collaborative problem solving fba

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Functional Behavioral Assessment

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is a pivotal practice in school psychology , designed to understand and address challenging behaviors among students. This comprehensive article explores the evolution and significance of Functional Behavioral Assessment , rooted in theoretical foundations such as behavioral theory and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). It delves into the methods and procedures involved in conducting FBA, including the role of direct observation and technology. Additionally, it discusses the practical applications of FBA, notably in developing Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Challenges, ethical considerations, and emerging trends in FBA are also addressed, highlighting its enduring importance in school psychology.

Introduction

Definition and significance of functional behavioral assessment (fba) in school psychology.

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is a vital component of school psychology, playing a pivotal role in understanding and addressing challenging behaviors exhibited by students in educational settings. FBA is a systematic and collaborative approach used to determine the underlying functions or purposes of a student’s problem behavior. These behaviors may range from disruptive actions in the classroom to social withdrawal, and FBA seeks to uncover the reasons behind them. Significantly, FBA is not merely about identifying the problem behavior but understanding why it occurs, which is a crucial step towards effective intervention.

The significance of FBA in school psychology lies in its ability to guide educators, school psychologists, and other professionals in developing targeted and evidence-based strategies to support students with challenging behaviors. By uncovering the root causes of these behaviors, FBA helps create more inclusive and supportive learning environments. It enables educators to move beyond punitive measures and instead implement interventions that address the underlying needs of students. This not only improves behavior but also enhances overall academic and social outcomes, fostering a positive educational experience for all students.

Historical Context: Evolution and Development of Functional Behavioral Assessment

The roots of FBA can be traced back to the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA) and behavior therapy, which emerged in the mid-20th century. Early pioneers such as B.F. Skinner and Ivar Lovaas laid the foundation for understanding behavior as a product of environmental factors and reinforcement principles. These foundational ideas gradually found their way into educational settings, leading to the development of FBA as a systematic approach to address behavioral challenges.

The passage of landmark legislation in the United States, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) and its successor, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), played a pivotal role in shaping the development of FBA. These laws emphasized the importance of providing a free and appropriate public education to all students, including those with disabilities. Consequently, there was a growing recognition that addressing challenging behaviors required a more systematic and evidence-based approach.

As a result, FBA gained prominence in the 1980s and 1990s as a legally mandated process for students with disabilities under IDEA. The subsequent reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 further solidified FBA’s place in special education. Over the years, FBA has evolved, incorporating principles from behavior analysis, psychology, and education, and has expanded its application to various educational settings and student populations.

Overview of the Article’s Objectives and Structure

This article aims to provide a comprehensive exploration of Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) in the context of school psychology. It will delve into the theoretical foundations, methodologies, practical applications, challenges, ethical considerations, and future trends related to FBA. The structure of the article is organized into distinct sections to facilitate a thorough understanding of this critical topic.

By the end of this article, readers will gain insights into the historical development, theoretical underpinnings, practical implementation, and the ever-evolving role of FBA in promoting positive behavioral outcomes in educational settings.

Theoretical Foundations of Functional Behavioral Assessment

Explanation of functional behavioral assessment (fba) and its key concepts.

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is a systematic problem-solving process used in school psychology to understand and address challenging behaviors exhibited by students in educational settings. At its core, FBA seeks to uncover the “function” or purpose of a student’s problem behavior. This concept is grounded in the belief that behaviors, including challenging ones, serve specific functions or fulfill certain needs for individuals. To conduct an effective FBA, several key concepts must be understood:

• Behavioral Function: This is the central concept of FBA. It refers to the underlying purpose or reason for a student’s behavior. Behaviors can serve various functions, such as seeking attention, escaping tasks, obtaining tangible items, or self-stimulation. Identifying the function is crucial because it guides intervention strategies.
• Antecedents: Antecedents are events or circumstances that occur before the problem behavior. They trigger or set the occasion for the behavior to occur. Antecedent factors can be environmental, social, or internal, and recognizing them helps predict when the behavior is likely to happen.
• Behavior: This represents the specific actions or responses of concern. These behaviors are observable and measurable. FBA focuses on defining and describing the problem behavior in detail to ensure accuracy in assessment.
• Consequences: Consequences are events or outcomes that follow the problem behavior. They may reinforce or maintain the behavior, influencing its future occurrence. Understanding the consequences helps identify whether the behavior serves a specific purpose for the student.
• ABC Analysis: FBA often employs an ABC analysis format, where A stands for antecedents, B for behavior, and C for consequences. This format systematically examines the events preceding and following the problem behavior to identify patterns and potential functions.

Theoretical Frameworks Underlying Functional Behavioral Assessment

• Behavioral Theory: FBA is rooted in behavioral theory, which posits that behavior is learned and influenced by the environment. Key principles of behavioral theory, such as operant conditioning, reinforcement, and punishment, inform the practice of FBA. According to this perspective, behaviors are shaped by their consequences. If a behavior results in favorable outcomes (reinforcement), it is more likely to recur, while behaviors leading to unfavorable outcomes (punishment) are less likely to occur.
• Functional Analysis: ABA emphasizes conducting functional analyses to pinpoint the specific function of problem behavior. This involves systematically manipulating antecedents and consequences to determine their impact on the behavior.
• Reinforcement: ABA recognizes the power of reinforcement in influencing behavior. It distinguishes between positive reinforcement (providing a reward to increase a behavior) and negative reinforcement (removing an aversive stimulus to increase a behavior). Understanding reinforcement is critical in designing effective interventions.
• Data Collection: ABA places a strong emphasis on data collection and measurement. Data are collected to track behavior over time, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and make data-driven decisions.

How These Theories Inform the Practice of FBA in School Psychology

The theoretical foundations of FBA, grounded in behavioral theory and ABA, have significant implications for its practice in school psychology:

• Individualized Assessment: FBA recognizes that each student is unique, and their behaviors must be understood within their specific context. Behavioral theory emphasizes the importance of individualized assessment to identify the unique functions of behaviors for each student.
• Evidence-Based Practices: ABA principles emphasize the use of evidence-based practices in assessment and intervention. School psychologists conducting FBA rely on empirical evidence to guide their decision-making, ensuring that interventions are based on scientific research.
• Data-Driven Decision-Making: Both behavioral theory and ABA stress the importance of data collection and analysis. School psychologists systematically collect data to understand behavior patterns, evaluate interventions, and make informed decisions to support students.
• Function-Based Interventions: FBA informs the development of function-based interventions. Once the function of behavior is identified, interventions are designed to address the underlying need or purpose. This approach is more effective than simply suppressing the behavior.

In summary, the theoretical foundations of FBA provide a solid framework for understanding and addressing challenging behaviors in school psychology. By applying principles from behavioral theory and ABA, school psychologists can conduct systematic assessments, develop evidence-based interventions, and promote positive behavioral outcomes for students.

Methods and Procedures for Conducting Functional Behavioral Assessment

Overview of the functional behavioral assessment process.

