A literature review of research quality and effective practices in alternative education settings.
Subject:
Disabled students (Case studies)
Child welfare (Case studies)
Child psychopathology (Case studies)
Child psychopathology (Care and treatment)
Child psychopathology (Prevention)
Teachers (Case studies)
Health education (Case studies)
Children (Behavior)
Children (Case studies)
Authors:
Flower, Andrea
McDaniel, Sara C.
Jolivette, Kristine
Pub Date:
11/01/2011
Publication:
Name: Education & Treatment of Children Publisher: West Virginia University Press, University of West Virginia Audience: Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education; Family and marriage; Social sciences Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 West Virginia University Press, University of West Virginia ISSN: 0748-8491
Issue:
Date: Nov, 2011 Source Volume: 34 Source Issue: 4
Topic:
Event Code: 353 Product quality Canadian Subject Form: Child behaviour
Organization:
Government Agency: United States. Department of Education

Accession Number:
271811388
Full Text:
Abstract

Effective behavioral practices for students with emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD) are critical. Students with E/BD are often served in alternative education (AE) settings due to behavior that cannot be supported in a typical school setting or due to court adjudication based on delinquent activity. Like other settings for students with E/BD, AE programs must utilize effective intervention practices for students to get the most out of the program and make appropriate behavioral changes. This review examined the literature base of behavioral interventions implemented in AE settings from 1970-2010 to assess the inclusion of nine effective practices recommended for use in alternative settings (Tobin & Sprague, 2000; Nelson, Sprague, Jolivette, Smith, & Tobin, 2009). A total of 39 articles were identified and analyzed that met the study criteria. Results indicated that only 29 studies included any of the effective practices. Additionally, small class size was the most frequently noted effective practice. Finally, the quality of research concerning behavior in AE settings appears to be quite low. Implications of this study and directions for future research are presented.

Suspension, expulsion, academic failure, retention, and school dropout are common experiences of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (E/BD) (National Longitudinal Transition Study2 [NLTS2], 2004; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2003). In fact students with E/BD dropout of school at a higher rate than any other disability group (Wagner et al., 2003). Additionally, as indicated in the NLTS2, students with E/BD were suspended or expelled at least once in their school careers (Wagner & Cameto, 2004). However, the negative trajectory does not end there for many of these students; instead, many students with E/BD become adults who experience unemployment (Zigmond, 2006), substance abuse, and incarceration (Quinn & Poirer, 2004). This ongoing downward spiral suggests that evidence-based interventions are necessary to prevent such deleterious outcomes for these individuals. School may be the most logical and effective place in which to attempt to implement such interventions.

Like students in other disability groups, according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), students with E/BD are to receive education and needed services in the least restrictive environment (LRE). For some students with E/BD, due to their severe and challenging behaviors as well as other reasons, the LRE may be a setting other than a traditional public school, often referred to as an alternative education (AE) setting. Alternative education settings usually include self-contained schools, day treatment centers, residential facilities, and juvenile justice settings. For many of the students that enter AE settings, these institutions are thought to be a "last chance" educational experience. That is, these individuals require academic and behavioral instruction and supports in AE to improve their own life circumstances. Without effective service while in AE, these students may be most likely to continue on the path toward destructive school and life outcomes, upon leaving these institutions. Regardless of instructional setting, students with E/BD need to be afforded the same educational opportunities as their peers without disabilities (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Nelson, et al., 2009; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, Jolivette, Christie, & Riney, 2002). These educational opportunities include effective behavioral interventions and practices designed to teach, model, and reinforce alternative appropriate behaviors, which will improve the student's life circumstances.

In 2000, Tobin and Sprague identified eight practices intended to support students' appropriate behaviors. These practices may serve to prevent against the negative outcomes (e.g., suspension, expulsion, academic failure, dropout) often experienced by students with EBD. These practices, when implemented with fidelity, have the greatest positive impact on student academic and social performance (see Table 1). In addition, Nelson, Sprague, Jolivette, Smith, & Tobin (2009) suggested the use of the positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) framework in AE settings as a means to improve student academic and social behavior within a systems change approach.

Table 1. Effective Practices for Use in AE Settings

Effective Practice

1) Low student to teacher ratio

2) Highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management

3) Positive methods to increase appropriate behavior

4) School-based adult mentor

5) Functional behavioral assessment (FBA)

6) Social skills instruction

7) Effective academic instruction

8) Parent involvement

9) Positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)

Effective Practices

Through an exhaustive search and review of school-based interventions, Tobin and Sprague (2000) identified eight practices appropriate for use in AE settings with students with behavior disorders and/or antisocial behavior. Effective practice for AE settings is defined as a practice that is (a) applicable to students who are at-risk, (b) practical for implementation in a school setting, and (c) capable of producing convincing positive student outcomes. Each of these practices postulated by Tobin and Sprague (2000) is described below.

Lower student to teacher ratio. The first effective practice for students in AE settings is the use of lower student to teacher ratios than typically found in most general education classrooms. The intent of this practice is to provide more personal, individualized time for each student. It is presumed that this increase in individualized time will correspond to higher levels of school engagement, bonding, and commitment than what might be achieved in a more traditional setting. School bonding has been shown to promote healthy development and prevent problem behaviors (Catalano, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004), which given the high dropout rate of students with E/BD is especially important to encourage students to complete their high school programs. For this review, a ratio of less than 20 to 1 (Finn & Achilles, 1990) was identified as reduced class size. Even as the field moves away from the era of class size reduction, a ratio of 20:1 might still be found in a typical local school; therefore a low student to teacher ratio was defined as less than 20:1 for the purposes of this review.

