experiences
with him.
c.
It may be an activity that is new to Sampson and/or to his aide that either or
both are willing and interested in experiencing, in order to explore whether it
might be something that they would enjoy.
d.
It may be an educational game, either computer based or otherwise.
e.
It may be a computer or other game, either educationally based or
otherwise.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
4.
All activities should be scheduled only with the mutual agreement of both
Sampson and his aide.
5.
Guidelines:
a. Stay calm and relaxed. He picks up on the moods of those around him.
b. Be cheerful and low key.
c. Treat Sampson as an important person, with dignity and respect
d. Ask as few questions as possible, as this makes him nervous. When he gets
nervous, his disorganization gets worse. That is when he begins to sign
headache and stomach ache.
e. Watch for his nonverbal communication, such as finger tapping and
nervousness
f. Don’t do anything without telling him first. Always inform him about what is
going on.
g. He may need “waiting time” after instructions to process.
h. In class, minimize questions to him. It is ok to ask him to take out his book,
to sit down, or to stop making noises (see Reactive Strategies).
i.
If he protests, keep the limit. Explain “just a few more minutes. I need to
finish taking notes. We need to sit and stay here.”
j.
Try to make school fun for Sampson. You can take walks, play basketball,
tell jokes, share snacks or drinks, etc.
k. Keep the mood light and relaxed.
l.
Try to communicate to him that you believe in him, and that he will be
successful.
Specific Suggestions:
1.
Computer based activities.
2.
Beginning exercise and sports conditioning activities.
Comments: It is important to remember that the primary purposes of this initial period,
as we develop and ultimately implement Sampson’s full plan is as follows:
1.
To establish a positive, trusting relationship between Sampson and his aide.
2.
To introduce Sampson to the school environment with the highest likelihood of
his success.
3.
To engage Sampson in the process so he experiences forward movement in his
life and so he doesn’t have to wait at home for things to begin.
Pass/Fail Criteria: This and the other focused support strategies will be considered to
be working if each month shows improvements toward the objectives established in
Sampson’s plan. Hence, it is only after the second month of reliable data collection that
we can begin to determine if the plan is working as intended. If this “Pass” criterion is
not met, the “Fail” criterion will be considered to have been met, and this procedure
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
should be revised as determined by a clinical review.
Data Collection: Based on 15-minute, partial interval data collection method. (See
separate data collection protocol.)
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the BICM or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist to evaluate
the rapport building activity and the implementation of the strategy described above.(for
content and tone). The results of this checklist review should be summarized in the
procedural reliability check file and if less than 85%% fidelity is determined, a concrete
plan of correction should be indicated.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Interactional Style Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed : March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Interactional Style
Materials:
None
Schedule:
Throughout the day.
Responsible Person:
Sampson.
Instructional aide and all school staff who interact with
General Statement: Once rapport has been established between Sampson and his
staff, it is still important for them to use the interactional style that has proven to work
best for him. Style should convey a respect for Sampson, an expectation that he can
perform successfully at the highest levels, a determination to support him in this
process, patience in wanting to understand what he is trying to communicate, and a
process to follow in an effort to understand what he is trying to say.
Method:
1.
Follow the guidelines established in the communication and DRO-C protocols.
2.
Guidelines:
a. Stay calm and relaxed. He picks up on the moods of those around him.
b. Be cheerful and low key.
c. Treat Sampson as an important person, with dignity and respect
d. Ask as few questions as possible, as this makes him nervous. When he gets
nervous, his disorganization gets worse. That is when he begins to sign
headache and stomach ache.
e. Watch for his nonverbal communication, such as finger tapping and
nervousness.
f. Don’t do anything without telling him first. Always inform him about what is
going on.
g. He may need “waiting time” after instructions to process.
h. In class, minimize questions to him. It is ok to ask him to take out his book,
to sit down, or to stop making noises (see Reactive Strategies).
i.
If he protests, keep the limit. Explain “just a few more minutes. I need to
finish taking notes. We need to sit and stay here.”
j.
Keep the mood light and relaxed.
k. Try to communicate to him that you believe in him, and that he will be
successful.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Specifics:
a.
Your job is to stay very calm, thereby encouraging Sampson to stay calm.
Sampson becomes agitated if those around him are agitated or nervous, if he is
put on the spot (such as asked repeated questions), if he becomes confused or
overwhelmed. The longer he is nervous, the more agitated he becomes. He then
cannot bring himself down, or regain control.
b.
His family and home team say that Sampson does not like direct prompting.