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is a systematic process used by school psychologists to understand the underlying functions of problem behaviors in students. The FBA process consists of several key steps, beginning with the identification of the problem behavior:

• Problem Behavior Identification: The FBA process starts with clearly defining and describing the problem behavior. School psychologists work closely with teachers, parents, and other stakeholders to gather information about the behavior’s frequency, intensity, duration, and the specific circumstances in which it occurs.
• Setting Clear Objectives: Once the problem behavior is identified, the FBA team sets clear objectives for the assessment. These objectives include understanding the function of the behavior, identifying antecedents (triggers), and analyzing consequences.
• Data Collection: Data collection is a fundamental component of FBA. School psychologists use various methods to collect data, including direct observation, interviews, behavior rating scales, and checklists. The data help establish patterns and potential triggers for the behavior.

Detailed Explanation of Functional Behavioral Assessment Techniques

• Attention: The behavior is followed by attention from others.
• Escape: The behavior allows the student to escape or avoid a task or situation.
• Access to Tangibles: The behavior results in access to desired items or activities.
• Sensory Stimulation: The behavior provides sensory stimulation or self-soothing.
• Direct Observation: Direct observation is a commonly used method in FBA. School psychologists and trained observers directly monitor the student’s behavior in the natural environment. This involves recording the behavior, antecedents, and consequences as they occur. Observers use structured observation tools and checklists to ensure systematic data collection. Direct observation provides valuable insights into the contextual factors surrounding the behavior.
• Functional Assessment Interviews: School psychologists conduct interviews with teachers, parents, and the student (if appropriate) to gather information about the problem behavior. Structured interviews focus on identifying triggers, patterns, and potential functions of the behavior. Information from multiple sources helps build a comprehensive understanding of the behavior.

Discussion of the Use of Technology and Tools in FBA

Advancements in technology have enhanced the methods and procedures for conducting Functional Behavioral Assessment:

• Data Collection Software: School psychologists now have access to data collection software and apps that streamline the process of recording and analyzing behavior. These tools allow for real-time data entry, graphing, and trend analysis, making it easier to identify patterns and trends in behavior.
• Functional Assessment Apps: Some apps are specifically designed for conducting functional assessments. These apps guide school psychologists through the FBA process, from defining the behavior to analyzing the data. They often include features for graphing and generating reports.
• Video Recording: Video recording technology is valuable for capturing the behavior as it occurs. School psychologists can review the footage to gain a better understanding of antecedents, consequences, and the behavior itself. Video analysis tools help in identifying subtle behavioral nuances.
• Functional Analysis Technology: Technology has also facilitated functional analysis by allowing for precise control of antecedents and consequences in virtual environments. Simulations and virtual tools enable school psychologists to conduct functional analyses more safely and efficiently.

Incorporating technology and tools into FBA procedures can enhance data accuracy, streamline the assessment process, and provide more detailed insights into the functions of problem behaviors. However, it’s essential to ensure that the use of technology aligns with ethical guidelines and respects student privacy.

Overall, the methods and procedures for conducting Functional Behavioral Assessment are systematic and data-driven. By employing techniques such as functional analysis, direct observation, and leveraging technology, school psychologists can gain a comprehensive understanding of problem behaviors and develop effective intervention strategies based on their functions.

Applications and Benefits of Functional Behavioral Assessment

How fba contributes to understanding and addressing challenging behaviors in school settings.

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) plays a pivotal role in school psychology by contributing to the understanding and effective management of challenging behaviors in educational settings. Its applications are multifaceted, and its benefits are evident in several key areas:

• Problem Behavior Analysis: FBA helps school psychologists systematically analyze problem behaviors to determine their underlying functions. By identifying whether a behavior serves as a means to gain attention, escape tasks, access desired items, or seek sensory stimulation, educators and school psychologists can tailor interventions that directly target the function, thereby reducing or eliminating the behavior.
• Individualized Understanding: FBA recognizes that each student is unique, and their behaviors are context-specific. It allows school psychologists to gain an individualized understanding of why a particular behavior occurs for a specific student. This personalized approach is crucial for effective intervention planning.
• Evidence-Based Decision-Making: FBA is grounded in empirical research and principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA). This evidence-based approach ensures that interventions are based on a solid foundation of behavioral science, increasing the likelihood of success in addressing challenging behaviors.
• Early Intervention: FBA can be applied to assess behaviors at an early stage, allowing school psychologists to intervene proactively. Early identification and intervention can prevent the escalation of challenging behaviors, ultimately improving the student’s educational experience.

Use of FBA in Developing Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

• Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs): FBA serves as the foundation for developing Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs), which are tailored strategies designed to address and manage challenging behaviors. BIPs are individualized and include specific interventions, goals, and strategies aimed at reducing the problem behavior and promoting positive alternatives. By directly targeting the function of the behavior, BIPs are more likely to be effective in producing meaningful behavior change.
• Individualized Education Programs (IEPs): In special education, students with disabilities often have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that outline their unique educational needs and services. FBA informs the development of IEPs by providing critical data on the student’s behavior and the interventions required to support their learning. This ensures that educational plans are tailored to the student’s specific behavioral and academic needs.
• Collaboration: FBA encourages collaboration among school psychologists, educators, parents, and other relevant stakeholders. Developing BIPs and IEPs requires a team approach, where everyone works together to understand the student’s behavior and create effective plans. Collaboration ensures that interventions are consistent across different settings and that everyone is aligned in their efforts to support the student.

Addressing the Needs of Diverse Learners and Students with Disabilities Through FBA

• Cultural Sensitivity: FBA recognizes the importance of cultural competence in understanding and addressing challenging behaviors. School psychologists conducting FBA take into account cultural factors that may influence a student’s behavior. This cultural sensitivity ensures that assessments and interventions are culturally responsive and respectful of the student’s background.
• Inclusive Practices: FBA promotes inclusive educational practices by addressing the diverse needs of students, including those with disabilities. By conducting FBA, school psychologists can identify how environmental factors may impact a student’s behavior. This information helps in making necessary accommodations and modifications to the learning environment to support students with disabilities effectively.
• Individualized Support: Students with disabilities often have unique behavioral challenges that require individualized support. FBA enables school psychologists to identify the specific functions of problem behaviors for these students and develop targeted interventions that address their needs. This individualized approach is fundamental to ensuring that students with disabilities receive appropriate support to succeed in school.

In summary, Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) is a valuable tool in school psychology that contributes to understanding, addressing, and managing challenging behaviors in educational settings. Its applications include problem behavior analysis, individualized understanding, evidence-based decision-making, and early intervention. FBA informs the development of Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and promotes collaboration among stakeholders. Additionally, FBA addresses the diverse needs of learners, including those with disabilities, by incorporating cultural sensitivity and individualized support into assessment and intervention practices.

Challenges, Ethical Considerations, and Future Trends

Challenges and limitations of fba in school psychology.

While Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) offers substantial benefits in understanding and addressing challenging behaviors, it is not without its challenges and limitations:

• Resource Intensity: Conducting FBA can be resource-intensive. It requires trained professionals to collect and analyze data, which may strain already limited resources in schools. Smaller schools or those with tight budgets may find it challenging to implement FBA comprehensively.
• Time Constraints: FBA typically involves an extensive data collection period, which may not align with the urgency of addressing certain behaviors. In some cases, waiting for the FBA process to conclude may result in lost time for intervention.
• Complex Behaviors: Some behaviors are inherently complex, and their functions may not be easy to determine. FBA may struggle to provide clear insights into multifaceted behaviors that have multiple antecedents and consequences.
• Generalization: FBA is often conducted within specific settings, and its findings may not always generalize to other environments. Translating the results of FBA into effective interventions across various settings can be challenging.

Ethical Guidelines and Potential Biases in Conducting FBA

Ethical considerations are paramount in the practice of Functional Behavioral Assessment. School psychologists and educators must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure the process is conducted ethically and without biases:

• Informed Consent: Ethical practice requires obtaining informed consent from parents or guardians before conducting FBA on a student. This ensures transparency and respects the rights of the student and their family.
• Cultural Competence: School psychologists must be culturally competent and aware of potential biases in the assessment process. Cultural biases in FBA can lead to misinterpretations of behavior and inappropriate interventions.
• Confidentiality: FBA involves collecting sensitive information about a student’s behavior. It is crucial to maintain strict confidentiality to protect the student’s privacy.
• Least Restrictive Alternatives: Ethical practice mandates considering the least restrictive alternatives when developing interventions based on FBA findings. The goal is to support positive behavior change without unnecessarily restricting a student’s freedom.

Emerging Trends and the Future of Functional Behavioral Assessment

The future of Functional Behavioral Assessment in school psychology is shaped by emerging trends and a growing emphasis on data-driven decision-making:

• Advancements in Technology: Technology continues to play a significant role in FBA. Mobile applications and digital tools for data collection and analysis streamline the process, making it more accessible and efficient.
• Big Data and Predictive Analytics: The integration of big data and predictive analytics offers opportunities to enhance FBA. These techniques can identify patterns and trends in behavior, helping school psychologists make more accurate predictions and develop tailored interventions.
• Preventative Approaches: The future of FBA may see a shift towards preventative approaches. Rather than solely focusing on addressing problem behaviors, FBA could increasingly be used to identify early signs of behavioral challenges, allowing for proactive interventions.
• Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Collaborative efforts between school psychologists, educators, special education professionals, and other stakeholders are likely to increase. This interdisciplinary approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of behavior and the development of effective interventions.
• Data-Driven Decision-Making: FBA aligns with the broader trend of data-driven decision-making in education. School systems are increasingly using data to inform instructional practices, and FBA contributes to this by providing valuable behavioral data.

In conclusion, Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) faces challenges related to resource intensity, time constraints, and the complexity of behaviors. Ethical considerations, including informed consent, cultural competence, and confidentiality, are essential in conducting FBA without biases. The future of FBA in school psychology includes advancements in technology, the use of big data and predictive analytics, a focus on preventative approaches, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a continued emphasis on data-driven decision-making to support positive behavior change and enhance educational outcomes for all students.

Summary of Key Points Discussed

In this comprehensive exploration of Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) in school psychology, several key points emerge:

• Definition and Significance: FBA is a systematic process for understanding the function of challenging behaviors in students. It holds great significance in promoting positive behavior change, fostering a supportive learning environment, and enhancing the educational experience of students.
• Theoretical Foundations: FBA draws on behavioral theory and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) principles, grounding its practice in well-established psychological frameworks. These theories inform the assessment and intervention strategies employed in FBA.
• Methods and Procedures: Various methods and techniques, including direct observation, functional analysis, and data collection tools, play a central role in FBA. The process is structured and systematic, ensuring a thorough understanding of behavior.
• Applications and Benefits: FBA contributes to understanding and addressing challenging behaviors in school settings. It aids in the development of Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), facilitating targeted support for students with behavioral challenges. Moreover, FBA promotes inclusivity and addresses the needs of diverse learners and students with disabilities.
• Challenges and Ethical Considerations: Challenges such as resource intensity and time constraints are inherent in FBA. Ethical guidelines, including informed consent and cultural competence, guide the practice of FBA and ensure fairness and respect for students’ rights and privacy.
• Future Trends: The future of FBA in school psychology is marked by technological advancements, the integration of big data and predictive analytics, a shift towards preventative approaches, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a continued emphasis on data-driven decision-making.

Emphasis on the Continued Significance and Relevance of Functional Behavioral Assessment in School Psychology

As we conclude this exploration of FBA, it becomes evident that FBA remains an indispensable tool in the field of school psychology. Its significance lies in its capacity to transform challenging behaviors into opportunities for growth and development. By systematically uncovering the functions of behaviors, FBA empowers educators and school psychologists to create tailored interventions that support students in achieving their full potential.

The continued relevance of FBA is underscored by its alignment with the evolving landscape of education. In an era where data-driven decision-making and evidence-based practices are central to educational planning, FBA provides a structured and empirical approach to addressing behavioral challenges. Its adaptability to various educational settings, from elementary schools to special education programs, ensures that diverse student populations can benefit from its insights.

Furthermore, FBA embodies the ethical principles of transparency, fairness, and respect for individual differences. By adhering to ethical guidelines and promoting cultural competence, FBA contributes not only to behavior change but also to the creation of inclusive and respectful learning environments.

In a future marked by technological advancements and the ever-growing need for effective educational support, Functional Behavioral Assessment stands as a beacon of hope for students facing behavioral challenges. It is a reminder that understanding behavior is the first step towards fostering positive change and providing every student with the opportunity to thrive academically and socially. In school psychology, the significance and relevance of FBA are enduring, making it an indispensable tool for the betterment of education and the well-being of students.

References:

• Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers. Pearson.
• Chafouleas, S. M., & Bray, M. A. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support and positive behavioral interventions and supports: A theoretical, empirical, and practical perspective. Routledge.
• Cook, B. G., & Schirmer, B. R. (2003). What is special about special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders? Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 148-156.
• Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. J. (2010). Overview and history of positive behavior support. In Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (pp. 3-18). Springer.
• Ervin, R. A., Radford, P. M., Bertsch, K. L., Piper, R. L., & Jones, T. F. (2010). Current practices of functional behavioral assessment in four southern states. Behavioral Disorders, 36(1), 4-18.
• Gresham, F. M. (2007). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 181-194.
• Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179.
• Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197-209.
• Kern, L., Bambara, L. M., & Fogt, J. (2002). Classwide curricular modification to improve the behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(2), 130-140.
• Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2000). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the Procedural and Coding Manual of Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology Task Force. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(4), 389-407.
• Lewis, T. J., Scott, T. M., & Sugai, G. (1994). Alternative educational delivery systems: Implications for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19(3), 170-179.
• Magee, S. K., & Ellis, J. T. (2002). Function-based interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A systematic review. Behavioral Disorders, 27(4), 327-344.
• McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good, R. H. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict nonresponse to school-wide positive behavior support: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 275-291.
• National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2019). Implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports in schools: A guide to effective practice. US Department of Education.
• O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Cengage Learning.
• Odom, S. L., & Brown, W. H. (2000). Setting effects on peer social interactions of young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 473-490.
• Shapiro, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2000). Conducting school-based assessments of child and adolescent behavior. Guilford Press.
• Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., … & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.
• Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., & Gable, R. A. (2005). The challenging behaviors in education: Evidence-based practices. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194-209.
• Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Cengage Learning.
• Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
• Wilson, T. P., & Daly, E. J. (2004). Recent developments in functional assessment. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(2), 123-132.
• Witt, J. C., Daly, E. M., & Noell, G. H. (2000). Functional assessment: A step-by-step guide to solving academic and behavior problems. Guilford Press.
• Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws on special education evaluations and reevaluations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(2), 73-86.
• Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2011). Special education and response to intervention: Sorting out the relationship. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334.