Highly structured classroom. The second effective practice is a highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management where expectations and schedules are explicitly taught and reinforced. Students receive reinforcement contingent on displays of specific behavioral expectations making the inappropriate behavior irrelevant, ineffective, and inefficient. Within a highly structured classroom, prompting and corrective feedback are often temporarily needed until the students are able to self-manage their behavior.

Use of positive methods. Positive methods to encourage appropriate behavior are more effective than punitive measures to decrease inappropriate behavior (Mayer, 1995). For youth in AE settings, positive methods are likely to be much more effective at behavioral change as prior exclusionary practices have not successfully produced behavioral change. Positive methods may include behavior specific praise and group contingencies for appropriate behavior.

School-based adult mentor. In their observation study of classroom interactions of students with E/BD, Shores, Jack, Gunter, Ellis, DeBriere, & Wehby (1993) suggest that students with E/BD are not frequently acknowledged for appropriate behavior. Since students in AE settings are often those who are adjudicated or placed in alternative settings for exclusionary reasons, they are likely to have many such past experiences with teachers. Students in AE settings may benefit from a positive relationship with an adult at school. Over the past fifteen years, intervention studies concerning dropout prevention (e.g., Check & Connect; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003) have relied on a school-based adult mentor to facilitate school bonding and thereby prevent dropout. The mentor's responsibilities may include (a) listening, (b) helping the student to solve problems by providing ideas and strategies, and (c) observing, encouraging, and reinforcing appropriate behavior.

Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). Functional Behavioral Assessment is another effective practice suggested for use in AE settings. While FBA has become more commonly used since the 1990s, its foundation comes from the field of applied behavior analysis, which has been around since the late 1960s (Gresham, Watson, & Skinner, 2001). Since applied behavior analysis existed prior to the 1970s, FBA is included in this review as an effective practice for studies between 1970 and 2010.

Functional Behavioral Assessment refers to identifying antecedents and consequences for challenging and appropriate behavior such that individualized behavioral interventions can be developed, implemented, and monitored (O'Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1996). Students in AE settings are likely to benefit from the use of FBA as school personnel will have a greater understanding of the triggers and motivations for particular behaviors such that they will be able to make the problem behavior irrelevant, ineffective, and inefficient while making appropriate behavior much more relevant, effective, and efficient (O'Neill et al.) through changes in antecedents and consequences while teaching replacement behaviors.

Social skills instruction. Social skills instruction aims to remediate acquisition and performance deficits for students with behavior problems (Gresham, Cook, Crews, & Kern, 2004). Many students in AE settings may need to learn various social skills such as for: (a) classroom survival (e.g., following directions, asking a question, and dealing with a response of "No"), (b) friendship-making, (c) effective problem and conflict resolution, (d) alternatives to aggression, (e) management of anger, and (f) work-related skills.

High quality instruction. Academic instruction (e.g., academic remediation) is often necessary for students in AE settings. Compared to other disability groups, students with E/BD fail their courses at approximately double the rate (Wagner & Cameto, 2004). These students are likely to need additional academic intervention in reading, writing, math, social studies, and science delivered in small groups or individualized with many opportunities to practice new academic skills. Effective academic instruction in AE is necessary to ensure that students catch up or keep up with their same-grade peers in the typical school setting.

Parent involvement. Parents of students with problem behavior, including parents of students in AE, frequently receive negative feedback about their child's school performance, which may impact their interest in participating in their child's school experience. Parental involvement is a necessary practice including communication with school staff concerning student progress, participation in school activities, and participation in behavior intervention programming. Interventions that include parent involvement in positive ways are likely to have significant positive effects on students in AE.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). In addition to Tobin and Sprague's (2000) recommended effective practices, Nelson et al. (2009) suggested the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) for students in AE. Even though PBIS did not become an often-used practice until the mid-1990s, PBIS was included as an effective practice for this review since the foundation of PBIS includes most of the components suggested by Tobin and Sprague.

Positive behavioral interventions and supports is a three-tiered (universal, secondary, and tertiary tiers) framework for preventing and responding to challenging behavior by building an environment where there is a predictable structure and routine with reinforcement delivered contingent on student performance of desired behavior. The universal tier is designed to support the appropriate behavior of all students and would include Tobin and Sprague's (2000) effective practices of lower student to teacher ratios, positive philosophy, effective academic instruction, and parent involvement which can be utilized as practices for all students. The secondary tier offers more support and intervention for those students for whom the universal tier is not enough and may include several of the practices recommended by Tobin and Sprague (2000) such as social skills instruction, a school-based adult mentor, and highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management. Likewise, the tertiary tier is meant to provide even more individualized support and intervention for students, such as FBA. Within a PBIS framework, the intention is that the universal tier will prevent new instances of problem behavior. Interventions at the secondary tier are designed to prevent re-occurrence of problem behavior. Finally, the tertiary tier is meant to lessen the effects of a more severe chronic behavior pattern or problem.

Summary. These practices are critical for use in AE settings with students with E/BD. Students with E/BD have long histories of challenging behavior and poor outcomes (e.g., suspension, expulsion, retention, failure; Wagner et al., 2003) and these practices have been identified as those that are convincing of positive outcomes for this population. Research and practice must consider use of these practices with integrity.

