Grant

Implementation of FISH
Function-based Intervention from School to Home

Agency: Institute of Education Sciences Topic: Families of Children with Disabilities Goal: Efcacy and Replication CDFA Number: 84.324A Type: Replication
Candace Gann
1 ABSTRACT RFA Topic: Families of Children with Disabilities Goal Three: Efficacy and Replication Purpose: The purpose of this replication study is to test single, comprehensive function-based interventions across the home and school environments. Setting: Function-based interventions (FBI) will be implemented in elementary classrooms in the Tucson, Arizona area as well as in the homes of participants selected for this study. Sample Population: The sample population will be comprised of 20 second through sixth grade participants diagnosed with a behavior disorder that display problem behaviors in both the home and school environments that affect their ability to perform in the academic setting. Intervention: FBIs will be individualized based on results of functional behavior assessments (FBA) conducted in the school and home environments. Interventions will be designed using the Function-based Intervention Decision Model (FBIDM) (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007) and implemented across both environments during times when the behavior is most severe. Comparison Condition: The comparison group selected for this study will be comprised of 20 second through sixth grade participants diagnosed with a behavior disorder that display problem behaviors in both the home and school environments that affect their ability to perform in the academic setting. These participants will receive function-based interventions only in the school environments. Primary Research Method: Participants will be randomly assigned to either the treatment or comparison group. A multiple baseline design across participants in each group at each site will be used to establish functional relationships in this single-subject study. The Behavior Assessment System for Children Second Edition, Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS) and Woodcock Johnson-III (WJ-III) will be administered pre- and posttreatment to participants in each condition. An FBA will be conducted for comparison participants in the school environment with an FBI implemented in this setting. To address the problem behaviors of treatment participants, FBAs will be conducted in both the home and school environments. Comprehensive, individualized interventions will then be implemented across both settings. To assess intervention effectiveness, baseline data and intervention data will be collected using 15-second partial-interval recording of problem behaviors. Measures and Key Outcomes: The BASC-2 BESS will be used to assess behavior using normed scores pre- and post-intervention. Additionally, the WJ-III will be administered pre- and post-intervention to evaluate gains in academic achievement. Observational data will be used to document changes in problem behaviors as well as fidelity of treatment. Finally, teachers and parents will complete the Intervention Rating Profile 15 (IRP-15) to document intervention satisfaction. The researchers hypothesize participants receiving interventions in both the home and school environments will show a greater decrease in problem behaviors, an increase in academic achievement scores, and a decrease in scores on the BASC-2 BESS compared to participants in the comparison condition. Data Analytic Strategy: Level 1 of Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) will be used to compare the treatment group to the comparison group by measuring each individuals growth over time in a multiple baseline design. This allows the researchers to measure the effect of intervention for a single individual. The minimum, maximum, mean, mode, median, and standard deviation will then be calculated for each individual for the BASC-2 BESS and WJ-III. Scores on each of these measures will then be converted to z-scores. After data conversion, researchers will compare the results, examining the data for similarities and differences among the scores.
2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT Research Questions The goal of the proposed research is to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of a comprehensive function-based intervention that encompasses the results of functional behavior assessment interviews and observations conducted across both school and home settings. The investigators in this study hypothesize with behavioral supports in place across the home and school environments, problem behaviors and behavioral assessment scores will decrease while academic assessment scores will increase. The Intervention The Function-based Intervention Decision Model (Umbreit et al., 2007) will be used to determine the intervention most appropriate for each participant. It has been used successfully in the school setting in many peer-reviewed studies. The first step in this model is to conduct a functional behavior assessment. This is done using both direct (i.e. observations) and indirect (i.e. interviews) methods. The Function-based Intervention Decision Model is then used to begin the intervention development process by posing two questions: (a) Can the student perform the replacement behavior? and Do the antecedent conditions represent effective practice? These questions lead to four possible outcomes. Each outcome identifies which of the three intervention methods, individually or combined, is appropriate for a given situation. If the participant cannot perform the replacement behavior, but the antecedent conditions represent effective practice, then Method 1: Teach the Replacement Behavior is used. In this method, skills that provide an alternative to the problem behavior are taught explicitly. This instruction improves deficits in the participants academic, adaptive, and social behavior that prevent effective functioning within the environment. Instruction in communication, social skills, academic skills, or self-management skills is included in this method. If the student can perform the replacement behavior, but the antecedent conditions do not represent effective practice, then Method 2: Improve the Environment is used. In this method, ineffective practices in the environment are eliminated and positive reinforcement is made readily available to the participants. To improve the environment, incentives, rules, and choice making may be executed. Routines and physical organization of the environment may also be modified. Within the classroom, effective teaching strategies may be implemented. If the answer to both questions is no, then both Methods 1 and 2 must be applied. Finally, if the answer to both questions is yes, then Method 3: Adjust the Contingencies is used. In this method, contingencies that previously maintained problem behaviors are provided for the replacement behavior. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the Function-based Intervention Decision Model. All interventions will be individualized for each participant based on results of functional behavior assessments.
Figure 1. Function Based Intervention Decision Model
Figure 1. Function-based Intervention Decision Model (Umbreit et al., 2007) Theory of Change For a child to be diagnosed with a behavior disorder, undesirable behaviors must occur across multiple environments. These behaviors frequently occur in the school, home, and community environments. However, functional behavior supports are most often provided only in the school environment. Participant behavior will be assessed across both the school and home environment with interventions designed to support the participant in both settings. These interventions will decrease inappropriate behaviors participants display throughout the day and increase pro-social behaviors deemed desirable by teachers and parents. With improved behavior, the participants will have more opportunities for learning in the school environment. Further, with improved behavior in the home, participants will have more opportunities to practice learned academic skills with parent support in the home during designated homework times. Increased opportunities for learning and practice will, in turn, lead to greater academic functioning for participants in this study. See Figure 2 for a pictorial depiction of the theory of change.
Figure 2. Logic Model Rationale As a child struggles socially and behaviorally, important academic content can be missed causing him or her to fall behind same-age academic peers. The use of empirically validated methods of behavior change is crucial to assist students struggling to learn the necessary social and behavioral skills in the classroom. Functional behavior assessment is an empirically validated strategy using direct and indirect methods to identify function of behavior and design behavior support plans based on the identified function. Functional assessments have helped educators identify the physical aspects of the problem behaviors as well as the antecedents and consequences that triggered and maintained the behaviors. When an FBA is conducted, a behavior intervention plan can be designed to eliminate the triggers of negative behaviors, teach replacement behaviors that meet the same behavioral functions, and deliver consequences to maintain the appropriate behaviors taught as a result of the plan (Ingram, Lewis-Palmer & Sugai, 2005). Once problem behaviors have been eliminated, the child might become better integrated into the classroom environment. He or she can begin to participate successfully in all academic activities. Academic gains may then occur at a faster rate. One method researchers have used to develop individualized behavioral interventions is the Function-based Intervention Decision Model. This method has been used successfully in an early childhood program (Wood, Ferro, Umbreit, & Liaupsin, 2011), elementary schools (Aitken et al., 2011; Germer et al., 2011; Lane, Weisenbach, Little, Phillips, & Wehby, 2006; Nahgahgwon, Umbreit, Liaupsin, & Turton, 2010), middle schools (Cox, Griffin, Hall, Oakes, & Lane, 2011), alternative educational settings (Turton, Umbreit, Liaupsin, & Bartley, 2007); Turton, Umbreit, & Mather, 2011), and in a community setting for adults with developmental disabilities (Underwood, Umbreit, & Liaupsin, 2009). This method also has been used to address the problem behaviors of a fifth-grade student across multiple academic environments (Gann, 2012). However, this method has not been evaluated within the home setting. Fewer studies of functional interventions have been conducted within the home environment. The majority of the studies focused on the home environment center around functional communication training. In these studies, experimental analysis was conducted to identify a function of behavior. In this method of identifying function, four conditions are tested