NASP: The National Association of School Psychologists

A Closer Look

In this section.

• Legal Foundations: School-Based Mental Health Services Under the IDEA
• The Impact of COVID-19 on Early Childhood Social–Emotional Development: A Path Forward With MTSS
• Transition Assessment: The Cornerstone of Transition Planning and Services
• Supporting Mental Health of Autistic Individuals
• Five Tips for BIPs
• What’s the New Shiny Thing? Making Data-Based Decisions About Technology Use
• Transitional Planning: Is Guardianship the Answer?
• 5 Things I Wish I Knew About Writing Consumer-Friendly Psychoeducational Reports
• Addressing the Needs of Immigrant and Refugee Students: Inclusive Mental Health Interventions in Diverse School Settings
• Effective Responses to Challenging Behaviors: Building Student Connection and Improving Behavioral Health
• Specialized Assessments for Special Populations: Use of Teleassessments for Rural and Multilingual Children
• Family–School Partnerships: Five Tips for Successful Problem Solving With Parents
• Seven Habits of Highly Effective Schools: How School Psychologists Can Promote School Change
• Five Considerations for Developing Suicide Prevention Supports in the Schools
• Pitfalls of Using Translation and Interpretation Services in Schools
• How to Prepare for an Evaluation for a Student With Visual Impairments
• Advocacy in the Face of Adversity
• Postsecondary Transition for Autistic Adults
• Working With Spoken Language Interpreters in Educational Settings
• Mission MTSS: Two Easy Ways to Use Statistics to Analyze Data
• Simple, Summative Skills: Incorporating Brief Positive Psychology Practice Into Your Day
• Creating the Psychologically Safe Learning Environment
• Get Out of the Testing Rut: Expanding Your School Psychology Role by Understanding Your District's Needs
• Oral Reporting of Assessment Results for Maximum Impact
• Culturally Responsive Interviewing: Proactive Strategies for BIPOC Students
• Beyond Self-Care Sunday: Four Surprising Ways to Prevent School Psychologist Burnout
• Five Clues in Your Data: Identifying Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
• Five Questions Intern Supervisors Should Ask New Interns

Restorative, Collaborative Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior Intervention Plans

• School Psychologists Should Embrace Telecounseling as an Option in the Post COVID-19 World
• Stress and Anxiety: I’m Not Just the Presenter, I’m Also a Client
• Social Media and Crisis Intervention: Opportunity and Danger
• Self-Care Lessons From the Field
• Thinking Versus Knowing: The Key to Measuring Intelligence
• Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)
• Testing Accommodations: From the 2019 Admissions Scandal to the Bigger Scandal of Poor Decision-Making
• Trauma, Stress, and the Postpandemic Opening of School: Let’s Not Pathologize Students’ Emotional Needs
• Science-Based Case Conceptualization
• How to Prevent Students From Experiencing Psychosis
• Promoting School Psychological Service Delivery Through Active Self-Care
• Problem-Solving the Complexities of Reading Comprehension

In 2020, multiple overlapping environmental, health, political, and social crises meant that school psychologists nationwide began the process of questioning best practices. Perhaps most importantly, school psychologists focused on working to include the power inherent in the voices of students and their families. This restorative strategy—the inclusion of voice—is particularly important for students’ families, who are disproportionately affected by the systemic bias inherent in any school system. KIPP NYC worked to address this systemic bias against families during the 2020–2021 school year by incorporating a power-sharing approach, one that is required to invest persons from historically marginalized communities as equal partners in defining assessment questions, implementing behavior plans, and progress monitoring effectiveness. Using existing functional behavior assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP), we felt that revisions to these existing materials can include therapeutic, restorative strategies that give voice to historically marginalized children and their families when working within K–12 American education. The main goal is to provide school psychologists a new paradigm for conducting these two assessments.

Restorative, collaborative functional behavior assessments (RC-FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (RC-BIPs) are a potentially powerful method for students and their families. RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs work to incorporate critical cultural and racial perspectives not included in traditional FBAs and BIPs. By rethinking the traditional interview process, school psychologists can acquire information to ensure the assessment reflects cultural and personal values, identity, and traditions in concert with the collaborative identification of target behaviors and potential motivating operations.

Mutually Defining the Target Behavior

To understand student and family perceptions, it is imperative that we update traditional methods of indirect measurement, focusing on the process of obtaining information from students and families. The primary aim of this revised initial interview with families and students is to conduct the behavior assessment using restorative practices with our students, not for them or to their families.

Working Towards Culturally Responsive Implementation

RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs create a balance of control and support to ensure this process is restorative and collaborative. Within this process, the educator shares data collected with the team, including the family and the student, and the team makes the decisions based on those data and any additional indirect data reported by the student and family. Decisions are made with all stakeholders and not solely determined by the traditional seat of authority (the school psychologists and related constellations of professionals).

Antiracist Approaches With Black Families and Children

We particularly feel that RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs are essential practices when working with Black families and children. An antiracist approach to those who have been on the receiving end of more discipline, harsher punishment, and lengthier punishments than their White counterparts is essential to reframe the lens through which we view behavior. We have strategically included questions to ask of families and their children to ensure that we account for cultural, ethnic, and identity markers that will help educators understand the root of children’s behaviors. For example, when we begin working with students, we ask them “You are the expert on you, so I need to know what you think is most important for me to understand about you. This will help you tell all the adults in your life what you need. First I want to know: What puzzles or questions do you have about yourself?” During the course of this school year, we have been dazzled and impressed with several children who help define their own behavior assessment, such as one child who replied “Why am I so angry all the time?” and “Why am I so distracted all the time?” By empowering children to help guide the behavior assessment process, we share expertise with children who collectively have not had agency and voice in determining target behaviors and interventions.

School psychologists must be willing to accept proactive actions that promote justice and fairness for all students, particularly those who are at risk of being marginalized because of their identities. There is a particular critical need to address the historical injustices wrought upon Black males within school settings. We recommend that school psychologists begin or continue to reflect on current practices and identify those that cause harm to all marginalized students, are punitive, or are rooted in educators holding the sole authority. This includes the inner work of reflection and self-awareness of intersecting identities, knowledge development, and education that is focused on gaining knowledge about the diverse populations being served. Furthermore, school psychologists should acknowledge how diverse students’ intersecting identities can place them at greater risk for discrimination and marginalizing experiences, encourage systems change, and be social justice advocates who require action to enforce equality and fairness for all students.