Quality Indicators

Research and practice concerning students with E/BD in AE settings should make every attempt to incorporate as many of these effective practices as possible. However, it is not just about their inclusion but also rather about the quality of the study. Studies that include these practices must be judged for quality as well. In 2005, Exertional Children, a research journal regarding issues related to children with disabilities, published a series of articles which laid out quality indicators for research studies based on the research design used. For example, one of the articles in this series addressed the quality indicators of (a) experimental and quasi-experimental designs (Gersten, Fuchs, Compton, Coyne, Greenwood, & Innocenti, 2005), (b) single subject design (Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, & Wolery, 2005), and (c) qualitative design (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Quality indicators that were common across the design types were those such as sufficient information regarding participants, adequate information concerning the treatment condition, and measures and analysis appropriate for answering the research questions. The quality indicators also point to the importance of providing information about treatment integrity or fidelity. All students, including those with E/BD in AE settings, are entitled to practices based on quality research. Researchers have a responsibility to conduct quality research, including practices known to be effective, and clearly describe their work for dissemination purposes.

Students with E/BD in AE settings do not have time for interventions that do not incorporate identified effective practices described by quality research. The use of effective practices embedded within interventions that are implemented with quality and integrity is critical for students with challenging behaviors in AE as these students are already on a trajectory toward negative outcomes. The purpose of this review was to (a) examine the behavioral interventions used in AE settings for students with E/BD, (b) describe whether the eight effective practices and/or PBIS framework were incorporated into the behavioral interventions in AE settings, and (c) highlight levels of quality for the reviewed interventions.

Method

A comprehensive electronic search of the literature was completed using a combination of the following terms in PSYCHINFO, ERIC, and Academic Search Complete: emotional disturbance, behavior *, behavior * disorder, E/BD, intervention, program, alternative education, residential, juvenile justice, self-contained (* denotes use of word as root word). Once articles were identified, an ancestral hand-search was completed by examining the reference list of each article to identify any additional relevant articles. In addition, several journals, which also focus on AE and students with E/BD, were handsearched, including the journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Adolescence, Behavioral Disorders, and Education and Treatment of Children. Then, the abstract and methods sections of each article was read for adherence to the inclusion criteria: (a) article in a peer-reviewed journal as a measure of quality, (b) published between 1970 and 2010, (c) conducted with students in an AE setting which was defined as a setting that is not on a typical public school campus. Alternative education settings may include juvenile justice facilities, residential facilities including hospitals, as well as alternative schools (schools students are sent to due to challenging behaviors and problems) (d) conducted with students ages 6-21, (e) independent variable aimed to change student behavior, (f) included at least one dependent variable that measured behavioral outcomes, and (g) was written in English. Of the 84 articles initially identified, 59 articles appeared to meet the criteria for inclusion. During article coding, these 59 articles were further examined for adherence to the inclusion criteria.

Article Coding

Each of the 59 articles were coded for specific data related to the research questions. Information coded included (a) research questions; (b) design; (c) AE setting; (d) participant information (i.e., age(s), grade level(s), and disability classification); (e) independent variable; (f) dependent variable; (g) inclusion of effective practices (Tobin & Sprague, 2000); (h) inclusion of PBIS framework; and (i) whether or not quality indicators were met. After each article was coded, a random sampling of 20% of the articles was selected, and independently coded by either the first or second author for reliability. Since the foci for this study were the effective practices used in interventions in AE and the quality of research concerning this topic, reliability was calculated for each practice within the effective practice variable and for each design within the quality variable. For all practices and quality of design, point-by-point reliability was calculated using the formula Agreements/(Agreements + Disagreements) x 100%. The overall mean reliability score for the eight effective practices was 95.89% (range, 63% to 100%). The reliability across each effective practice was scored as either an agreement or disagreement. The total number of articles on which there was agreement divided by the sum of the agreements plus disagreements x 100% provided a reliability score for each practice. This means that for the practices that did not have 100% agreement, the range was 0% (disagreed about inclusion ) to 100% (agreed about inclusion). Reliability scores for each practice were as follows across the 20% of randomly selected studies (a) low student to teacher ratio M = 75%; (b) structured classroom with behavioral classroom management M = 75%; (c) positive rather than punitive approach to behavior management M = 75%; (d) effective academic instruction M = 75%; and (e) school-based mentor, functional behavioral assessment, social skills, and PBIS with a M= 100%. The overall mean reliability score for quality indicators was 100%. The point-by-point reliability scores on the quality indicator variables were as follows: experimental/quasi-experimental (group) and single subject designs M = 100% and qualitative design M = 80%.

Data Analysis

The study was counted as containing a particular effective practice if the research article specifically indicated the practice. For example, a study was counted as having a low teacher to student ratio if the study specifically indicated a ratio of less than 20:1 (see explanation above). A study was counted as meeting a particular quality indicator if the information could be ascertained from the article. For example, if information pertaining to social validity was not indicated in a research article describing a study with a single subject design, the researchers coded the study as not addressing social validity.

Results

At the outset of the article analyses 59 articles appeared to fit the criteria for inclusion in the study. However, once the analyses were complete it was determined that 20 articles did not actually meet the criteria for inclusion. These 20 articles were excluded primarily because the intervention setting was not an alternative education setting but rather a home or family based program or a clinical program without educational intent. An additional reason for exclusion was that the article did not describe a study with a dependent variable but rather described a program model. The final pool of articles consisted of 39 studies, which were analyzed for inclusion of the identified effective practices and quality indicators. Twenty-one studies used experimental/quasi-experimental designs, 17 studies used single-subject designs, and 1 study used a qualitative design. Most studies addressed youth in the adolescent age range with E/BD or related psychological problems educated in residential facilities, juvenile justice facilities, or alternative schools. The majority of studies addressed the use of anger management, self-monitoring, or social skills intervention to change externalizing or internalizing behavior, time on-task, or aggressive verbal or physical behavior.