5 experimentally. These conditions are access to attention, access to preferred items, escape from task demands, and free-play. After identifying the condition that maintains the problem behavior, researchers taught participants communicative responses to replace the problem behaviors exhibited by the participants. In each of these studies, problem behaviors decreased as a result of the functional communication training (Arndorfer, Miltenberger, Woster, Rortvedt, & Gaffaney, 1994; Moes & Frea, 2002; Harding, Wacker, Berg, Lee, & Dolezal, 2009). However, authors in two studies implemented successfully multicomponent behavioral interventions focusing on antecedent adjustments similar to interventions designed using the Function-based Intervention Decision Model (Arco & Bishop, 2009; Buschbacher, Fox, & Clarke, 2004). Arco and Bishop (2009) included parents in assessing, treating, and evaluating behavior change. They provided in-home training and support to adjust antecedent conditions within the home environment to decrease problem behaviors in the home (Arco & Bishop, 2009). In a second study, the authors identified function of behavior using interviews and observational data across three routine family activities. They then developed a function-based intervention for each of the activities. With continued support for the parents in the implementation of the intervention, challenging behaviors were decreased and engagement in family activities increased. Additionally, negative parent-child interactions decreased and positive parent-child interactions increased (Buschbacher, Fox, & Clark, 2004). Summary Function-based interventions have been successful in the school environment as well as across multiple environments in the school setting. Additionally, function-based interventions have proven to be effective in the home. Consider the effect of such interventions when implemented across both environments for a child displaying problem behavior. Grant personnel will provide individualized support for participants, parents, and teachers across both the home and school environments. This method will deliver an umbrella of support for the participants and bring teachers and parents together to increase pro-social behaviors and, in turn, academic success. Not only will the participant display greater on-task behaviors in the school setting during academic activities, but also in the home during structured homework time. This increased access to academic content will not only increase individual academic skills presented during lessons, but also overall academic achievement. RESEARCH PLAN Quality Indicators for Single Subject Research and the Design of this Study Due to the individualized nature of function-based interventions, single subject research will be employed in this study. The Function-based Intervention Decision Model originally was designed for use with individual students displaying problem behaviors. A functional behavior assessment is conducted initially to determine the function of behavior for each individual student. The Decision Model is then used to individualize a behavioral intervention based on the presence or absence of replacement behaviors and classroom best practices. A randomized controlled sample is not feasible for this type of individualized intervention study. Because single subject research will be used in this study, the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards will be addressed (Kratochwill et al., 2010). A description of each quality indicator, as well as how this study addresses each area, is included in Table 1.
6 Table 1 Single Subject Quality Indicator Standards WWC Indicator The independent variable must be systematically manipulated, with the researcher determining when and how the independent variable conditions change. Each outcome variable must be measured systematically over time by more than one assessor, and the study needs to collect interassessor agreement in each phase and on at least twenty percent of the data points in each condition and the inter-assessor agreement must meet minimal thresholds. The study must include at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time or with three different phase repetitions. For a phase to qualify as an attempt to demonstrate an effect, the phase must have a minimum of three data points. How This Study Meets Standards Baseline data will be collected for each participant for a minimum of five data points. When baseline levels remain steady for five consecutive data points, intervention will be implemented. Data will be collected during each day the site schools are in session. A second observer will collect inter-assessor agreement data for a minimum of 30% of sessions. Each observer will be trained in data collection until agreement levels maintain at a minimum of 85%. A multiple baseline design across participants will be used for all participants at each site. Because five participants will be included at each site, five attempts to demonstrate an intervention at five different points in time will be used. Both baseline and intervention phase data will be collected for a minimum of five data points prior to changing phases for subsequent participants following a multiple baseline design.
Threats to internal validity will be addressed according to the variables described by Campbell and Stanley (1963). Students will be administered the Woodcock Johnson-III (WJIII) and Behavioral Assessment System for Children Second Edition Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS) pre- and post-intervention. Because different test protocols will be used pre- and post-intervention for the WJ-III, taking the first test will not have an effect on the scores of the second test. Further, instrumentation will not be a threat because the commercially produced instruments used will remain the same. Additionally, interobserver agreement data will be collected to ensure that changes in observers will not lead to changes in the obtained measurements. All data collectors will be individually trained in collecting student observation data until agreement reaches a minimum of 85%. Maturation will not be a threat to internal validity due to the nature of each participants behavior disorder diagnosis. To receive this diagnosis, problem behaviors must have persisted over a long period of time and classroom interventions had to be tested. Therefore, participants would have shown previously that maturation had not occurred prior to the study and most likely would not occur during the study. All classroom practices not changed as a result of the function-based intervention will be held constant throughout the study to control for confounding variables. These practices include, but are not limited to, class-wide behavior interventions, curriculum, level of praise, and classroom organization. Finally, participants in the control groups will receive interventions in the school
7 environment. Because teachers will be receiving assistance with control participants problem behaviors, they are less likely to withdraw from the study. Methods Sample and Setting This study will be conducted within both the home and school environments of participants diagnosed with a behavior disorder. Four urban school districts in Tucson, Arizona and surrounding areas will participate in this study with different research teams assigned to each district. These districts include Tucson Unified School District, Amphitheater School District, Vail School District, and Marana School district. The inclusion of four districts is necessary to obtain a large enough sample for the study despite the low incidence of behavior disorders. Within each school district, researchers will collect observational data in the academic classroom setting in which the behavior is most severe. Within the home environment, researchers will collect observation data at the home during after school and weekend hours. Demographics for each school district are included in Table 2. Table 2 School District Demographics School District Amphitheater Marana Tucson Unified Vail 15,923 12,839 57,391 9,594 74.51% 18.28% 1.91% 1.11% 2.34% 0.11% 0.11% 13.4% 11 14% 8% 76.93% 17.37% 1.61% 0.95% 1.39% 0.07% 0.06% 6.5% 11 14% 2% 57.88% 31.99% 3.82% 1.98% 2.34% 0.13% 0.15% 15.50% 68 13% 12% 76.17% 16.52% 3.10% 0.80% 1.34% 0.12% 0.18% 4.97% 7 11% 2%
Total Students Ethnicity White Hispanic Black American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Other Percent Below Poverty Number of Elementary Schools Percent Special Education Percent English Language Learners
Prior to beginning this study, comparison samples from each site will be selected. Five participants for the comparison group will be selected from each school site for a minimum of 20 cases across four sites. Comparison group participants will have been educationally diagnosed with a behavior disorder and have similar problem behaviors to intervention participants. A minimum of five treatment condition participants will be selected from each school site for a minimum total of 20 cases across four sites. By employing successful interventions in the home and school environments with teacher and parent support, participants will be more likely to join and remain in the study. Each intervention will include participant reinforcers identified using reinforcement assessments and be tailored to each individual function of behavior. This
8 increases the likelihood that interventions employed will be successful and attrition rates due to voluntary withdrawal from the study will be low. Measures Woodcock Johnson III (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). The WJ-III was selected for use to evaluate academic performance in reading, writing, and mathematics prior to and following intervention for participants in both the comparison and intervention groups. The WJ-III contains the greatest breadth of cognitive abilities of any standardized test and allows professionals to draw conclusions about relative strengths and weaknesses among differing academic abilities. This assessment will yield T scores, z scores, and grade level equivalence scores to enable researchers to assess academic growth resulting from behavioral interventions applied in this study. This assessment is a highly valid and reliable assessment for use with participants between the ages 24 months and adulthood. Normative data for the test were collected from more than 8,800 randomly selected subjects from diverse communities in the United States (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Split-half reliabilities of 0.88 to 0.96 were reported and construct validity correlation coefficients ranged from 0.80 to 0.96 (Grenwelge, 2009). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007). The BASC-2 BESS was selected for use in this to evaluate behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses prior to and following intervention for participants in both the comparison and intervention groups. The BASC-2 BESS is a comprehensive screening tool consists of brief forms that can be completed by teachers, parents, and participants to provide a comprehensive picture of each participants behavioral strengths and weaknesses. This assessment will yield T scores and percentiles. The BASC-2 BESS has moderate to good reliability and validity and high internal consistency and test-retest reliability for use with participants in preschool through 12th grade. The authors report split-half reliabilities of 0.90-0.97, test-retest reliabilities of 0.800.91, and inter-rater reliabilities of 0.82-0.83 for the parent form and 0.71-0.80 on the teacher form. The authors also report evidence of discriminative validity, predictive validity, and exemplary convergent validity (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007). Dowdy et al. (2011) conducted a factoral structure of the BASC-2 BESS with three samples ranging from 273 participants to 1,466 participants. The authors found sufficient factor determinates for validity of 0.887-0.925. Internal consistency fell within the adequate range with alphas of 0.71-0.84 (Dowdy et al., 2011). Intervention Rating Profile 15 (Witt & Martens, 1983). This measure will be used to assess whether the intervention in place was warranted, acceptable, appropriate, and effective. The questionnaire includes 15 items rated on a Likert scale. Questions are asked to address treatment acceptability, fairness, appropriateness for classroom use, compatibility with classroom practice, likelihood of effectiveness, and likelihood of negative side effects. Freer and Watson (1999) reported an internal consistency coefficient of 0.96. Observational Data. Research teams will collect observational data in both the home and school environments using 15-second partial-interval recording methods for 20-minute sessions to document the presence or absence of problem behaviors during a baseline, intervention, and follow-up phase. At the end of each interval, a plus will be scored if the problem behavior occurred at any time during the interval. A minus will be scored if the problem behavior was absent during that interval. Fidelity of Implementation. Fidelity of implementation data will be collected using 30second whole-interval recording during each observational data recording session. At the end of