About the Author

Matthew James Graziano, MSW, PhD; Anya Morales, MsEd; Kelsie Morales, BA; Craig Varsa, MA

PROVIDER MENU

“Kids do well if they can.”

—Ross Greene, Ph.D.

Say goodbye to conflict, screaming, spankings, detentions, suspensions, de-escalating, restraint, and seclusion. Say hello to solving problems collaboratively and proactively.

What is collaborative & proactive solutions.

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is an evidence-based model of psychosocial treatment originated and developed by Dr. Ross Greene , and described in his books The Explosive Child , Lost at School , Raising Human Beings , and Lost & Found .

What does CPS do?

Rather than focusing on kids’ concerning behaviors (and modifying them), CPS helps kids and caregivers solve the problems that are causing those behaviors. The problem solving is collaborative (not unilateral) and proactive (not reactive). Research has shown that the model is effective not only at solving problems and improving behavior but also at enhancing skills.

Where has CPS been implemented?

In countless families, general and special education schools, group homes, inpatient psychiatry units, and residential and juvenile detention facilities, the CPS model has been shown to dramatically reduce concerning behavior and dramatically reduce or eliminate discipline referrals, detentions, suspensions, and the use of restraint and seclusion .

How do you get the ball rolling?

This website connects you to vast array of resources, including a variety of learning and training options and over 200 providers in 16 different countries. And you’ll find lots of additional resources—including the research supporting the effectiveness of the model—on the website of the non-profit,  Lives in the Balance .

We are also happy to discuss your specific needs… CONTACT US

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions™

Dr. Ross Greene

Originator of the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Approach

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is the model of care Dr. Greene originated and describes in his various books.

The CPS model is based on the premise that challenging behavior occurs when the demands and expectations being placed on a kid exceed the kid’s capacity to respond adaptively…and that some kids are better equipped (i.e., have the skills) to handle certain demands and expectations. So the emphasis of the model isn’t on kids' challenging behavior, which is – whether it’s whining, pouting, sulking, withdrawing, crying, screaming, swearing, hitting, spitting, biting, or worse – just the manner in which they’re expressing the fact that there are expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. Nor does the model focus on psychiatric diagnoses, which are simply categories of challenging behaviors. Rather the model focuses on identifying the skills a person is lacking and the expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. (In the CPS model, those unmet expectations are referred to as unsolved problems.) Then the goal is to help them solve those problems, rather than trying to modify their behavior through application of rewards and punishments.

In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the collaborative and proactive variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. The goal is to foster a problem-solving, collaborative partnership between adults and kids and to engage kids in solving the problems that affect their lives. As such, the CPS model is non-punitive and non-adversarial, decreases the likelihood of conflict, enhances relationships, improves communication, and helps kids and adults learn and display the skills on the more positive side of human nature: empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in ways that do not involve conflict, taking another’s perspective, and honesty.

All content © Dr. Ross Greene

• About Our Services
• Speech-Language Therapy
• Mental Health Counseling and Behavioral Services
• Psychoeducational Assessments
• Occupational Therapy
• Learn About Kanga
• For Schools
• For Agencies
• For Independent Practitioners
• For Clinicians
• Who We Serve
• Join Our Clinical Network
• News & Press
• Policy & Advocacy

Dr. Ross Greene - What Works & What Doesn’t for Behaviorally Challenged Students

• Link copied

Last April, the final webinar in our Success for Every Learner: From At-Risk to Successful spring webinar series was led by author and creator of the Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) model Dr. Ross Greene. During “ Lost and Found: What Works (and What Doesn’t) for Behaviorally Challenged Students ,” Dr. Greene challenged listeners to change their thinking about discipline and working with their most at-risk students. After the webinar, our co-founder and co-CEO Clay Whitehead sat down with Dr. Greene to address the questions of webinar attendees about how incorporating CPS has been associated with dramatic reductions in adult-child conflict, challenging behaviors, disciplinary referrals, detentions, suspensions, seclusion, and physical, chemical, and mechanical restraints in schools around the world. You can review that discussion here .

Dr. Greene’s webinar sparked so many questions that we simply could not address them during the 90 minute webinar. This summer, we caught up with him to continue the discussion started in the spring with more questions from the audience. Thank you, Dr. Greene, for an informative discussion!

PresenceLearning: Dr. Greene, are there suggested modifications to using this approach with very young students or those who have delayed or limited language skills?

Dr. Greene: The interesting thing is that I don’t really base what solving problems collaboratively is going to look like on the chronological child. I’ve worked with 3 year olds who were better able to participate in a process than many 17 year olds. Chronological age is not really a deciding factor. Language processing and communication skills are a very important deciding factor, especially if we are trying to solve problems collaboratively in words and through verbal give and take, which is of course the adult preference.

Chronological age is really not as big a deal as many people think it is. But secondly, irrespective of the age of the kid, if the verbal give and take skills are not sufficient to participate in plan B, then we’re going to have to find another way to communicate with the kid about 3 basic things. What’s the unsolved problem? What are the kid’s concerns about the unsolved problem, and what are some solutions that would address the concerns of both parties? That can be done in pictures and that can be done using sign language and that can be done using fingers, with the kid using thumbs up or thumbs middle or thumbs down.

I often say 5 the finger method can be used for getting any kid’s concerns, it’s almost only if the kid doesn’t have the language processing skills to let us know what his concerns are. I usually say 5 fingers means very true, 4 means pretty true, 3 means sort of true, 2 means not very true and 1 means not true at all. Then I will make statements, when adult theories actually sometimes come in handy. I’ll make statements and the child will let me know the degree to which the statement is true, either through thumbs or through fingers. Ask any speech-language pathologist if you can communicate with a non-verbal kid and the answer will always be yes. If the answer is always yes, then you can solve problems collaboratively with almost any kid as well. You just may have to get a little bit creative about what the communication looks like.

PresenceLearning: A viewer asked, “We have a student who has a meltdown every time iPad time in the class ends. We give him a timer, a countdown and so forth, when his time is almost over. Is that the expectation that we’re not meeting? How do we look at that?”

Dr. Greene: Let’s first think about what the unsolved problem is: difficulty putting away the iPad when iPad time in class is over. That’s the unsolved problem, but what’s interesting here is we adults often come up with our own solutions and wonder why they’re not working. We have some adult solutions in this question as well, a timer, countdown so he knows when the time is over. Those would be outstanding interventions if the issue is that he doesn’t know when his time is over. But we really don’t know what’s getting in the kid’s way because we haven’t done plan B with the kid yet. Once again, a reminder here, what we’re looking for are solutions that we are collaborating with the student on.

The first step of solving a problem collaboratively is the empathy step. That’s where we are gathering information from the student about what’s actually getting in the way. In this case, putting the iPad away when iPad time is over. What we adults frequently do is, we come up with solutions anyway even though we have no information whatsoever. What I call those are uninformed solutions. Uninformed solutions almost never work because we adults are frequently wrong about what we think is actually getting in the kid’s way. The first thing we’ve got to do is the empathy step with this student to find out what’s getting in the way or what’s hard or what’s interfering with the student putting the iPad away when iPad time in class is over.