Effective Practices

A wide body of research has focused on behavioral interventions in AE settings. This review focused on the analysis of nine effective practices and design quality indicators of these interventions. The results of this review indicate that of the 39 studies identified for inclusion, 29 studies incorporated between one and four effective practices while 10 studies did not incorporate any of the effective practices identified for AE settings, and none included five or more effective practices

Low student to teacher ratio. A low student to teacher ratio was by far the most often utilized practice - 20 out of 39 studies. Small class size was the effective practice noted in five of the seven studies that contained just one effective practice. Small class size was also often implemented alongside positive philosophy (n = 9), academic instruction (n = 6), structured classroom management (n = 4), social skills (n = 3), school-based adult mentor (n = 2), family/parent collaboration (n = 2). Small class size was not a noted practice used in conjunction with function-based interventions or PBIS.

Highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management. Approximately one fourth (n = 10) of the studies described interventions that involved highly structured classrooms with behavioral classroom management. This practice was most frequently included along with a positive emphasis in behavior management (n = 5), effective academic instruction (n = 3), social skills (n = 2), and PBIS (n = 2).

Positive methods. Most studies, 11 out of 39, contained language to indicate a positive philosophy and approach to behavior management rather than a punitive one. This practice was most often noted to occur with social skills instruction (n = 3), effective academic instruction (n = 3), and PBIS (n - 2). No studies demonstrated inclusion of a positive philosophy and function-based intervention or parent/family collaboration.

School-based adult mentor. Five studies indicated the incorporation of a school-based mentor in the intervention but it was somewhat unclear in one of the studies as to whether or not an adult mentor at school was present. In this case it was a Child Care Officer employed at a residential treatment program who apparently interacted with students at school as well. Two studies that included an adult mentor at school also addressed parent/family collaboration.

Functional Behavioral Assessment. Only one of the 39 studies included functional behavioral assessment as a component within the intervention. This study also included the practice of a highly structured classroom and behavioral classroom management.

Social skills instruction. Social skills instruction and activities were included in five of the studies. In addition to the other practices identified above, social skills activities were also included in conjunction with PBIS in one study.

High quality academic instruction. High quality academic instruction was a component in five studies. Beyond the other practices discussed above, high quality academic instruction was not included in any study addressing parent/family collaboration or PBIS.

Parent involvement. Parent involvement was a component in three studies. Beyond the components discussed above, parent involvement was not a component used in conjunction with any other practice. However, all three studies that included parent involvement included small class size as a component and two of the three included a school-based mentor.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Positive behavioral interventions and supports was implemented as a practice in two studies and was included in two studies that also included the practices of highly structured classroom and behavioral classroom management and a positive philosophy concerning behavior management. One of these two studies incorporated the practice of social skills instruction and activities.

Quality Indicators

In addition to the inclusion of effective practices, each study that had an experimental/quasi-experimental single subject, or qualitative research design (descriptive studies were excluded due to a lack of indicators for descriptive studies) was evaluated in terms of quality. Thus, each of the 29 studies that contained at least one effective practice were evaluated for quality as defined by the quality indicators established by the work of various researchers who published a series of articles in 2005 in Exceptional Children. The results revealed that the mean quality score across all design types was M = 68.73% (range, 44.38 to 80.94%) with the following averages by design: experimental/ quasi-experimental - 45.23% (n - 21: range, 12.5% to 62.5%); single subject - 80.94% (n = 17; range, 38.1% to 100%); and qualitative - 80% (n = 1). Only about a quarter of these studies had a score of 90% or above on the quality indicators while over half had a score of 70% or below. Seven studies met 90% or more of the quality indicators, three studies met 80% - 89% of the quality indicators, five studies met 70% -79% of the quality indicators, and 24 studies met less than 70% of the quality indicators. See Table 2 for a summary of these results. Overall, single subject studies appeared to have the highest level of quality with 14 of the 17 single subject studies scoring at or above the 70% level.

Discussion

As educators, if our interest is in providing effective instruction for students, we must be concerned about including effective practices into our interventions. Even though academic instruction is commonly held to be the primary responsibility of teachers and schools - emotional, social, and behavioral instruction and support also are necessary practices in the development of the whole-student (Noddings, 2005). For students who are at-risk for or have E/BD, Tobin and Sprague (2000) define effective practice as applicable, practical, and convincing, resulting in positive outcomes. Using this definition and their extensive review of the research, Tobin and Sprague (2000) suggested eight practices (low student to teacher ratio, highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management, positive rather than punitive approach to behavior management, school-based mentor, functional behavioral assessment, social skills, effective academic instruction and parent collaboration) while Nelson et al. (2009) also suggested the inclusion of PBIS as effective practice with students who are at-risk and have E/BD in AE settings.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the use of these effective practices and PBIS within interventions for students in AE settings including those with E/BD. Overall, it appears that these specific effective practices are not included in interventions for students in AE settings as often as they should be. In fact the inclusion of these practices was remarkably limited.

Of several thousand published articles examining behavioral interventions very few were conducted within AE settings. In general, the research pertaining to AE settings is overwhelmingly sparse even though in 2000 more than 680,000 students were enrolled in AE settings and 12% of these students were students with Individualized Education Programs, largely due to E/BD and LD (Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002). The minimal inclusion of these effective practices is an unfortunate finding alongside the dismal percentages of quality in these interventions; such findings have implications for practice and research areas for students with E/BD in AE settings.