9 each interval, a plus will be scored if all intervention elements are implemented in the classroom or home at that time. A minus will be scored if intervention elements are absent during the interval. Inter-assessor Agreement. Inter-assessor agreement will be calculated for 33% of all observational sessions with 85% agreement required. Researchers will be trained in data collection until they are able to collect data with 85% accuracy. Procedures This study will have six phases. In Phase 1, participants will be identified. In Phase 2, functional-behavior assessment procedures will be completed. In Phase 3, pre-test assessments will be administered. In Phase 4, the Function Based Intervention Decision Model will be used to develop individualized functional interventions for each participant. In Phase 5, the intervention will be implemented. Finally, in Phase 6, post-test assessments will be administered. Phase 1: Participant selection. The primary researcher will conduct a meeting with site special education personnel and administrators to describe the study and discuss possible participants. Each person will be given a checklist of participant requirements and asked to identify students with a diagnosed behavior disorder. They will then be asked to give each student a pseudonym, complete the checklist, and enter scores from the previous years district grade level assessments. Participants must be in grades second through sixth, have a diagnosis of a behavior disorder, display problem behaviors in the classroom, and have scored at least one grade level below placement on district assessments. Students who do not meet these criteria will not be included in the study. This is necessary because the researchers are studying the effect of this intervention on elementary students with behavior disorders who display problem behaviors in the classroom and whose academic achievement is lower than their same-age peers. Phase 2: Functional behavior assessment. Individual behavioral functions will be identified through descriptive functional behavior assessments that include teacher and student interviews as well as direct observation data. Teacher interviews will be conducted using the Preliminary Functional Assessment Survey (Dunlap et al., 1993), a 22-item survey developed to identify information about the antecedents that occasion and the consequences that maintain challenging student behavior. Specific items provide information about the antecedent conditions under which the behavior is and is not likely to occur, the frequency with which the behavior occurs, the possible influence of skill deficits or medical conditions, and the consequences that may affect the continued occurrences of the behavior. The Student Assisted Functional Assessment Interview (Kern, Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1994) will be used to interview the participants in the study. This interview includes three sections. First, the student is asked open-ended questions about the conditions under which he or she engages in the problem behavior, what he or she likes about each of the content area courses, and what could be done to improve his or her behavior. Second, the student rates each content area course or school activity using a 5-point scale. Finally, the participant will use a 3-point scale to respond to questions that focus on variables such as task difficulty and the availability of reinforcers. Direct observation data will be collected using Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) data collection methods. Specific antecedent and consequent stimuli that precede and follow the occurrences of the identified target behaviors will be recorded and numbered according to day and occurrence. For example, the third behavior observed on the first day of
10 observation would be coded as 1.3. Data from the interviews and direct observations will then be sorted and analyzed using the Function Matrix (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). The Function Matrix is a six-celled visual tool used to organize information into two columns identifying positive or negative reinforcement and three rows identifying specific types of consequences (i.e., attention, tasks/tangibles, and sensory). The Function Matrix is displayed in Table 3. Table 3 Function Matrix Positive Reinforcement Attention Tasks/tangibles Sensory Data obtained from the FBA is entered into each corresponding cell. If behavior 1.3 successfully gains attention from the teacher, 1.3 would be entered into the Positive Reinforcement/Attention cell. If a teacher states, Timmy doesnt like to sit near his peers, this quote would be entered into the Negative Reinforcement/Attention cell. Once all FBA data are entered into corresponding cells, the researcher can determine the function of behavior based on which cell contains the most data. All assessment tools to be used in conducting functional behavior assessments can be found in Appendix A. Phase 3: Pre-test assessments. The principal investigator will measure academic and behavior levels of all participants using the WJ-III and BASC-2 BESS. Phase 4: Development of the function-based intervention. The Function-based Intervention Decision Model (Umbreit et al., 2007) will be used to determine the intervention most appropriate for each participant. Phase 5: Intervention implementation. A multiple baseline design across participants will be used to collect intervention data. A minimum of five data points will be collected for baseline per participant. During this condition, typical classroom and home activities will be in place. Once a steady baseline trend is established, intervention will begin for each participant following a multiple baseline. Data will be collected three days per week for a minimum of eight weeks. Phase 6: Post-test assessments. The principal investigator will measure academic and behavior levels of all participants using the WJ-III and BASC-2 BESS. Social validity data will be collected from parents and teachers using the Intervention Rating Profile 15. Moderators Potential variables that may moderate the effects of the proposed intervention include socioeconomic status and parent involvement. Socioeconomic status may affect a participants access to ways to meet his or her basic needs. If basic needs are not met, a function-based intervention may not be successful for the participant. For example, if a participant is not getting enough sleep because many people are living in the home and he or she does not have access to a bed, the FBA may not identify this need. The intervention would not be designed to include additional sleep in the school environment so would not be meeting all of the participants needs. Parent involvement may affect a participants academic achievement as measured on the WJ-III. Negative Reinforcement
11 Participants who have parents who help them to practice learned skills at home might score higher on the WJ-III than those who do not. Moderators will be assessed through student interviews during the FBA process and analyzed for contribution to intervention components. Data Analysis Woodcock Johnson-III and Behavioral and Emotional Screening System 2 For each subgroup, the minimum, maximum, mean, median, mode, and standard deviation of scores will be calculated for each pre- and post-assessment for each participant. Standard scores on each of the measures will then be converted to z-scores. After data conversion, researchers will compare the results to identify similarities and differences among the scores across subgroups. This method will allow researchers to identify changes in academic and behavioral performance. Hierarchical Linear Modeling Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) will be used to compare the treatment group (home + school intervention) to the comparison group (school intervention). This approach can be used to aggregate multiple single-subject studies together to increase sample size (Gage, Lewis, & Stichter, 2012). Data in HLM are organized into two or more levels (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The lowest level model (Level 1) measures the within-subject effect of treatment change from baseline to treatment phases. Therefore, in a multiple baseline design, a Level 1 model would compare behavior change from baseline phases to treatment phases. It reduces all of the data collected from a subject during baseline and treatment phases into two scores: the mean of the baseline phase and the difference between the baseline mean and the treatment mean. Effect Size Because the calculation of power does not apply to single-subject research, effect size will be calculated using the Improvement Rate Difference (IRD). This method assesses the difference in successful performance between baseline and intervention phase. This effect size used for single subject research is calculated from visual analysis of nonoverlapping data. IRD is a useful supplement to visual analysis when analyzing single-subject research data. When combined with visual analysis, effect size calculations provide objectivity, precision, certainty, and general acceptability of single-subject data. To calculate IRD, the improvement rate of the baseline phase is subtracted from the improvement rate of the treatment phase. To calculate the improvement rate for each phase, the number of improved data points is divided by the total data points in the specified phase. An improved data point in baseline is one that ties or exceeds any data point in the treatment phase. An improved data point in the treatment phase is one that exceeds all data points in the baseline phase (Parker, Vannest, & Brown, 2009). Visual Analysis Visual analysis will be used to identify the functional relationship between the occurrence of problem behaviors and intervention elements integrated into the home and school environments. Procedures will meet WWC standards as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Technical Documentation Version 1.0 (Kratochwill et al., 2010). To determine evidence of a functional relationship between the independent and dependent variables, within and between phase data patterns will be examined across six
12 features: (a) level, (b) trend, (c) variability, (d) immediacy of effect, (e) overlap, and (f) consistency of data patterns across similar phases. PERSONNEL Key personnel for this study include the Principal Investigator (PI), the Co-principal Investigator (CPI), the Single Subject Data Consultant (SSDC), two Graduate Assistants (GA), eight Data Collectors (DC), teachers, and parents. An explanation of the roles and responsibilities of each individual is provided in Table 4. Professional information about each individual is presented below. Table 5 serves as a timeline to ensure the research begins and continues to progress in a timely manner. Table 4 Explanation of Roles and Responsibilities Roles (1) Principal Investigator (PI) Responsibilities The PI will be the leader of the research project and work with the project director to ensure the study is conducted as proposed. This includes oversight of grant management, recruitment, advisement, and program revision. He will assist in summarizing data gathered throughout the project. [.25 FTE] The CPI will administer pre- and post-tests, assist in designing function-based interventions, provide teacher and parent education in individualized intervention implementation, organize and plot data, coordinate collection of observational data, coordinate fidelity checks, and act as a liaison between the University of Arizona and schoolbased research sites. [1.0 FTE] The SSDC will assist the research team in assessing the outcome data for statistical significance. [0.05 FTE] The GA will act as Behavior Support Specialist for the purpose of this research project. He/she will conduct functional behavior assessments and design function-based interventions. He/she will also be responsible for conducting fidelity checks across all research environments on a daily basis. If needed, the GA will retrain individual intervention elements when levels of fidelity of implementation drop below 85%. [1.0 FTE] The DC will conduct observations and collect partial-interval data in the home and school