The second step is where the adult is entering his or her concerns into consideration on the same unsolved problem. The third step, called the invitation, is where adult and student are collaborating on a solution. This really points out the difference between adults coming up with solutions about problems they really haven’t inquired with the kid about yet, and adults and kids collaborating on solutions based on information both parties have provided. It is a completely different enterprise, collaborative versus unilateral problem solving.

PresenceLearning: Perfect. Dr. Greene, although I understand removing a child from a class should not be part of a plan, often the kind of behaviors that the child has are unsafe to the other students or maybe even to themselves. What are we supposed to do while we’re teaching the replacement skills?

Dr. Greene: That’s a very interesting question. First of all, we’re not actually teaching replacement skills. We are solving the problems that are causing the student to exhibit the behaviors that are unsafe to the student themselves or others that are causing us to remove the child from class. Everything that’s being described in this question is the aftermath of specific, unsolved problems that aren’t solved yet. If they were solved, the student wouldn’t still be exhibiting unsafe behavior in response to them and we wouldn’t still be removing the student from class. We’re also still very focused on the student’s behavior in this question, and we really, really want to be focused on the problems that are causing those behaviors. If we wait for the behaviors to occur it is too late in the game.

I get it, there are going to be times in schools where we do have to remove a student for unsafe behavior. We just have to realize that we’re very late in the game when we do that, and if we need to be using the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems to identify the students proactively so that we can solve them proactively. Solved problems don’t cause students to exhibit behaviors that are unsafe to themselves or others, and therefore we’re not removing students from class anymore. That’s the whole point. A lot of school discipline programs are almost totally oriented toward what we do once the behavior occurs. In this model, we are being very proactive in identifying and solving problems proactively so the unsafe behaviors don’t occur in the first place.

PresenceLearning: Here’s a question from a teacher. “Ross, you know my biggest challenge as a classroom teacher is the time I have in the day to work with my students. Having time to collaborate with an individual child? My goodness, how do I find time with as many as 30 kids in my classroom?”

Dr. Greene: You’re going to have to prioritize, of course, which students want to be collaborated with first. In schools in which the CPS model has been implemented, the typical scenario is that people are most interested in helping the kids who are most disruptive and most behaviorally challenging first. Initially, you’re not going to be solving problems collaboratively with all 30 kids in a classroom. You’re probably going to be solving problems collaboratively first with what we call your frequent flyers, the kids who are flying frequently out of the classroom and into the school discipline program.

First of all, we have to prioritize, and even within those kids we need to prioritize because many frequent flyers have many unsolved problems. Why do the frequent flyers have so many unsolved problems? Because we’ve primarily been focused on their behavior and then we’ve been primarily focused on trying to give them the incentive to exhibit good behavior and punishing them when they don’t. We don’t solve any problems that way, which is why, and this goes to the heart of the question, the frequent flyers are the most time consuming kids in the building. When we are dealing with behavior because the problems that are causing those behaviors are not solved yet, that takes an enormous amount of time. Way more time than it would take for us to be solving the problems that are causing those behaviors.

While I get it, every school that we’ve worked with over the last 10 years is worried about time when they are first learning about the CPS model. 3 or 4 months in, their motto is: plan B saves time, and it’;s true. When they add up all the time that they are spending dealing with challenging behaviors because the problems are not yet solved, plan B never takes that much time. Once we get our most challenging students squared away, those unsolved problems that we have now solved aren’t taking up time anymore and we can start to turn our attention to the other students whose problems always get neglected just because those problems aren’t causing classroom disruption or unsafe behavior.

But there’s another level to this question and that is, this has to be organized at a school-wide level. An unsolved problem for every school is that we don’t have time to solve problems with the kids in our building. That’s a school unsolved problem. We’ve had so many initiatives thrown at us and we’ve been so pressured to focus almost exclusively on academics that we’ve begun giving short shrift to one of the most important roles teachers have always played in the lives of kids, and that is socialization agents.

Teachers play a crucial role in our society in the socialization of our kids. When we turn teachers into test prep robots, as we have with high stakes testing, or discipline robots, as we have with zero tolerance policies, we take the humanity out of the job and a lot of the problem solving goes along with it. This has to be organized at a school-wide level so that the principal and assistant principal and other people are providing coverage for teachers who want to solve problems collaboratively with kids. Teachers are providing coverage for each other with finding times in the day when we can solve problems with kids. But for that to happen, this has to be a priority and we have to formally carve out the time.

Let me go back to the original theme. You’re not going to be spending more time when you’re solving problems collaboratively with your students. You’re going to be saving a lot of time.

PresenceLearning: It’s a classic example. We have a student who doesn’t want to begin work in the class, but the student will begin working when given a token. The extrinsic motivator seems to have moved the child to begin his work, so clearly there’s no lack of skill here, just lack of motivation, which we found out with the motivator. What do you say to that?

Dr. Greene: First of all, I would say that there’s lots of things a kid will do for a token, but the fact that we are still giving the kids tokens to try to get them to do work is actually proof positive that this is not an issue related to motivation. Merely giving the kid a token is not solving whatever problem it is that’s causing the kid to resist starting work in class.

What’s interesting is that the scenario actually proves to me the opposite of what the person who asked the question thinks it proved. Just because a token gets a kid to start working doesn’t mean it’s an issue related to motivation. It tells me, the fact that we are still giving tokens to get the kid to work, that we still don’t know what’s getting in the kid’s way.

We’re not going to solve that problem with a token because there is no problem, there is no concern that the kid has about getting to work, that is going to be addressed with a token. Believing that the token proves the motivation theory is actually still pure speculation. I’ve got a much better idea that’s circulating: why don’t we ask the kid what’s getting in the way of him starting on a specific assignment. Here’s what we always find: Every once in a blue moon I’m still tempted to go with a motivational strategy, but then I ask the kid, “What’s really getting in your way here?” When I finally hear what’s getting in the kid way, it’s always something that a token is not going to fix. Things like, “I don’t understand the assignment,” — a token is not going to fix that. “It’s too hard,” — a token is not going to fix that. “It’s boring,” — a token is not going to fix that. “The other kids are making fun of me when they see the work that I’m doing,” — a token is not going to fix that. I can’t think of anything a token will fix, and so long as we’re having to give this kid tokens to get him to work, we still don’t know what’s getting in his way and his problem is still not solved.

PresenceLearning: Dr. Greene, do you recommend solving just one problem at a time, or is it possible to work on multiple lagging skills and problems at one time? I realize some lagging skills may be tied to the same problem, but maybe not always. What are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Greene: Great question. In the CPS model, you are working on no more than 3 unsolved problems at once. But adult theories about which unsolved problems are related to each other are often fallible. Even unsolved problems that seem totally related to each other often aren’t. You really are working on 1 unsolved problem at a time, but you have 3 high priority unsolved problems that you may be working on at any particular point in time. That’s crucial because once we adults get the hang of this problem solving stuff, we often get so enthusiastic that we start trying to solve every problem at once, thereby guaranteeing that we solve none of them at all. We really want to stick to our 2 or 3 high priority unsolved problems.