Implications for Practice in AE Settings for Students with E/BD

By the time that students are placed in AE settings, especially students with E/BD, it is likely that they have experienced a significant level of failure, exclusion, and punitive measures. Without the use of effective practices and PBIS, successful outcomes for students in AE settings may become less likely. Alternative education settings and teachers must consider implementation of PBIS systems, which offer an approach to include all of the effective practices identified by Tobin and Sprague (2000). Even if a system of PBIS is not possible for a particular AE setting, teachers must use practices that are positive in order to help students learn to use more appropriate behavior while decreasing inappropriate behavior. Teachers must also insist on providing quality academic instruction in these settings. These are "last chance" environments; students must have opportunities to make positive school and life changes while enrolled in these programs. It does not matter where a student with E/BD receives their education they must have access to research-based academic and behavioral instruction and supports that are implemented with integrity to make the necessary changes to improve their own life circumstances.

The limited use of effective practice identified in studies of interventions in AE is disappointing. Unfortunately, given the lack of effective practice, the trajectory of poor outcomes for youth with E/ BD is unsurprising. However, the present status of interventions and practice for youth with E/BD in AE does not have to continue indefinitely. We know the degree to which we are already implementing effective practice. This knowledge should guide our future efforts and as a field we must work to consistently implement and utilize a greater number of effective practices implemented with fidelity with high quality designs for youth with E/BD in AE settings in an effort to improve the life outcomes of these individuals.

Limitations

While the results of this review suggest that the nine effective practices are used far too infrequently, there are limitations to this review, which should be addressed. First, this review was completely reliant on already published research concerning interventions implemented in AE settings. Given recent presentations at national E/BD and PBIS conferences by various researchers on their current research, it is likely that many studies are in the written preparation or under review journal stages. Additionally, the focus of this review is the effective practices as indicated by Tobin and Sprague (2009). However, Tobin and Sprague did not expound on the how the various practices were selected. For example, what is "convincing evidence of a positive outcome"? Second, a study was coded only if a particular effective practice was explicitly mentioned. While this may be an artifact of our coding system and method, it is important to recognize that research must thoroughly describe the method, procedures, and critical features of the intervention and research for replication and use in practice. Third, our definition of AE settings was limiting, as we did not include studies that involved interventions outside of a setting with educational intent (e.g., we did not include home based interventions).

Future Areas for Research

Researchers should continue to address effective practices within interventions implemented in AE settings. This means that the identified effective practices and PBIS should be incorporated into AE setting intervention research. Since the three tiered system of PBIS includes all of the effective practices identified by Tobin and Sprague (2000) future researchers should investigate the use of PBIS within AE settings for youth with or at-risk for E/BD. Further future research should consider the outcomes achieved with the interventions reviewed here. This might help to validate Tobin and Sprague's (2001) effective practices. Finally, research might also investigate the number of effective practices required within an intervention in order to affect change.

Conclusion

Research and practice have significant work to do in an effort to improve the educational programming of youth in AE settings. We must put our best attempt forward if we expect to accomplish our goal of improving the life outcomes of individuals in AE settings with E/ BD. We must continue to focus on effective practices and quality work in AE settings.

References

References with an asterisk (*) were included in the review.

* Apsche, J. A., & Bass, C. K. (2006). A review and empirical comparison of three treatments for adolescent makes with conduct and personality disorder: Mode deactivation therapy, cognitive behavior therapy, and social skills training. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation Therapy, 2, 382-398.

* Apsche, J. A., Bass, C. K., Jennings, J. L., & Siv, A. M. (2005). A review and empirical comparison of two treatments for adolescent males with conduct and personality disorder: Mode deactivation therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 1, 27-45.

* Apsche, J. A., Bass, C. K, & Siv, A. M. (2006). A treatment study of suicidal adolescent with personality disorder or traits: Mode deactivation therapy as compared to treatment as usual. International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy, 2, 215-223.

* Apsche, J. A., Bass, C. K., Siv, A. M., & Matteson, S. C. (2005). An empirical "real world" comparison of two treatments with aggressive adolescent males. International journal of Behavioral Consultation Therapy, 1, 239-251.

* Apsche, J. A., Bass, C K., Zeiter, S., & Houston, M. A. (2008). Family mode deactivation therapy in a residential setting: Treating adolescents with conduct disorder and multi-axial diagnosis. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 328-339.

* Axelrod, M. I., Zhe, E. J., Haugen, K. A., & Klein, J. A. (2009). Self-management of on-task homework behavior: A promising strategy for adolescents with attention and behavior problems. School Psychology Review, 38, 325-333.

* Bowers, F. E., Jensen, M. E., Cook, C. R., McEachern, A. D., & Snyder, T. (2008). Improving the social status of peer-rejected youth with disabilities: Extending the research on positive peer-reporting. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4(3), 230-246.

Brantlinger, Ev Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 195-207.

* Brown, N., & Green, Z. (1986). Behavioural intervention in a residential special school: A case study. Maladjustment & Therapeutic Education, 4, 36-46.

* Carswell, S. B., & Hanlon, T. E. (2009). A preventive intervention program for urban African American youth attending an alternative education program: Background, implementation, and feasibility. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 445-469.

* Catalano, R. F., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings

from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252-261.

* Cook, E. C. (2008). Residential wilderness programs: The role of social support in influencing self-evaluations of male adolescents, Adolescence, 43, 751-774,

* Cox, S. M. (1999). An assessment of alternative education program for at-risk delinquent youth. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 323-335.

* Crespi, T. D. (1988). Effectivenes of time-out: A comparison of psychiatric, correctional and day treatment programs. Adolescence, 23,805-811.