(1) Co-principal Investigator (CPI)
(1) Single Subject Data Consultant (SSDC) (2) Graduate Assistants (GA)
(8) Data Collector (DC)
13 environments. [0.5 FTE] Teachers will implement function-based interventions in the classroom environment. Parents will implement function-based interventions in the home environment.
(20 - 40) Teachers (20) Parents
John Umbreit (PI), Professor of Special Education at the University of Arizona, specializes in behavior disorders, behavioral analysis, functional behavior assessment, and function-based interventions in the natural environment. In courses taught at the university level, he has focused on behavior assessment and intervention, advanced positive behavior support, and single subject research design. Additionally, he co-directs the Behavior Support Specialist education program at the University of Arizona. This online program provides education in behavior assessment and intervention to behavior specialists working in schools. He has published numerous studies of positive behavior support, functional interventions, and behavior disorders in the top peer reviewed journals for special education including Exceptional Children, Journal of Positive Interventions, Behavior Disorders, and Education and Treatment of Children. He has also co-authored seven books and 12 chapters. Dr. Umbreit has been the PI for 16 research and personnel preparation grants totaling nearly $6.5 million. Dr. Umbreit will devote 25% of his annual percent effort to this project during a 12-month period. Candace Gann (CPI), a doctoral student in special education at the University of Arizona, specializes in behavior disorders, functional behavior assessment, and comprehensive function-based interventions across natural settings. She has taught the first course in the Behavior Support Specialist education program at the University of Arizona. Mrs. Ganns previous employment as a district behavioral consultant provided experience with conducting functional behavior assessments, implementing function-based interventions, data collection, and educational research. In this position, she was responsible for training teachers and paraeducators to implement behavioral interventions, meeting with families to describe behavioral interventions, and supervising teachers implementation of interventions. She currently has a manuscript submitted for review in Remedial and Special Education. In this study, she assessed the effects of a single, comprehensive function-based intervention implemented across four different classroom settings for a middle school student and obtained positive effects. She will devote 100% of her annual percent effort to this project during a 12-month period. Kimberly Vannest (SSDC), an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University, specializes in the education and treatment of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders, policy and implementation problems related to teacher delivery of interventions, and single subject design and analysis. In courses taught at the university level, she has focused on applied behavior analysis and working with families of students with disabilities. She has published numerous papers on topics such as progress monitoring, single subject data analysis, problem behaviors, and academic interventions in the top peer reviewed journals for special education and educational psychology including Journal of Educational Review, Remedial and Special Education, Journal of Behavior Disorders, Preventing School Failure, and School Psychology Review. Furthermore, she has co-authored six books and 12 chapters. Dr. Vannest has received 12 grants totaling nearly $4.2 million. She will devote 5% of her annual percent effort to this project during a 12-month period. Graduate Assistants (GA) have completed the three-course, online program co-directed by Dr. John Umbreit designed to teach educators to conduct functional behavior assessments and
14 implement behavior interventions. These courses are masters-level courses so all GA participating in this study will have completed or are working toward completing a masters degree. Graduate assistants will devote 100% of their annual percent effort to this project during a 9-month period. Data Collectors (DC) have completed a minimum of six hours of research-related coursework at a masters degree level. All DC participating in this study will have completed or are working toward completing a masters degree. Data collectors will devote 50% of their annual percent effort to this project during a 9-month period. Table 5 Tasks, Timelines, and Responsibilities Task Deliver site recruitment materials Deliver participant recruitment materials Obtain parent consent and participant assent Administer pre-tests Organize data Conduct functional behavior assessments Develop function-based interventions Train teachers and parents in intervention implementation Data collection baseline, intervention, fidelity, interassessor agreement Administer post-tests Administer social validity assessments Summarize Data Timeline Year 1 Week of August 19, 2013 Week of August 26, 2013 Week of September 2, 2013 September 9, 2013 September 20, 2013 September 9, 2013 May 9, 2014 September 23, 2013 October 11, 2013 Week of October 14, 2013 Week of October 21, 2013 October 28, 2013 February 28, 2014 March 3, 2014 March 14, 2014 Week of March 3, 2014 March 10, 2014 May 16, 2014 Person(s) Responsible Principal Investigator, Project Director Principal Investigator, Project Director Project Director Project Director Principal Investigator, Project Director, Single Subject Data Consultant Graduate Assistants Project Director, Graduate Assistants Project Director, Parents, Teachers Graduate Assistants, Data Collectors Project Director Project Director Principal Investigator, Project Director, Single Subject Data Consultant Principal Investigator, Project Director Principal Investigator, Project Director
Year 2 Deliver site recruitment Week of August 18, 2014 materials Deliver participant recruitment Week of August 25, 2014 materials
15 Obtain parent consent and participant assent Administer pre-tests Organize data Conduct functional behavior assessments Develop function-based interventions Train teachers and parents in intervention implementation Data collection baseline, intervention, fidelity, interassessor agreement Administer post-tests Administer social validity assessments Summarize Data Week of September 1, 2014 September 8, 2014 September 19, 2014 September 8, 2014 May 8, 2015 September 22, 2014 October 10, 2014 Week of October 13, 2014 Week of October 20, 2014 October 27, 2014 February 27, 2015 March 2, 2015 March 13, 2015 Week of March 2, 2015 March 9, 2015 May 15, 2015 Project Director Project Director Principal Investigator, Project Director, Single Subject Data Consultant Graduate Assistants Project Director, Graduate Assistants Project Director, Parents, Teachers Graduate Assistants, Data Collectors Project Director Project Director Principal Investigator, Project Director, Single Subject Data Consultant
RESOURCES All materials related to this study will be centrally located in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation in the College of Education at the University of Arizona. The University of Arizona is a Research I university ranked 16th among all public universities in external funding, generating over $600 million in research funding. The College of Education has 65 full-time faculty members and 30 clinical and adjunct faculty members with expertise in many areas including adolescent development, assessment, at-risk students, behavior disorders, behavioral medicine, bilingual education, bullying, disability education, elementary education, environmental education, gifted education, inclusive education, measurement, school psychology, special education, and statistical methods. The university will provide space for personnel to meet and a locked facility for ongoing data collection materials. All personnel will have access to computers and university software necessary to this study. The university library can be accessed in person or online to obtain a vast number of journal articles, books, and other materials. This study will be conducted in a large, urban school district. The participating school districts include 97 elementary schools. Study personnel will have access to participants diagnosed with a behavior disorder enrolled in the district. Administrators at each school site will provide classroom space and resources necessary to implement individualized interventions. School sites will also provide substitute support to allow teachers to attend intervention training sessions without sacrificing their scheduled planning periods or lunches. Participants teachers will work with researchers to provide all supports and services necessary to the study. This may include IEP modifications to include additional social skills instruction or time in the mainstream
16 classroom. Letters of commitment from the university and local school district are located in Appendix C.
REFERENCES CITED Aitken, A., Harlan, A., Hankins, K., Michels, J., Moore, T. C., Oakes, W. P., & Lane, K. (2011). Increasing academic engagement during writing activities in an urban elementary classroom. Beyond Behavior, 20(3), 31-43. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net /publication/beyondbehavior Arco, L., & Bishop, J. (2009). Single participant studies in positive behaviour support for parents of individuals with brain injuries. Brain Impairment, 10(3). doi: 10.1375 /brim.10.3.307 Arndorfer, R. E., Miltenberger, R. G., Woster, S. H., Rortvedt, A. K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-based descriptive and experimental analysis of problem behaviors in children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14(1), 64-87. doi: 10.1177/027112149401 400108 Buschbacher, P., Fox, L., & Clarke, S. (2004). Recapturing desired family routines: A parentprofessional behavioral collaboration. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 25-39. doi: 01.2511/rpsd.29.1.25 Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Handbook of Research on Teaching. AERA. Cox, M., Griffin, M. M., Hall, R., Oakes, W. P., & Lane, K. (2011). Using a functional assessment-based intervention to increase academic engaged time in an inclusive middle school setting. Beyond Behavior, 20(3), 44-54. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net /publication/beyondbehavior Dowdy, E., Twyford, J. M., Chin, J. K., DiStefano, C. A., Kamphaus, R. W., & Mays, K. L. (2011). Factor structure of the BASC-2 behavioral and emotional screening system student form. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 379-387. doi:10.1037/a0021843 Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., White, R., & Falk, G. (1993). Preliminary functional assessment survey. Unpublished document, Division of Applied Research and Educational Services, University of South Florida, Tampa. Freer, P. J., & Watson, T. S. (1999). A comparison of parent and teacher acceptability ratings of behavioral and conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychology Review, 28, 672 683. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr Gage, N. A., Lewis, T. J., & Stichter, J. P. (2012). Functional behavioral assessment-based interventions for students with or at risk for emotional and/or behavioral disorders in school: A hierarchical linear modeling meta-analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2), 5577. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/publication/behavioraldisorders Gann, C. J., Ferro, J., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2012). Determining the effect of a comprehensive function-based intervention applied across multiple educational settings. Manuscript submitted for publication. Germer, K. A., Kaplan, L. M., Giroux, L. N., Markham, E. H., Ferris, G. J., Oakes, W. P., & Lane, K. (2011). A function-based intervention to increase a second-grade student's ontask behavior in a general education classroom. Beyond Behavior, 20(3), 19-30. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/publication/beyondbehavior Grenwelge, C. H. (2009). Review of 'Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement, form C/brief battery'. Journal Of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(4), 345-350. doi: 10.1177 /0734282908327944
