View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Implementation of Paraprofessional Behavior Support Coaching: A Study of Behavior Concerns and Interventions Used in Elementary Schools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Implementation of Paraprofessional Behavior Support Coaching: A Study of Behavior Concerns and Interventions Used in Elementary Schools
Language: English
Authors: Joelle Fingerhut (ORCID 0000-0002-8237-7578), Linda A. Reddy (ORCID 0000-0001-8314-2810), Adam Lekwa, Christopher Dudek (ORCID 0000-0002-8338-4489)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2024 61(9):3840-3854.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2024
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R324A170069
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Coaching (Performance), Paraprofessional School Personnel, Student Behavior, Behavior Problems, Intervention, Program Effectiveness, Elementary School Students, Evidence Based Practice
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23256
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: Limited research has been conducted on coaching of paraprofessionals who serve students with disruptive behaviors. This study builds upon a randomized controlled trial investigating the intervention effects of the Behavior Support Coaching for Paraprofessionals model by examining the specific behavior concerns, coaching goals, and interventions used during behavior support coaching implementation. This study consists of 83 elementary school paraprofessionals who received behavior support coaching and served 163 elementary school students from 27 schools. Behavior support coaches used observational data to identify student behavior needs, set goals, prioritize intervention supports, and monitor progress toward goals. Results revealed inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors were most often targeted as behavior goals. Coaches and paraprofessionals and classroom teachers utilized a broad range of research-based behavior interventions, with token economy and behavioral contract most often implemented. Results indicated significant change in observed student nonengagement and inappropriate physical behaviors when these are targeted as behavior goals. Implications of these findings for research and school practice are presented.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1434031
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGjBNUzJc_8gjNIFrZbvNL7AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDECZ8fWLoHAOXyalfAIBEICBmooMkEuKCHRCfnJxRQY2EgfnFbi2eTlFoWxPYprwb0NkMSyzMh9zrrwXp6EUYkgq3mwDzcUhb0xJICEn_7TnGLiU-8xx90XIKgtNoKJNItEMlTAMYPQ2cTTDHUc8v_6keh4PbgHR_PsGkuAtlFajszbKlv7o7IRugA8HQ82VV3Cf1iz3O3sZQP2_cxtGr6UYdis-JxXwRr_5UZ8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178814807;pis01sep.24;2024Aug06.05:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178814807-1">Implementation of paraprofessional behavior support coaching: A study of behavior concerns and interventions used in elementary schools </title> <p>Limited research has been conducted on coaching of paraprofessionals who serve students with disruptive behaviors. This study builds upon a randomized controlled trial investigating the intervention effects of the Behavior Support Coaching for Paraprofessionals model by examining the specific behavior concerns, coaching goals, and interventions used during behavior support coaching implementation. This study consists of 83 elementary school paraprofessionals who received behavior support coaching and served 163 elementary school students from 27 schools. Behavior support coaches used observational data to identify student behavior needs, set goals, prioritize intervention supports, and monitor progress toward goals. Results revealed inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors were most often targeted as behavior goals. Coaches and paraprofessionals and classroom teachers utilized a broad range of research‐based behavior interventions, with token economy and behavioral contract most often implemented. Results indicated significant change in observed student nonengagement and inappropriate physical behaviors when these are targeted as behavior goals. Implications of these findings for research and school practice are presented.</p> <p>Practitioner Points: Token economy, behavioral contract, and response cost raffle are popular behavioral interventions used with children who have or are at risk of developing disruptive behavior disorder.Aligning a behavior intervention to a specific behavior goal makes it more likely that the intervention will be effective.However, intervention effects can also generalize to behaviors that are not targeted in a behavior goal, showing "carryover effects."</p> <p>Keywords: behavior interventions; coaching; disruptive behavior disorders; paraprofessionals; teachers</p> <p>Students with and at risk for disruptive behavior disorders often display a range of behaviors and/or learning difficulties in schools, posing unique challenges for classroom paraprofessionals and teachers. These challenging behaviors can have a wide range of topographies, including inappropriate physical behaviors (e.g., kicking, punching, etc.), inappropriate verbal behaviors (e.g., yelling, talking out of turn/without raising hand, etc.), noncompliance (e.g., not doing what is asked of them), and off‐task behaviors such as fidgeting and daydreaming (Westling, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref1">58</reflink>]). Students with disruptive behaviors are often at risk of school dropout, drug use, driving accidents, and unemployment (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref2">56</reflink>]). Negative outcomes for these youth are disproportionately higher for those living in high‐poverty areas (e.g., Duan & Zhu, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]; Tetreault et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref4">55</reflink>]). These findings highlight the importance of implementing evidence‐based behavioral interventions to meet the needs of these students in schools, as evidence‐based practices link research and practice together and reduce the time spent using ineffective practices and finding effective practices through trial and error. Educators who work with students with and at risk of disruptive behavior disorders can be coached to as to set behavioral goals that are tailored to student's needs, and implement behavioral interventions with fidelity.