* Dawson, C. (2003). A study on the effectiveness of the life space crisis intervention for students with emotional disturbance. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 11(4), 223-230.

* DeFuccio, M. A., Kuhn, D., Udell, W., & Callender, K. (2009). Developing argument skills in severely disadvantages adolescent males in a residential correctional setting. Applied Developmental Science, 13(1), 30-41.

* D'Oosterlinck, F. D., Goethals, I., Boekaert, E, Schuyten, G., & De Maeyer, J. (2008). Implementation and effect of life space crisis intervention in special schools with residential treatment for students with Emotional and Behavior Disorders (EBD). Psychiatry Quarterly, 79, 65-79,

* Ducharme, J. M., & Harris, K. E. (2005). Errorless embedding for children with on-task and conduct difficulties: Rapport-based, success-focused intervention in the classroom. Behavior Therapy, 36, 213-222.

* Ervin, R. A., Miller, P. M., & Friman, P. C. (1996). Feed the hungry bee: Using positive peer reports to improve the social interactions and acceptance of a socially rejected girl in residential care. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 251-253.

Finn, J. D., & Achilles C. M. (1990, Fall). Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557-577.

* Gaines, T., & Barry, L. M. (2008). The effect of a self-monitored relaxation breathing exercise on male adolescent aggressive behavior. Adolescence, 43, 291-302.

* Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M, Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149-164.

* Gibbs, A., Moor, S., Frampton, C., & Watkins, W. (2008). Impact of psychosocial interventions on children with disruptive and emotional disorders treated in a health camp. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 789-799.

Gresham, F. M., Cook, C. R., Crews, S. D., & Kern, L. (2004). Social skills training for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: Validity considerations and future directions. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 32-46.

* Gurney, P. W. (1987). Enhancing self-esteem by the use of behavior modification techniques. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 30-40.

Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavior assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30,156-172.

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.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEIA1, H.R. 1350, 108th Cong. (2004).

Jolivette, Kv & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Adapting positive behavioral interventions and supports for secure juvenile justice settings: Improving facility-wide behavior. Behavioral Disorders. 36, 28-42.

* Kalke, T., Glanton, A., & Cristalli, M. (2007). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: Using strength-based approaches to enhance the culture of care in residential and day treatment education environments. Child Welfare, 86,151-174.

* Kaufman, K. F., & O'Leary, D. (1972). Reward, cost, and self-evaluation procedures for disruptive adolescents in a psychiatric hospital school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 293-309.

* Kellner, M. H., & Bry, B. H. (1999). The effects of anger management groups in a day school for emotionally disturbed adolescents. Adolescence, 34, 645-651.

* Kennedy, C. & Jolivette, K. (2008). The effects of positive verbal reinforcement on time spent outside the classroom for students with emotional and behavioral disorders in a residential setting. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 211-221.

Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure: 2000-01 (NCES 2002-004). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.

* McCarty, T., Griffin, S., Apolloni, T, & Shores, R. (1977). Increased peer-teaching with group-oriented contingencies for arithmetic performance in behavior-disordered adolescents, journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 313.

Nelson, C. M, Sprague, J. Rv Jolivette, K., Smith, C. R., & Tobin, T. J. (2009). Positive behavior support in alternative education, community-based mental health and juvenile justice settings. In G. Sugai, R. Homer, G. Dunlap, and W. Sailor (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 465-496). New York, NY: Springer.

Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership, 63, 8-13.

* Ogier, R., & Hornby, G. (1996). Effects of differential reinforcement on the behavior and self-esteem of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 501-510.

O'Neill, R. E., Horner, R. R, Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1996). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing.

Quinn, M M., & Poirer, J. M. (2004). Linking prevention research with policy: Examining costs and outcomes of the failure to prevent emotional and behavioral disorders. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders. New York, NY: Guilford.

* Ramsey, M. L., Jolivette, K., Patterson, D. P., & Kennedy, C. (2010). Using choice to increase time on-task, task-completion, and accuracy for students with emotional/behavioral disorders in a residential facility. Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 1-21.

* Rasmussen, K., & O'Neill, R. E. (2006). The effects of fixed-time reinforcement schedules on problem behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders in a day-treatment classroom setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 453-457.

* Rickson, D. J., & Watkins, W. G. (2003). Music therapy to promote prosocial behaviors in aggressive adolescent boys - A pilot study. Journal of Music Therapy, 40, 283-301.

* Russell, K.C. (2006). Evaluating the effects of the Wendigo Lake Expedition Program on young offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4,185-203.

* Santogrossi, D. A., O'Leary, K. D., Romanczyk, R. G., & Kaufman, K. F. (1973). Self-evaluation by adolescents in a psychiatric hospital school token program. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 277-287.

* Schoenfeld, N. A., & Mathur, S. R. (2009). Effects of cognitive-behavioral intervention on the school performance of students with emotional or behavioral disorders and anxiety. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 184-195.

Scott, T. Mv Liaupsin, C. J., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., Christie, C. A., & Riney, M. (2002). Addressing the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth through positive behavior support: Effective prevention practices. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 532-551.

* Simonsen, B., Britton, L., & Young, D. (2010). School-wide positive behavior support in an alternative school setting: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 180-191.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. California School Psychologist, 8, 29-34.

* Stage, S. A. (1997). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between in-school suspension and the disruptive classroom behavior of students with behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 57-76.

* Stahr, B., Cushing, D., Lane, K., & Fox, J. (2006). Efficacy of a function-based intervention in decreasing off-task behavior exhibited by a student with ADHD. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 201-211.