Harding, J. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Lee, J. F., & Dolezal, D. (2009). Conducting functional communication training in home settings: A case study and recommendations for practitioners. Behavioral Analysis in Practice, 2(1), 21-33. Retrieved from http://www.abainternational.org/BAinPractice.asp Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224-236. doi: 10.1177/1098300705 0070040401 Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). Behavior Assessment System for Children Second Edition (BASC2): Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS). Bloomington, MN: Pearson. Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. (1994). Student-assisted functional assessment interview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 19, 29-39. doi: 10.1177/0737247794019 00203 Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M. & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf. Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Little, M. A., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. (2006). Illustrations of function-based interventions implemented by general education teachers: Building capacity at the school site. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 549-571. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net Moes, D. R. & Frea, W. D (2002). Contextualized behavioral support in early intervention for children with autism and their families. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(6), 519-533. doi: 10.1023/A:1021298729297 Nahgahgwon, K. N., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C., & Turton, A. M. (2010). Function-based planning for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(4), 537-559. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Brown, L. (2009). The improvement rate difference for singlecase research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135-150. Retrieved from http://journals.cec .sped.org/ec Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Applications in meta-analysis and other cases where level-1 variances are known. In Hierarchical linear models (pp. 205-227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Turton, A. M., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C. J., & Bartley, J. (2007). Function-based intervention for an adolescent with emotional and behavioral disorders in Bermuda: Moving across culture. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 23-32. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net /publication/behavioraldisorders Turton, A. M., Umbreit, J., & Mathur, S. R. (2011). Systematic function-based intervention for EBD adolescents in an alternative setting: Broadening the context. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 117-128. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/publication/behavioraldisorders Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C. J., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Underwood, M. A., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J., (2009). Efficacy of a systematic process for designing function-based interventions for adults in a community setting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 25-38. Retrieved from http://daddcec.org /Publications.ETADDJournal.asp Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms. Psychology In The Schools, 20(4), 510-17. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807 Wood, B. K., Ferro, J. B., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2011). Addressing the challenging behavior of young children through systematic function-based intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 221-232. doi: 10.1177/0271121410378759 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). WoodcockJohnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
17 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION Years 1-2 08/01/2013-08/01/2015 Salaries Principal Investigator (.25 FTE) Dr. Umbreit will devote 25% effort during the academic year in both Year 1 and 2. He will work with the project director to ensure the study is conducted as proposed. This includes oversight of grant management, recruitment, advisement, and program revision. He will assist in summarizing data gathered throughout the project. Co-Principal Investigator (1.0 FTE) Candace Gann will devote 100% effort during the academic year in both Year 1 and 2; however, only half of her salary will be funded by this grant. She will administer pre- and post-tests, assist in designing function-based interventions, provide teacher and parent education in individualized intervention implementation, organize and plot data, coordinate collection of observational data, coordinate fidelity checks, and act as a liaison between the University of Arizona and schoolbased research sites. Graduate Assistants (1.0 FTE) Graduate assistants will devote 100% effort during the academic year in both Year 1 and 2. Graduate assistants will act as Behavior Support Specialists for the purpose of this research project. They will conduct functional behavior assessments and design function-based interventions. They will also be responsible for conducting fidelity checks across all research environments on a daily basis. If needed, graduate assistants will retrain individual intervention elements when levels of fidelity of implementation drop below 85%. Data Collectors (.50 FTE) Two data collectors will be assigned to each school-based research site for a total of eight data collectors employed in this study. Data collectors will devote 20 hours per week during the academic year in both Year 1 and 2. They will conduct observations and collect partial-interval data in the home and school environments. Consultants Single Subject Data Consultant (.05 FTE) Dr. Vannest will devote 5% effort during the academic year in both Year 1 and 2. She will assist the research team in assessing the outcome data for statistical significance and writing the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal at the conclusion of the study.
18 Supplies & Materials 16GB iPad with WiFi and Apple Care Plan In Year 1 of the grant, funds are requested for iPads to be used by data collectors and graduate assistants to collect and organize observational data using data collection applications as well as electronically transmit collected data to the Principal Investigator and Project Director immediately following the data collection session. The iPads will be used during both Year 1 and 2 of the study. MotivAider In Year 1 of the grant, funds are requested for MotivAiders to be used by data collectors and graduate assistants. This device silently vibrates at pre-programmed intervals to allow partialinterval data to be collected without distracting data collectors, teachers, parents, or participants. These devices also ensure that all data are collected at accurate interval lengths. Travel IES Principal Investigator Meeting As required by the grant application, travel funds are requested for the Co-Principal Investigator to travel to the Principal Investigator Meeting in Washington, DC during both Year 1 and 2 of the grant. The CPI will attend the meeting in the place of the Principal Investigator due to scheduling conflicts. Funds requested include both airfare and per diem to cover hotel and meals for the duration of the scheduled meeting. 12th International Conference on Positive Behavior Support In Year 2 of the grant, funds are requested for 2 project personnel to travel to the 12th International Conference on Positive Behavior Support. This annual conference is maintained by The Association for Positive Behavior Support (APBS). The mission of APBS is to improve the support of individuals to reduce behavioral challenges, increase independence, and ensure the development of constructive behaviors to meet life goals in the areas of social relationships, employment, academic achievement, functional life-skills, self-determination, health, and safety. Project personnel will present obtained data from this study to professionals in the field of special education. Educational professionals might then apply these findings in their behavior approaches at the university and district level. Other Gift Cards for Parents and Teachers In Year 1 and 2 of the grant, to reinforce parents and teachers for time spent over the course of the study, $25 gift cards to local stores and/or restaurants will be provided to each set of parents and teacher participating at the end of the study. Reinforcers for Students In Year 1 and 2 of the grant, funds are requested to purchase reinforcers for participants included in this study. All reinforcers will be individualized and specified in the individualized function-
19 based interventions. Reinforcers may include games to play with peers, sporting equipment, or sensory items such as bean bags or weighted blankets. Fingerprint Clearance Cards In Year 1 of the grant, funds are requested to obtain Identity Verified Print Fingerprint Clearance Cards for data collectors and graduate assistants. Fingerprint Clearance Cards are required for individuals working in public and charter schools and are used to obtain both a state and federal criminal records check.
College of Education Regents of the University of Arizona Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) Dr. John Umbreit Sponsor: Dept. No. Category: Factor: IES 84.324A Replication 1 Sponsor SALARIES/WAGES Faculty: John Umbreit (PI) Candace Gann (CPI) Salary $81,519 $50,000 Academic or Fiscal A A FTE 0.25 0.50 Amount $20,380 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Summer Appointments: FTE Months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 Staff: Salary Months FTE $0
1
Revision 10/20/12 Project Period: Project Year:
08/01/13 - 08/01/15 1 Fiscal Year: 2010-2011 University of Arizona Totals
FTE 0.50
Amount $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$20,380 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
UA Faculty Consultants:
Per Hour
Hours
Hours
Months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0
0 0 0 Other/Adjunct:
$0 $0 $0 Salary
Gann Budget Form.xls Year 1 2/26/13
Sponsor $0 $0 $0 $0 GAs: Assistant I FTE FTE FTE Assistant II FTE FTE FTE Associate I FTE FTE FTE Associate II FTE FTE FTE Summer GA Appointments: Assistant I Assistant II Associate I Associate II Student Workers: Data collector Data collector Temporary-hourly: @ @ @ Number $22,276 $23,226 $25,245 $27,237 Per Hour $20.00 $20.00 /hr /hr /hr Months $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE 2.00 2.00 Months 9.00 9.00 Hours $27,237 $0 $0 $0 $25,245 $0 $0 $0 Salary $22,276 100% Number 2 Semesters 2 $44,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
University of Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 Semesters $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Months $0 $0 $0 $0 Months $57,600 $57,600 Amount $0 $0 $0 $205,132 Amount $12,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Amount $7,100 $0 $0 $0
Totals $0 $0 $0 $0
$44,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,600 $57,600 $0 $0 $0 $230,132 $19,988 $0 $0 $0
$23,226
Hours
TOTAL SALARIES/WAGES: EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENSES: Faculty Summer Appointment Other/Adjuncts Staff
28.4% 28.4% 22.5% 44.9%