They do everything in an indirect manner. “Sampson, what will happen if you
don’t put your shoes on and you walk outside?” “Sampson, how can you learn if
you don’t open the book?”, etc. His home team feels that too many prompts
make him anxious. He feels as if he is doing something wrong and reacts
accordingly.
c.
His communication specialists feel that direct prompting done in a kind way,
while staying calm and relaxed, is the best way to work with Sampson. You will
have to try yourself and document what works for you in school.
d.
At the first signs of agitation, bring Sampson down by talking calmly to him. Do
not put him on the spot. You can take his hand, while staying very calm yourself.
You can say, “I need to make sure I am calm.” Or you can restate the rules.
“Sampson, we need to stay calm in class. We can’t bother the other students.”
Sometimes it works to directly prompt him, “Sit down, quiet please.” Sometimes,
he may have to be removed from class to further problem solve what is wrong.
e.
It is important that Sampson comes to see his aide as someone he can trust to
help him learn in school. It is important that Sampson sees his aide as someone
he can communicate with, and who will help him stay calm and problem solve.
f.
Always treat Sampson as an intelligent, dignified human being. As long as he
stays calm, he can communicated using the various modes described in
“Communication Protocol”. However, once he becomes nervous, his involuntary
movements increase and his communication will be unreliable.
Comments: Be sure to follow communication protocol throughout the day, during all
interactions.
Pass/Fail Criteria: This and the other focused support strategies will be considered to
be working if each month shows improvements toward the objectives established in
Sampson’s plan. Hence, it is only after the second month of reliable data collection that
we can begin to determine if the plan is working as intended. If this “Pass” criterion is
not met, the “Fail” criterion will be considered to have been met, and this procedure
should be revised as determined by a clinical review.
Data Collection: Based on 15-minute, partial interval data collection method. (See
separate data collection protocol.)
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the BICM or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist to evaluate
the implementation of the strategy described above.(for content and tone). The results
of this checklist review should be summarized in the procedural reliability check file and
if less than 85%% fidelity is determined, a concrete plan of correction should be
indicated.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Reactive Strategy Protocol
Name: Sampson Jones
Date Protocol Developed : March 7, 2005
Protocol Name: Reactive Strategy
Materials:
None
Schedule:
Throughout the day.
Responsible Person: Instructional aide and others who have been trained to follow this
protocol.
General Statement: Please review the protocols for Rapport Building, Interactional Style
and Communication, as they are all relevant in reacting to Sampson’s target behaviors
that are part of LPEP. When Sampson exhibits the target behaviors that are part of
LPEP, there are several strategies which could be useful for him. You will have to
become familiar with him and find the best style for you and him. Since Sampson has
not been in school for so many years, these are only ideas. Once we become more
familiar with his behavior in a school setting, we can find what works and what doesn’t
and further fine tune this protocol.
Method (organized around different levels of LPEP):
Level 1 - The types of behaviors Sampson might exhibit on Level 1 are not opening his
book in class, refusing to answer a question on an assessment assignment outside of
class, These are minor issues, which do not define the whole interval. That is, he is
sitting quietly, listening in class, even though he will not open his book. He is answering
most of the questions on the assignment. Prompt him to do these activities (“Sampson,
take out your book”, etc.). However, if after several prompts, he does not do it, just get
along as best you can, while recording his progress on the data collection and giving
him the end of the day feedback. Try not to make him feel nervous and agitated, or that
you are rejecting him.
Levels 2 – 5 refer to various levels of prompting or facilitation required to get Sampson
to fulfill his school responsibilities. As is reflected by the levels, it is best to try the least
intrusive prompts first, such as staff presence, facilitating his communication, verbal
prompting. Physical prompting should be used with caution after your relationship with
him has been established or else in an emergency, e.g. he is running in front of a
vehicle.
Level 6 – not doing what he was asked to do at all. This might be Sampson refusing to
do any of his assignment, Sampson not listening at all in class (hands over ears, not
facing teacher, etc). If Sampson refuses, and you can try to determine why using his
communication board or facilitated communication, do so. If he is in class, but not
disrupting anyone, just wait until the end of the period, then try to find out what the
problem was using the communication options.
Level 7 – engaging in off task behavior which disrupts others around him. This includes
but is not limited to taking off his shoes, out of context laughing or other loud noises,
requests for unscheduled food, more that one use of the bathroom per half hour period,
arm waving, running in circles and other forms of repetitive, stereotypic behavior.
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
If Sampson is in class, it is best to have him leave the class if these behaviors persist.
Otherwise, he would disrupt the other students and stigmatize himself. He is to be
seated near a door (see Suggestions for Teachers protocol), in case a quick exit is
necessary, Once he is outside, he may need to walk or do something physical. Then,
the communication systems could be used to see if a problem could be solved or
whether he is ready to proceed with his day.