* Swartz, S. L., & Benjamin, C. (1983). The use of time-out in a residential treatment program for emotionally disturbed children. Residential Group Care & Treatment, 1, 29-40.

Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (2000). Alternative education strategies: Reducing violence in school and the community, journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 177-186.

Wagner, M., & Cameto, R. (2004). The characteristics, experiences, and outcomes of youth with Emotional Disturbance. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1687.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C. (2003). Going to School: Instructional Contexts, Programs, and Participation of Secondary School Students With Disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_12/index.html.

* Warrenfeltz, R. B., Kelly, W. J., Salzberg, C. J., Beegle, C. P., Levy, S. M., Adams, T. A., & Crouse, T. R. (1981). Social skills training of behavior disordered adolescents with self-monitoring to promote generalization to a vocational setting. Behavioral Disorders, 7,18-27.

* Weis, R., Wilson, N. L., & Whitemarsh, S. M. (2005). Evaluation of a voluntary, military-style residential treatment program for adolescents with academic and conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 692-705.

* Wolf, E. M., & Wolf, D. A. (2008). Mixed results in a transitional planning program for alternative school students. Evaluation Review, 32, 187-215.

Zigmond, N. (2006). Twenty-four months after high school: Paths taken by youth diagnosed with severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behai'ioral Disorders, 14, 99-107.

Andrea Flower The University of Texas at Austin Sara C. McDaniel The University of Alabama Kristine Jolivette Georgia State University

Correspondence to Sara McDaniel, The University of Alabama, Department of Special Education and Multiple Abilities, 225 Graves Hall, P.O. Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487; e-mail: smcdaniel@bamaed.ua.edu.
Table 2 Effective Practices and Quality

Citation         Design 1            % Adherence  1  2  3  4
                                      to Quality
                                      Indicators

Apsche, J. A.,   Experimental/             37.5%  Y  N  N  N
& Bass, C. K.    quasi-experimental
(2006)

Apsche, 1. A.    Experimental/             12.5%  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K.,     quasi-experimental
Jennings, J.
L., & Siv, A.
M.
(2005)

Apsche, J. A.,   Experimental/               50%  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K., &   quasi-experimental
Siv, A. M.
(2006)

Apsche, J. A.,   Experimental/               25%  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K.,     quasi-experimenta
Siv, A. M., &
Matteson, S.
C.
(2005)

Apsche, J. A.,   Experimental/             62.5%  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K.,     quasi-experimental
Zeiter, S. &
Houston, M A.
(2008)

Axelrod, M. I.,  SS
Zhe, E. J.,
Haugen, K. A.,
& Klein, J. A.
(2009)                                     85.7%  N  N  N  N

Bowers, F. E.,   SS                        71.4%  N  N  Y  N
Jensen, M E.,
Cook, C. R.,
McEachern, A.

D., & Snyder,    SS                        76.2%  N  Y  Y  Y
T. (2008)
Brown, N., &
Green, Z.
(1986)

Carswell, S.     Experimental/               50%  Y  N  N  Y
B., & Hanlon,    quasi-experimental
T. E. (2009)

Cook, E. C       Qualitative                 80%  N  Y  N  N
(2008)

Cox, S. M.       Experimental/               50%  N  N  N  N
(1999)           quasi-experimental

Crespi, T. D.,   Descriptive                 N/A  N  N  N  N
(1988)

D'Oosterlinck,   Experimental/               50%  Y  N  N  Y
F. D.,           quasi-experimental
Goethals, L,
Boekaert, E.,
Schuyten,
G., & De
Maeyer, J.
(2008)

Dawson, C.       Experimental/             62.5%  Y  Y  Y  N
(2003)           quasi-experimental

DeFuccio, M.     Experimental/             62.5%  Y  N  N  N
A., Kuhn, D.,    quasi-experimental
Udell, Wv &
Callender, K.
(2009)

Ducharme, J.     SS                        90.5%  Y  Y  Y  N
M., & Harris,
K. E. (2005)

Ervin, R. A.,    SS                        71.4%  N  N  N  N
Miller, P. M.,
& Friman, P. C.
(1996)

Gaines, T., &    SS                        61.9%  N  N  N  N
Barry, L. M.
(2008)

Gibbs, A.,       Experimental/             37.5%  N  N  N  N
Moor, S.,        quasi-experimental
Frampton, C., &
Watkins, W.
(2008)

Gurney, P.W.     Experimental/               50%  Y  N  Y  N
(1987)           quasi-experimental

Kalke, T.,       Experimental/             62.5%  N  Y  Y  N
Glanton, A., &   quasi-experimental
Cristalli, M.
(2007)

Kaufman, K. F.,  SS                        90.4%  Y  N  N  N
& O'Leary, D.
(1972)

Kellner, M. H.,  Experimental/             62.5%  N  N  N  N
& Bry, B. H.     quasi-experimental
(1999)

Kennedy, C. &    SS                         100%  N  N  Y  N
Jolivette, K.
(2008)

McCarty, T.,     SS                        38.1%  Y  N  N  N
Griffin, S.,
Apolloni, T., &
Shores, R.
(1977)

Ogier, R., &     SS                       85.75%  Y  N  N  N
Hornby, G.
(1996)

Ramsey, M. L.,   SS                         100%  Y  N  N  N
Jolivette, K.,
Patterson, D.
P., & Kennedy,
C. (2010)

Rasmussen, K.,   SS                        95.2%  Y  N  Y  N
& O'Neill, R.
E. (2006)

Rickson, D. J.,  Experimental/             37.5%  Y  N  N  N
& Watkins, W.    quasi-experimental
G. (2003)