In the CPS model, we operate on the assumption, and this is backed up by research, that when you are solving problems collaboratively and proactively, you are simultaneously but indirectly teaching the kid the skills he or she is lacking. In other words, just by mere virtue of solving problems collaboratively and proactively, by mere virtue of that process, skills are being taught but indirectly. There are other people’s work, and I’m thinking here especially of Michelle Garcia Winter’s social thinking model, in which the primary focal point is actually the teaching of skills, the direct and explicit teaching of skills. I think those are fine models as well, just recognize that, in the CPS model, the primary focal point is problem solving. The data tells us that when you are problem solving in the ways that this model instructs us to do, collaboratively and proactively, skills are simultaneously being taught.

Yes, don’t work on too many unsolved problems at once. It is possible that a particular lagging skill could be contributing to many unsolved problems. Yet, are you going to be able to figure that out ahead of time? Not always.

PresenceLearning: Dr. Greene, have you had success using your approach with children who have autism? Primarily, the way that we deal with them is to use rewards and consequences.

Dr. Greene: Rewards and consequences are a very popular approach with students diagnosed with autism, and the research tells us that that approach does work with students on the severe end of the autism spectrum. But that doesn’t mean that, even with students at the severe end of the autism spectrum, we are limited to the sole use of rewarding and punishing as our way to try to help this student.

Autism is a very commonly diagnosed category, but it’s an extraordinarily broad category and, within that category, we have very diverse ranges of functioning and also very diverse ranges of things that a student needs from us in terms of intervention and what’s going to work with an individual student.

If all we’re using is rewards and punishments, then we are excluding the student from participating in solving the problems that affect his or her life and that is always, irrespective of the level of functioning of the student, irrespective of the diagnosis that is being applied, that’s always a shame. I find that even students on the severe end of the autism spectrum are able, often not in a real extensive way in the beginning but this is something we can build on, to participate in solving the problems that affect their lives. If we leave them out of the loop on that perpetually, then we’re basically writing this kid off as a potential participant in solving the problems that affect his or her life. We never, ever want to do that with any student.

With some students, involving them in the process of solving problems collaboratively is going to be a slow process. Even though many of them, people think, are lacking the language processing and cognitive skills to participate in that process, it’s not true. This is something that can be built over time. All progress is incremental and I think it’s a real shame that many autistic kids have been relegated to merely having rewards and punishments be the only intervention that’s applied to them. Even though the research tells us that works, I’m never enthusiastic about an intervention that leaves a kid out of the loop on solving the problems that affect his or her life, and now I’m talking about any diagnosis.

PresenceLearning: What’s your opinion regarding the use and purpose for positive behavior intervention and supports, PBIS systems, for all students?

Dr. Greene: I think that PBIS has moved the ball forward for behaviorally challenging kids in very important ways. I think that, in telling us that behavioral challenges should be viewed in the same way and treated in similar ways as academic challenges is a major step forward. I think many schools and people who work in schools have found PBIS to be extremely useful to them in organizing their efforts to help behaviorally challenging kids. But we have to remember that even the originators of PBIS tell us that it is a structure, not an intervention. The structure that they are referring to is 3 tiers, tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, in which we are, at tier 1, doing things for every student in the building. At tier 2, we’re doing things for students who have not fully benefited from what we’re doing at tier 1, and at tier 3, we’re intervening even further for students who have not benefited fully from what

we’re doing at tier 2. I know that many people have found that to be a very useful organizational structure, but what I’m talking about is not an organizational structure.

I’m talking about how we help behaviorally challenging students, regardless of what tier they’re at, meet expectations that they’re having difficulty meeting. I’m talking about how we solve problems with those kids. A lot of schools have implemented PBIS in a way that has their school discipline program looking almost exactly the same as it did before they started implementing PBIS. If their school discipline program was very oriented toward rewards and punishments before PBIS, I find that in many school systems that hasn’t changed a bit even though they’ve introduced PBIS and they have 3 tiers and they’re doing a lot of the things that PBIS would have them doing. For that reason, I sometimes say that PBIS has not been

transformative enough to help especially the most challenging students in a building.

I also find that many people, many schools that are implementing PBIS, are still running with the traditional definition of function. The traditional definition of function of challenging behavior that is working, it’s working in helping the kid get, escape, and avoid. In CPS, we have a very different definition of function. Challenging behavior is communicating. What are challenging behaviors communicating? That a child is lacking the skills to meet certain expectations. If we believe that a student’s challenging behavior is working, I think we’re going to be pointed toward interventions that are proving to the kid that his challenging behavior is not going to

work, punishment, and trying to elicit or encourage replacement behaviors that we adults believe will work better. That’s usually accomplished through use of reward.

Notice here we are still primarily focused on behavior, not the problems that are causing that behavior, and we are still focused on incentivizing good behavior and punishing negative behavior. That’s a big detour from the CPS model, where we are focused on problems and solving them, not on behaviors and modifying them. Challenging behavior isn’t working, challenging behavior is communicating. If challenging behavior is communicating, and the kid is lacking skills to handle certain expectations, then the assessment process isn’t focused on behavior, but rather on identifying those lagging skills and unsolved problems so we know what we’re working on.

Can you implement CPS within a school that’s doing PBIS? Of course, because PBIS is a structure not an intervention. Has it turned out that way for a lot of schools? No, as I’ve already said, in a lot of schools PBIS has not transformed their discipline program and behaviorally challenging kids are not being treated in ways that are fundamentally different than they were before PBIS was implemented. That’s a problem.

PresenceLearning: How does the traditional functional behavioral analysis process fit into the CPS model?

Dr. Greene: I think that a very informative, meaningful, impactful FBA is one in which we are being explicit about a student’s lagging skills and unsolved problems. But that is not the typical FBA, and that comes back to the fact that the traditional FBA is based on a definition of function that a kid’s challenging behavior is working. In CPS, the definition of function is when a kid’s challenging behavior is communicating. Once again, what’s it communicating? That a child is lacking the skills to meet certain demands and expectations.

If we go with communicating, then a functional behavior assessment is very explicit about the skills a student is lacking and the expectations that a student is having difficulty meeting. That propels us into the process. First of all, that’s very informative. Secondly, it propels us into the process of solving those problems.

But if we’re using a definition of function that the student’s behavior is working, then we are going to get what a whole lot of FBAs look like. First of all, an excessive description of the child’s behaviors, not the problems that are causing those behaviors, and adult theories about the function of those behaviors, mainly that those behaviors are working in helping the kid get, escape and avoid. Because many FBAs provide only that information, and because many FBAs, therefore, kind of say the same thing for every kid, that probably explains why so many teachers have said to me, “Why bother with the FBA? They all say the same thing.”