2
Base $45,380 $0 $0 $0
Base $25,000 $0 $0 $0
Sponsor GAs Student Workers Temporary-hourly TOTAL EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENSES: TOTAL SALARIES/WAGES and ERE: CONSULTANTS (external): Kimberly Vannest (SSDC) 42.6% 3.4% 10.2% $44,552 $115,200 $0 $18,979 $3,917 $0 $35,784 $240,916 $3,552 $3,552
University of Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,100 $32,100 $0
Totals $18,979 $3,917 $0 $42,884 $273,016 $3,552 $3,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,150 $6,600 $550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,588 $0 $600 $988 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBCONTRACTS:
$0
$0
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS: 16GB iPad with WiFi with Apple Care Plan x 10 MotivAider x 10
$7,150 $6,600 $550
$0
TRAVEL: IES Principal Investigator Meeting Airfare 4 days per diem @ $247
$1,588 $600 $988
$0
Sponsor OTHER: (including participant costs) Gift cards for parents and teachers Reinforcers for students Fingerprint Clearance Cards x 10 @ $69 $2,690 $1,500 $500 $690
University of Arizona $0
Totals $2,690 $1,500 $500 $690 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,996 $13,677 $0 $0 $274,318 $141,274 $141,274 $0 $0 $429,269
STUDENT SUPPORT:
$0
$0
EQUIPMENT (over $5000/piece):
$0
$0
TOTAL DIRECT COST: LESS GA ERE TUITION REMISSION: LESS STUDENT SUPPORT & EQUIPMENT: LESS SUBCONTRACTS: TOTAL DIRECT COST FOR IDC CALC: TOTAL INDIRECT COST: @ 51.5% Forgone Indirect Cost - IDC Less Allowable IDC @ 51.5% Subcontracts: @ 51.5% GRAND TOTAL:
30.7%
Base $44,552
Base $242,218 0.0% Base $0
$255,896 $13,677 $0 $0 $242,218 $124,742 $124,742
Base $0
Base $32,100
$32,100 $0 $0 $0 $32,100 $16,532 $16,532 $0
Base $0 $380,638 $0 $0 $48,632
College of Education Regents of the University of Arizona Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) Dr. John Umbreit Sponsor: Dept. No. Category: Factor: IES 84.324A Replication 1 Sponsor SALARIES/WAGES Faculty: John Umbreit (PI) Candace Gann (CPI) Salary $81,519 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Academic or Fiscal A A FTE 0.25 0.50 Amount $20,380 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 Staff: Salary $0
1
Revision 10/20/12 Project Period: Project Year:
08/01/13 - 08/01/15 2 Fiscal Year: 2011-2012 University of Arizona Totals
FTE 0.50
Amount $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$20,380 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Year 2 2/26/13
UA Faculty Consultants:
Summer Appointments:
Per Hour $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE
Hours
Hours
Months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0
$0 $0 Other/Adjunct: Salary
Months
FTE
Sponsor $0 $0 $0 $0 GAs: Assistant I FTE FTE FTE Assistant II FTE FTE FTE Associate I FTE FTE FTE Associate II FTE FTE FTE Summer GA Appointments: Assistant I Assistant II Associate I Associate II Students: Data collector Data collector Temporary-hourly: @ @ @ Number $22,276 $23,226 $25,245 $27,237 Per Hour $20.00 $20.00 /hr /hr /hr Months $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE 1.50 1.50 Months 9.00 9.00 Hours $27,237 $0 $0 $0 $25,245 $0 $0 $0 Salary $22,276 100% Number 2 Semesters 2 $44,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
University of Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 Semesters $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Months $0 $0 $0 $0 Months $43,200 $43,200 Amount $0 $0 $0 $176,332 Amount $12,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount $0 $0 $0 $25,000 Amount $7,100 $0 $0
Totals $0 $0 $0 $0
$44,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,200 $43,200 $0 $0 $0 $201,332 $19,988 $0 $0
$23,226
Hours
TOTAL SALARIES/WAGES: EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENSES: Faculty Summer Appointment Other/Adjuncts
28.4% 28.4% 22.5%
Base $45,380 $0 $0
Base $25,000 $0 $0
Year 2 2/26/13
Sponsor Staff GAs Student Workers Temporary-hourly TOTAL EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENSES: TOTAL SALARIES/WAGES and ERE: CONSULTANTS (external): Kimberly Vannest (SSDC) 44.9% 42.6% 3.4% 10.2% $0 $44,552 $86,400 $0 $0 $18,979 $2,938 $0 $34,805 $211,136 $3,552 $3,552
University of Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,100 $32,100 $0
Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,905 $243,236 $3,552 $3,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,904 $0 $1,200 $1,816 $300 $0 $600 $988 $0 $0
Year 2 2/26/13
SUBCONTRACTS:
$0
$0
SUPPLIES & MATERIALS:
$0
$0
TRAVEL: 12th International Conference on Positive Behavior Support Airfare x 2 people 4 days per diem @ $227 x 2 people Conference registration x 2 people IES Principal Investigator Meeting Airfare 4 days per diem @ $247
$4,904 $1,200 $1,816 $300 $600 $988
$0
Sponsor
University of Arizona
Totals $0
OTHER: (including participant costs) Gift cards for parents and teachers Reinforcers for students
$2,000 $1,500 $500
$0
$2,000 $1,500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $253,692 $13,677 $0 $0 $240,015 $123,608 $123,608 $0 $0 $377,300
STUDENT SUPPORT:
$0
$0
EQUIPMENT (over $5000/piece):
$0
$0
TOTAL DIRECT COST: LESS GA ERE TUITION REMISSION: LESS STUDENT SUPPORT & EQUIPMENT: LESS SUBCONTRACTS: TOTAL DIRECT COST FOR IDC CALC: TOTAL INDIRECT COST: @ 51.5% Forgone Indirect Cost - IDC Less Allowable IDC @ 51.5% Subcontracts: @ 51.5% GRAND TOTAL:
30.7%
Base
$44,552
Base 0.0% Base
$207,915
$221,592 $13,677 $0 $0 $207,915 $107,076 $107,076
Base
$0
Base
$32,100
$32,100 $0 $0 $0 $32,100 $16,532 $16,532 $0
$0
$0 $328,668
Base
$0
$0 $48,632
Year 2 2/26/13
College of Education Regents of the University of Arizona
Budget Summary
08/01/13 - 08/01/15
Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) Dr. John Umbreit