Levels 8 and 9 – getting into another person’s personal space, or grabbing, pulling or
otherwise touching another person. Again, the key to avoiding these levels is keeping
him calm and quiet through your own mood, and being attentive to lower levels of
agitation, and taking his hand to calm him down or otherwise communicating with him
that everything is ok. If this fails, and he escalates to levels 8 or 9, he is by then very
agitated and in great need of assistance to calm himself. Remove him from class if he
is extremely agitated. You can tell him, “I’m right here. I’ll help you. Tap me on the
shoulder if I’m not looking at you. Keep this far away (gesturing with hands).”
Level 10 – physical aggression. This is unlikely to occur, especially if you have been
attentive to his needs and earlier signs of agitation. In the past, this was most likely to
occur if he was running around and someone tried to physically intervene to stop him. It
can be helpful to encourage him to an area that is small and finite. The smaller the
space, the more likely he will be to feel in control. For example, if he is outside, his
motor movement can be controlled somewhat by encouraging him into a room,
bathroom or small office. Again, stay calm and relaxed, and encourage Sampson in a
way that makes him feel that you are confident he will be able to regain control. “
Sampson, how can I help you to calm down. Sit and let’s talk,” etc.
Level 11 – not being in assigned school area. This Level is scored when Sampson will
not go to his assigned class. In general, keep the prompts low-key and try to set him up
for success. “Its time to go in 5 minutes, Sampson; ok, let’s go (in upbeat voice).” If he
refuses, try again in a few minutes. “Let’s have a good day today. We’ll miss so much if
we don’t get there when the bell rings, I know you can make the right choice to get up
and go to class,” etc. Continue to prompt him every five minutes, as getting to class late
is better than not going at all. If he is getting stuck in the same place, it may be
necessary to change his routine. You can also try problem solving with his
communication systems to determine the source of the problem.
Level 12 – lack of physical presence in any school area. This is when Sampson does
not come to school at all, comes late or leaves early. When he does come back, let him
know how glad you are to see him and that you know he will learn a lot today.
General issues:
If you are giving direct verbal feedback, you could say:
“Sampson, you need to quiet down.”
“Sampson, please sit down.”
“It disturbs other students. It is not appropriate.”
“You need to back up. You are too close. It makes me uncomfortable.”
“You need to wait. You just went to the bathroom.”
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
“Just 5 more minutes and class will be over.”
“ Just one more answer and we’ll be done.” Etc.
Helping him stay calm at the first sign of agitation is best. Once his anxiety level rises to
a certain point, he cannot regain control. When he gets nervous, he confuses all his
emotions. His movements become random and out of his control.
One strategy when Sampson’s behavior is disorganized is to take his hand. Make sure
you are very calm and relaxed yourself. “Sampson, how do I feel? Let’s be calm
together. Take some deep breathes.” When he is calmer, communication strategies
can be used. “You got upset in class when the teacher was lecturing. Is this correct?”
He could point to “yes” or “no” on a white board, shake his head, or give a thumbs up.
He could also be shown a white board with “I need more information. “I’m confused. “I
need to get out of here, other” as his choices. Before asking him to make a choice,
center him and help him focus by asking him to point to each one, “Sampson, show me
“I’m confused”, etc. Refer to the Communication Protocol for more information.
Touch from a person Sampson trust, helps him to calm down and focus. If he realizes
that you want to help him, he will start to calm down.
Comments: Be sure to follow communication protocol throughout the day, during all
interactions.
Pass/Fail Criteria: This protocol should be considered to have failed if, when followed, it
escalates LPEP to the next level. Should this happen, a debriefing with the external
BICM should be scheduled as soon as possible, but not more than a week later, and
possible revisions should be considered.
Data Collection: Based on 15-minute, partial interval data collection method. (See
separate data collection protocol.)
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47
Procedural Reliability: Once each month, the BICM or other assigned person should
carry out a procedural reliability check of this procedure using a checklist to evaluate
the implementation of the strategy described above. The results of this checklist review
should be summarized in the procedural reliability check file and if less than 95% fidelity
is determined, a concrete plan of correction should be indicated. Retrospective
debriefing and role-play reliability checks should take the place of in-vivo reliability
checks for those levels that were not directly observed during the in-vivo check.
Prepared by: __________________________________
Gary W. LaVigna, Ph.D., BCBA
Consultant
Date:
Approved by: __________________________________
Julia F. Shaull, LCSW, BCBA
BICM
Date:
Date Implemented: __________________________
Dates Revised:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
© Institute for Applied Behavior Analysis, Los Angeles, CA
47