Russell, K. C.   Experimental/             62.5%  Y  N  N  N
(2006)           quasi-experimental

Santogrossi, D.  SS                        76.2%  Y  Y  N  N
A., O'Leary, K.
D., Romanczyk,
R. G., &

Kaufman, K. F.
(1973)

Schoenfeld, N.   SS                         100%  Y  N  N  N
A., & Mathur,
S. R. (2009)

Simonsen, B.,    SS                        61.9%  N  Y  Y  N
Britton, L., &
Young, D.
(2010)

Stahr, B.,       SS                        95.2%  N  Y  N  N
Cushing, D.,
Lane, K., &
Fox, J. (2006)

Stage, S. A.     Experimental/             62.5%  Y  Y  Y  N
(1997)           quasi-experimental

Swartz, S. L.,   Experimental/             37.5%  Y  N  N  N
& Benjamin, C.   quasi-experimental
(1983)

Warrenfeltz, R.  SS                        76.2%  Y  N  Y  N
B., Kelly, W.
J., Salzberg, C
J., Beegle, C.
P.,

Levy, S. M.,
Adams, T. A., &
Crouse, T. R.
(1981)

Weis, R.,        Experimental/             37.5%  N  Y  N  Y
Wilson, N. L.,   quasi-experimental
& Whitemarsh,
S. M. (2005)

Wolf, E. M., &   Experimental/             12.5%  Y  N  N  Y
Wolf, D. A.      quasi-experimental
(2008)

Citation         5  6  7  8  9

Apsche, J. A.,   N  Y  N  N  N
& Bass, C. K.
(2006)

Apsche, 1. A.    N  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K.,
Jennings, J.
L., & Siv, A.
M.
(2005)

Apsche, J. A.,   N  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K., &
Siv, A. M.
(2006)

Apsche, J. A.,   N  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K.,
Siv, A. M., &
Matteson, S.
C.
(2005)

Apsche, J. A.,   N  N  N  N  N
Bass, C. K.,
Zeiter, S. &
Houston, M A.
(2008)

Axelrod, M. I.,  N  N  N  N  N
Zhe, E. J.,
Haugen, K. A.,
& Klein, J. A.
(2009)

Bowers, F. E.,   N  N  N  N  N
Jensen, M E.,
Cook, C. R.,
McEachern, A.

D., & Snyder,    N  N  N  N  N
T. (2008)
Brown, N., &
Green, Z.
(1986)

Carswell, S.     N  N  N  Y  N
B., & Hanlon,
T. E. (2009)

Cook, E. C       N  Y  N  Y  N
(2008)

Cox, S. M.       N  N  N  N  N
(1999)

Crespi, T. D.,   N  N  N  N  N
(1988)

D'Oosterlinck,   N  N  N  N  N
F. D.,
Goethals, L,
Boekaert, E.,
Schuyten,

G., & De
Maeyer, J.
(2008)

Dawson, C.       N  N  N  N  N
(2003)

DeFuccio, M.     N  N  N  N  N
A., Kuhn, D.,
Udell, Wv &
Callender, K.
(2009)

Ducharme, J.     N  N  Y  N  N
M., & Harris,
K. E. (2005)

Ervin, R. A.,    N  N  N  N  N
Miller, P. M.,
& Friman, P. C.
(1996)

Gaines, T., &    N  N  N  N  N
Barry, L. M.
(2008)

Gibbs, A.,       N  N  N  N  N
Moor, S.,
Frampton, C., &
Watkins, W.
(2008)

Gurney, P.W.     N  N  Y  N  N
(1987)

Kalke, T.,       N  N  N  N  Y
Glanton, A., &
Cristalli, M.
(2007)

Kaufman, K. F.,  N  N  N  N  N
& O'Leary, D.
(1972)

Kellner, M. H.,  N  Y  N  N  N
& Bry, B. H.
(1999)

Kennedy, C. &    N  N  N  N  N
Jolivette, K.
(2008)

McCarty, T.,     N  N  Y  N  N
Griffin, S.,
Apolloni, T., &
Shores, R.
(1977)

Ogier, R., &     N  N  N  N  N
Hornby, G.
(1996)

Ramsey, M. L.,   N  N  N  N  N
Jolivette, K.,
Patterson, D.
P., & Kennedy,
C. (2010)

Rasmussen, K.,   N  N  N  N  N
& O'Neill, R.
E. (2006)

Rickson, D. J.,  N  N  N  N  N
& Watkins, W.
G. (2003)

Russell, K. C.   N  N  N  N  N
(2006)

Santogrossi, D.  N  N  Y  N  N
A., O'Leary, K.
D., Romanczyk,
R. G., &

Kaufman, K. F.
(1973)

Schoenfeld, N.   N  N  N  N  N
A., & Mathur,
S. R. (2009)

Simonsen, B.,    N  Y  N  N  Y
Britton, L., &
Young, D.
(2010)

Stahr, B.,       Y  N  N  N  N
Cushing, D.,
Lane, K., &
Fox, J. (2006)

Stage, S. A.     N  N  N  N  N
(1997)

Swartz, S. L.,   N  N  N  N  N
& Benjamin, C.
(1983)

Warrenfeltz, R.  N  Y  N  N  N
B., Kelly, W.
J., Salzberg, C
J., Beegle, C.
P.,

Levy, S. M.,
Adams, T. A., &
Crouse, T. R.
(1981)

Weis, R.,        N  N  Y  N  N
Wilson, N. L.,
& Whitemarsh,
S. M. (2005)

Wolf, E. M., &   N  N  N  Y  N
Wolf, D. A.
(2008)
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.