Sponsor: Dept. No. Category: IES 84.324A Replication
A. Budget Items Requested from Sponsor Direct Costs:

1. Salaries & Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Travel (employees only) 4. Equipment 5. Materials & Supplies 6. Consultants and Contracts (including any travel) 7. Other (equipment rental, printing, etc.) 8. Student Support 9. Indirect Costs
Year 1
205,132 35,784 1,588 0 7,150 3,552 2,690 0 124,742 380,638
Year 2
176,332 34,805 4,904 0 0 3,552 2,000 0 107,076 328,668
Year 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
381,464 70,588 6,492 0 7,150 7,104 4,690 0 231,818 709,306
Total Requested from Sponsor
B. Project Costs Not Requested from Sponsor

(institutional and other support)
Direct Costs:
1. Salaries & Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Travel (employees only)
Year 1
25,000 7,100 0
Year 2
25,000 7,100 0
Year 3
0 0 0
Year 4
0 0 0
Year 5
0 0 0
Year 6
0 0 0
Total
50,000 14,200 0
Gann Budget Form.xls Summary 2/26/13
4. Equipment 5. Materials & Supplies 6. Consultants and Contracts (including any travel) 7. Other (equipment rental, printing, etc.) 8. Student Support 9. Indirect Costs
0 0 0 0 0 16,532 48,632
0 0 0 0 0 16,532 48,632
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 33,063 97,263
Total Institutional and Other Support
Gann Budget Form.xls Summary 2/26/13
Appendix A o Preliminary Functional Assessment Survey o Student-Assisted Functional Assessment Interview o Intervention Rating Profile - 15
PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY1

Student: ________________________ Interviewer: _______________________ Age: _____ Sex: M F Date: ___________
Respondent(s) ____________________________
1. List and describe the behavior(s) of concern. A. B. C. 2. Prioritize the behavior(s) of concern. A. B. C. 3. What procedures have you followed when the behavior has occurred? A. B. C. 4. What do you think causes (or motivates) the behavior? A. B. C.
Developed by Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F (1991).
5. When do these behaviors occur? A. B. C. 6. How often so these behaviors occur? A. B. C. 7. How long has this/these behavior(s) been occurring? A. B. C. 8. Is there any circumstance under which the behavior does not occur? A. B. C. 9. Is there any circumstances under which the behavior always occurs? A. B. C.
10. Dos the behavior occur more often during certain times of the day? A. B. C. 11. Does the behavior occur in response to the number of people in the immediate environment? A. B. C. 12. Does the behavior occur only with certain people? A. B. C. 13. Does the behavior occur only during certain subjects? A. B. C. 14. Could the behavior be related to any skill deficits? A. B. C.
15. What are identified reinforcers for this student? A. B. C. 16. Is the student taking any medications that might affect his/her behavior? A. B. C. 17. Could the student=s behavior be signaling some deprivation conditions (e.g., thirst, hunger, lack of rest? A. B. C. 18. Could the behavior be the result of any form of discomfort (e.g., headaches, stomachaches, blurred vision, ear infection.)? A. B. C. 19. Could the behavior be caused by allergies (e.g., food, materials in certain environments)? A. B. C.
20. Do any other behaviors occur along with this behavior? A. B. C. 21. Are there any observable events that signal the behavior of concern is about to occur? A. B. C. 22. What are the consequences when the behavior(s) occur? A. B. C.
Student-Assisted Functional Assessment Interview1