But if we’re using analysis to identify the kid’s lagging skills and unsolved problems, our FBA is going to get written for us because that’s going to be information that’s very meaningful for a teacher, very informative, very impactful. It points them directly to what they could be doing next. It’s not like an FBA is something we should be allergic to. What we should be allergic to is FBAs that all say the same thing and that are written according to the more traditional definition of function, that the challenging behavior is working. Those FBAs always point in one direction.

To watch Dr. Greene’s entire 90-minute webinar, click here .

Articles You Might Like

Demystifying student behavior: understanding the goals of functional behavioral assessments, how teletherapy can transform mental health services in schools, no more waiting: presence helps schools serve students with special needs, stay connected for more insights.

Don't miss out on valuable insights. Stay connected with us for ongoing support and knowledge.

By completing this form, you consent to receive marketing communications from Presence.

We use cookies for a better experience. By clicking “Okay,” you accept. View the Privacy Policy for details.

, , , , and

Conducting School-Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Third edition a practitioner's guide, mark w. steege , jamie l. pratt , garry wickerd , richard guare , and t. steuart watson foreword by frank m. gresham.

• sample chapter
• Author's website
• All titles by Mark W. Steege
• All titles by Richard Guare
• Sign up for emails on upcoming titles by Richard Guare (with special discounts)!
• companion website
• prior editions Second Edition, © 2009 ISBN: 9781606230275 First Edition, © 2003 ISBN: 9781572308541 -->
• Most of the reproducible tools are new or revised. -->

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Learn more about DOAJ’s privacy policy.

Hide this message

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

The Directory of Open Access Journals

Quick search.

Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Psychologia-Paedagogia (Jun 2023)

Operationalizing collaborative problem-solving skills: A framework for assessment and development in the digital age

• Sergiu MAXIM

Affiliations

Read online

This article delves into the operationalization of collaborative problem-solving (CPS) skills, focusing on the essential aspects required to effectively apply CPS in the modern digital age. The article emphasizes the growing significance of CPS skills as technology-based work and the automation of routine tasks demand proficiency in addressing non-routine, complex challenges. To enable successful CPS, a new set of skills including information literacy, divergent thinking, and problem-solving, both individually and collaboratively, are explored. The article investigates the strategies and approaches employed by individuals and teams when engaging in collaborative problem solving, with an emphasis on knowledge sharing and skill pooling. The study highlights the criticality of CPS as an invaluable skill set, enabling individuals to effectively collaborate and overcome intricate problems. Moreover, as contemporary work environments increasingly rely on successful group problem solving, the significance of operationalizing CPS is expected to continue growing in the future.

• collaborative problem solving, problem solving, PISA, literacy, Human-to-Human, Human-to-Agent, Twenty-first Century Skills.

WeChat QR code

Kids with challenging behavior are tragically misunderstood. It’s time for a more compassionate and effective approach.

About Collaborative Problem Solving ®

At Think:Kids, we recognize that kids with challenging behavior don’t lack the will to behave well. They lack the skills to behave well.

Our Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) approach is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives.

Anyone can learn Collaborative Problem Solving, and we’re here to show you how.

73% reduction in oppositional behaviors during school.

Parents report improvements in parent-child interactions.

86% average reduction in physical restraint.

reduction in school office referrals.

Significant improvements in children’s executive functioning skills.

71% fewer self-inflicted injuries.

6 out of 10 teachers report reduced stress.

Significant reductions in parents’ stress.

60% of children exhibited improved behavior 

Subscribe to our newsletter, privacy overview.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__cf_bm	1 hour	This cookie, set by Cloudflare, is used to support Cloudflare Bot Management.
__hssc	1 hour	HubSpot sets this cookie to keep track of sessions and to determine if HubSpot should increment the session number and timestamps in the __hstc cookie.
__hssrc	session	This cookie is set by Hubspot whenever it changes the session cookie. The __hssrc cookie set to 1 indicates that the user has restarted the browser, and if the cookie does not exist, it is assumed to be a new session.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie records the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	CookieYes sets this cookie to record the default button state of the corresponding category and the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
li_gc	6 months	Linkedin set this cookie for storing visitor's consent regarding using cookies for non-essential purposes.
lidc	1 day	LinkedIn sets the lidc cookie to facilitate data center selection.
UserMatchHistory	1 month	LinkedIn sets this cookie for LinkedIn Ads ID syncing.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__hstc	6 months	Hubspot set this main cookie for tracking visitors. It contains the domain, initial timestamp (first visit), last timestamp (last visit), current timestamp (this visit), and session number (increments for each subsequent session).
_ga	1 year 1 month 4 days	Google Analytics sets this cookie to calculate visitor, session and campaign data and track site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognise unique visitors.
_ga_*	1 year 1 month 4 days	Google Analytics sets this cookie to store and count page views.
_gat_gtag_UA_*	1 minute	Google Analytics sets this cookie to store a unique user ID.
_gid	1 day	Google Analytics sets this cookie to store information on how visitors use a website while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the collected data includes the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.
AnalyticsSyncHistory	1 month	Linkedin set this cookie to store information about the time a sync took place with the lms_analytics cookie.
CONSENT	2 years	YouTube sets this cookie via embedded YouTube videos and registers anonymous statistical data.
hubspotutk	6 months	HubSpot sets this cookie to keep track of the visitors to the website. This cookie is passed to HubSpot on form submission and used when deduplicating contacts.
vuid	1 year 1 month 4 days	Vimeo installs this cookie to collect tracking information by setting a unique ID to embed videos on the website.

Cookie	Duration	Description
bcookie	1 year	LinkedIn sets this cookie from LinkedIn share buttons and ad tags to recognize browser IDs.
bscookie	1 year	LinkedIn sets this cookie to store performed actions on the website.
li_sugr	3 months	LinkedIn sets this cookie to collect user behaviour data to optimise the website and make advertisements on the website more relevant.
NID	6 months	Google sets the cookie for advertising purposes; to limit the number of times the user sees an ad, to unwanted mute ads, and to measure the effectiveness of ads.
test_cookie	15 minutes	doubleclick.net sets this cookie to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	6 months	YouTube sets this cookie to measure bandwidth, determining whether the user gets the new or old player interface.
YSC	session	Youtube sets this cookie to track the views of embedded videos on Youtube pages.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the user's video preferences using embedded YouTube videos.
yt-remote-device-id	never	YouTube sets this cookie to store the user's video preferences using embedded YouTube videos.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	YouTube sets this cookie to register a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.
yt.innertube::requests	never	YouTube sets this cookie to register a unique ID to store data on what videos from YouTube the user has seen.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__Secure-YEC	1 year 1 month	Description is currently not available.
_cfuvid	session	Description is currently not available.
_pk_id.d014234b-506e-4c9f-8f74-9ecfcde5874f.838e	1 hour	Description is currently not available.
_pk_ses.d014234b-506e-4c9f-8f74-9ecfcde5874f.838e	1 hour	Description is currently not available.
cf_clearance	1 year	Description is currently not available.
ppms_privacy_d014234b-506e-4c9f-8f74-9ecfcde5874f	1 year	Description is currently not available.
VISITOR_PRIVACY_METADATA	6 months	Description is currently not available.