Student: ________________________ Interviewer: _______________________ Section 1 1. In general, is your work too hard for you? 2. In general, is your work too easy for you? 3. When you ask for help appropriately, do you get it? 4. Do you think work periods for each subject are too long? 5. Do you think work periods for each subject are too short? 6. When you do seatwork, do you do better when someone works with you? 7. Do you think people notice when you do a good job? 8. Do you think you get the points or rewards you deserve when you do good work? 9. Do you think you would do better in school if you received more rewards? Always Sometimes Always Sometimes Always Always Always Always Always Always Always Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Never Date: ___________
10. In general, do you find your work interesting? Always 11. Are there things in the classroom that distract you? 12. Is your work challenging enough for you? Always Always
Developed by Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. (1994)
Section 2
1. When do you think you have the fewest problems with ______________ (target behavior) in school?
Why do you have problems during this/these times?
2. When do you think you have the most problems with ___________________ (target behavior) in school?
Why do you have problems during this/these times?
3. What changes could be made so you would have fewer problems with ________________ (target behavior)?
4. What kind of rewards would you like to earn for good behavior or good school work?
5. What are your favorite activities at school?
6. What are your hobbies or interests?
7. If you had the chance, what activities would you like to do that you dont have the opportunity to do now?
Section 3 Rate how much you like the following subjects: not at all fair Reading 1 2 3 Math 1 2 3 Spelling 1 2 3 Handwriting 1 2 3 Science 1 2 3 Social Studies 1 2 3 English 1 2 3 Music 1 2 3 P. E. 1 2 3 Computers 1 2 3 Art 1 2 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
very much 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Section 4 1. What do you like about Reading?
2. What dont you like about Reading?
3. What do you like about Math?
4. What dont you like about Math?
5. What do you like about Spelling?
6. What dont you like about Spelling?
7. What do you like about Handwriting?
8. What dont you like about Handwriting?
9. What do you like about Science??
10. What dont you like about Science?
11. What do you like about Social Studies?
12. What dont you like about Social Studies?
13. What do you like about English?
14. What dont you like about English?
15. What do you like about Music?
16. What dont you like about Music?
17. What do you like about P. E.?
18. What dont you like about P. E.?
19. What do you like about Computers?
20. What dont you like about Computers?
21. What do you like about Art?
22. What dont you like about Art?
Intervention Rating Profile-15 The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information that will aid in the selection of classroom interventions. These interventions will be used by teachers of children with behavior problems. Please circle the number which best describes your agreement or disagreement with each statement.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree
1. This would be an acceptable intervention for the childs problem behavior. 2. Most teachers would find this intervention appropriate for behavior problems in addition to the ones described. 3. This intervention should prove effective in changing the childs problem behavior. 4. I would suggest the use of this intervention to other teachers. 5. The childs behavior problem is severe enough to warrant use of this intervention. 6. Most teachers would find this intervention suitable for the behavior problem described. 7. I would be willing to use this intervention in the classroom setting. 8. This intervention would not result in negative side effects for the child. 9. This intervention would be appropriate with a variety of children. 10. This intervention is consistent with those I have used in classroom settings. 11. This intervention was a fair way to handle the childs problem behavior. 12. This intervention is reasonable for the behavior problem described. 13. I liked the procedures used in this intervention. 14. This intervention was a good way to handle this childs behavior problem. 15. Overall, this intervention would be beneficial for the child.
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Appendix C o Letters of Agreement o Tucson Unified School District o Marana Unified School District o Vail School District o Letters of Support o Dr. John Umbreit o Dr. Kimberly Vannest
Tucson Unified School District
1010 E. Tenth St. Tucson, Arizona 85719 Phone: (520) 225-6000 Fax: (520) 225-6001 E-Mail: Superintendent@tusd1.org Web: http://www.tusd1.org/index.htm
November 6, 2012
Dr. Amy Sussman Institute of Education Sciences 400 Maryland Ave, SW CP 510d Washington, DC 20202
Dear Dr. Sussman:
On behalf of Tucson Unified School District and our students, I strongly support the Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) planned for launch by the University of Arizona. As you already know, students with behavior disorders frequently have difficulty maintaining acceptable prosocial behaviors in the school environment. This adversely affects their learning, achievement, and future success. Parents of children with behavior disorders also express concerns about behaviors in the home environment. These parents struggle with assisting their children with homework and helping them to function in the community. Every graduate of Tucson Unified School District must meet our exit standards, which mandate that students are effective communicators (expressing and listening), personal managers, quality producers, global citizens, critical/creative thinkers, and self-directed learners. Our job is to provide the tools that help students meet these standards. FISH will assist us greatly in providing tools that will help our students with behavior disorders display appropriate behaviors in the school and home environment. This, in turn, will provide students with the opportunity to learn and meet their maximum potential in the home, school, and community. As part of this program, we will provide teachers with opportunities to attend training sessions with researchers, access to student records, classroom space for individual social skills or academic lessons, space for teacher and parent meetings, and ongoing administrative support. We look forward to working with you and participating in an ongoing evaluation of FISH.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Smith Superintendent of Schools
Marana Unified School District
11279 West Grier Road Marana, Arizona 85653 Phone: (520) 682-4774 Fax: (520) 682-2421 E-Mail: Superintendent@maranausd.org Web: http://www.maranausd.org
November 6, 2012
Dear Dr. Sussman:
On behalf of Marana Unified School District and our students, I strongly support the Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) planned for launch by the University of Arizona. As you already know, students with behavior disorders frequently have difficulty maintaining acceptable prosocial behaviors in the school environment. This adversely affects their learning, achievement, and future success. Parents of children with behavior disorders also express concerns about behaviors in the home environment. These parents struggle with assisting their children with homework and helping them to function in the community. Every graduate of Marana Unified School District must meet our exit standards, which mandate that students are effective communicators (expressing and listening), personal managers, quality producers, global citizens, critical/creative thinkers, and self-directed learners. Our job is to provide the tools that help students meet these standards. FISH will assist us greatly in providing tools that will help our students with behavior disorders display appropriate behaviors in the school and home environment. This, in turn, will provide students with the opportunity to learn and meet their maximum potential in the home, school, and community. As part of this program, we will provide teachers with opportunities to attend training sessions with researchers, access to student records, classroom space for individual social skills or academic lessons, space for teacher and parent meetings, and ongoing administrative support. We look forward to working with you and participating in an ongoing evaluation of FISH.
Sincerely,
Dr. Steve Jones Superintendent of Schools
Vail School District
13801 E. Benson Hwy. Vail, Arizona 85641 Phone: (520) 879-2000 Fax: (520) 879-2001 E-Mail: Superintendent@vail.k12.az.us Web: http://www.vail.k12.az.us
November 6, 2012
Dear Dr. Sussman:
On behalf of the Vail School District and our students, I strongly support the Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) planned for launch by the University of Arizona. As you already know, students with behavior disorders frequently have difficulty maintaining acceptable pro-social behaviors in the school environment. This adversely affects their learning, achievement, and future success. Parents of children with behavior disorders also express concerns about behaviors in the home environment. These parents struggle with assisting their children with homework and helping them to function in the community. Every graduate of the Vail School District must meet our exit standards, which mandate that students are effective communicators (expressing and listening), personal managers, quality producers, global citizens, critical/creative thinkers, and self-directed learners. Our job is to provide the tools that help students meet these standards. FISH will assist us greatly in providing tools that will help our students with behavior disorders display appropriate behaviors in the school and home environment. This, in turn, will provide students with the opportunity to learn and meet their maximum potential in the home, school, and community. As part of this program, we will provide teachers with opportunities to attend training sessions with researchers, access to student records, classroom space for individual social skills or academic lessons, space for teacher and parent meetings, and ongoing administrative support. We look forward to working with you and participating in an ongoing evaluation of FISH.
Sincerely,
Dr. Carl Doe Superintendent of Schools
University of Arizona
PO Box 210069 Tucson, Arizona 85721 Phone: (520) 621-0946 Fax: (520) 621-3821 E-Mail: jumbreit@email.arizona.edu Web: http://www.coe.arizona.edu/faculty_profile/165
November 6, 2012
Dear Dr. Sussman: I am writing you in the role of Principal Investigator to strongly support the proposed research grant titled Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH). As Principal Investigator, I will commit my time and expertise to this project for the entirety of this project. I will work with the Project Director to ensure the study is conducted as proposed. This includes oversight of grant management, recruitment, advisement, and program revision. At the completion of the proposed study, I will assist in summarizing data gathered throughout the two-year period and submitting the results for presentation and publication. I have worked in the area of special education at the university level for over 25 years and bring to this project a wealth of experience and knowledge. I have designed and taught courses to prepare pre-service in behavior disorders, positive behavior support, metal retardation, severe disabilities, and single-subject research design. In the area of research, I have over 50 publications in peer-reviewed journals, six books and monographs, and 12 chapters. Ive been the Principal Investigator for 17 grants with awards totaling nearly $6.5 million. The proposed project aligns with my research agenda to further the exemplary work I have already completed in the field. The knowledge gained from this project will further our ability to assist students with behavior disorders not only in the school environment, but also in the home. This will, in turn, increase their opportunities to learn in the home and school environment, leading to further academic achievement. Sincerely,
John Umbreit Principal Investigator
Texas A&M University
TAMU Mail Stop 4225, Office 644 Harrington Tower College Station, Texas 77843 Phone: (979) 862-3881 Fax: (979) 862-3880 E-Mail: kvannest@tamu.edu Web: http://directory.cehd.tamu.edu/view.epl?nid=spedprof
November 6, 2012
Dear Dr. Sussman: I am writing you in the role of Principal Investigator to strongly support the proposed research grant titled Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH). As Single Subject Data Consultant, I will commit my time and expertise to this project for the purposes of determining the effectiveness of the proposed intervention. I will work with the Principal Investigator and Project Director to assess the outcome data for statistical significance. At the completion of the proposed study, I will assist in summarizing data gathered throughout the two-year period and submitting the results for presentation and publication. I have worked in the area of special education at the university level for over 20 years and bring to this project a wealth of experience and knowledge. I have designed and taught courses in behavior analysis, special education assessment, working with families of students with exceptionalities, transition from school to work, and classroom management. In the area of research, I have over 40 publications in peer-reviewed journals, six books and monographs, 12 chapters, and four software and technology applications. Ive been the Principal Investigator for 14 grants with awards totaling nearly $4.2 million. The proposed project aligns with my research agenda to further the exemplary work I have already completed in the field. The knowledge gained from this project will further our ability to assist students with behavior disorders not only in the school environment, but also in the home. This will, in turn, increase their opportunities to learn in the home and school environment, leading to further academic achievement. Sincerely,
Kimberly Vannest Single Subject Data Consultant

Grant

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Grant

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Implementation of FISH

Function-based Intervention from School to Home

Figure 1. Function Based Intervention Decision Model

(1) Co-principal Investigator (CPI)

(8) Data Collector (DC)

(20 - 40) Teachers (20) Parents

Revision 10/20/12 Project Period: Project Year:

08/01/13 - 08/01/15 1 Fiscal Year: 2010-2011 University of Arizona Totals

Months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0

Gann Budget Form.xls Year 1 2/26/13

$44,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,600 $57,600 $0 $0 $0 $230,132 $19,988 $0 $0 $0

28.4% 28.4% 22.5% 44.9%

Gann Budget Form.xls Year 1 2/26/13

University of Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,100 $32,100 $0

$7,150 $6,600 $550

$1,588 $600 $988

Gann Budget Form.xls Year 1 2/26/13

EQUIPMENT (over $5000/piece):

Base $242,218 0.0% Base $0

$255,896 $13,677 $0 $0 $242,218 $124,742 $124,742

$32,100 $0 $0 $0 $32,100 $16,532 $16,532 $0

Base $0 $380,638 $0 $0 $48,632

Gann Budget Form.xls Year 1 2/26/13

Revision 10/20/12 Project Period: Project Year:

08/01/13 - 08/01/15 2 Fiscal Year: 2011-2012 University of Arizona Totals

Per Hour $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE

Months $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTE $0 $0

$44,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,200 $43,200 $0 $0 $0 $201,332 $19,988 $0 $0

TOTAL SALARIES/WAGES: EMPLOYEE RELATED EXPENSES: Faculty Summer Appointment Other/Adjuncts

28.4% 28.4% 22.5%

University of Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,100 $32,100 $0

SUPPLIES & MATERIALS:

$4,904 $1,200 $1,816 $300 $600 $988

$2,000 $1,500 $500

$2,000 $1,500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $253,692 $13,677 $0 $0 $240,015 $123,608 $123,608 $0 $0 $377,300

EQUIPMENT (over $5000/piece):

Base 0.0% Base

$221,592 $13,677 $0 $0 $207,915 $107,076 $107,076

$32,100 $0 $0 $0 $32,100 $16,532 $16,532 $0

College of Education Regents of the University of Arizona

Function-based Interventions from School to Home (FISH) Dr. John Umbreit

A. Budget Items Requested from Sponsor Direct Costs:

Total Requested from Sponsor

B. Project Costs Not Requested from Sponsor

Gann Budget Form.xls Summary 2/26/13

Total Institutional and Other Support

Gann Budget Form.xls Summary 2/26/13

PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY1

Student-Assisted Functional Assessment Interview1

Why do you have problems during this/these times?

Why do you have problems during this/these times?

5. What are your favorite activities at school?

6. What are your hobbies or interests?

Section 4 1. What do you like about Reading?

2. What dont you like about Reading?

3. What do you like about Math?

4. What dont you like about Math?

5. What do you like about Spelling?

6. What dont you like about Spelling?

7. What do you like about Handwriting?

8. What dont you like about Handwriting?

9. What do you like about Science??