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-2">IMPORTANCE OF GOAL SETTING FOR BEHAVIOR CHANGE</hd> <p>Research has found goal setting to be a key component for effective behavioral interventions (Cleary & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>]). Goal setting is recommended to create meaningful change; research has demonstrated the importance of goal setting in fields such as education (e.g., Bahry et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]; Locke & Latham, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]), biodiversity (Diaz et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]), and sport and exercise psychology (Williamson et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref9">61</reflink>]). Education policy requires the development of individualized goals; for example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) section 300.320(a)(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>)(i‐ii) indicates that an Individualized Education Plan must include measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals that meet the needs of the individual child. Furthermore, to establish a measurable goal, the target behavior needs to be defined, along with baseline performance (Bailey & Weingarten, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). Examples of behavior‐specific and measurable goals include "Zachary will stay on task (defined as 'eyes on teacher') during gym for 75% of class time (40 minutes) by February 15" or "Allison will display appropriate physical behavior (defined as keeping hands to herself) for 80% of class time across the span of 2 weeks by May 15."</p> <p>Goal setting is an important component of behavior change for several reasons. First, setting goals helps people objectively evaluate their own performance and make adjustments in their efforts as needed, as well as feel a sense of accomplishment when progress toward the goal is made (Latham, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]). Rowe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref13">50</reflink>]) found that goal setting improves students' noncognitive skill development and academic engagement. Putwain et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref14">42</reflink>]) found feedback on the progress of a goal helps foster self‐efficacy and motivation in students. If the goals are few in number, goals can also reduce stress levels; it is important not to set too many goals so that focus is not lost (Latham, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]). Given the importance and usefulness of goal setting, it is important that teachers and paraprofessionals use data to formulate needs and set goals when considering interventions and supports.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-3">Evidence‐based behavioral interventions</hd> <p>There are a range of research‐based behavioral strategies that are effective in reducing occurrences and intensities of challenging behaviors exhibited by students with disruptive behaviors. Behavioral strategies can be implemented as part of a larger school‐wide positive behavioral interventions and supports system (McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref16">37</reflink>]; Sugai et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref17">54</reflink>]), or utilized independently. Many behavioral strategies build upon different key behavioral principles proposed by B. F. Skinner, such as positive reinforcement, shaping, classical and operant conditioning, and modeling. For example, differential reinforcement is a behavior‐shaping strategy that is based upon these key principles. Differential reinforcement is a two‐step process that involves reinforcing the desired behavior and not reinforcing other responses. A systematic review by Weston et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref18">59</reflink>]) examined differential reinforcement of other behavior for children with autism and challenging behavior. They found that differential reinforcement of other behavior was effective when used in combination with other elements. Another strategy called noncontingent reinforcement is when a teacher delivers ongoing and brief reinforcement to a student independent of their behavior. Meindl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>]) conducted a systematic review and found mixed evidence of the effectiveness of noncontingent reinforcement; they recommend that behavioral approaches like noncontingent reinforcement be evaluated across other population.</p> <p>One commonly used behavioral intervention that incorporates behavior theory approaches is token economy. Token economies involve delivering or removing conditioned reinforcers, such as tokens or points, which can then be exchanged for reinforcers such as prizes (Hirst et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]). Numerous studies have been conducted to establish the effectiveness of token economies (e.g., Maggin et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]; Soares et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref22">52</reflink>]). Token economies have also been effectively implemented through web‐based systems (e.g., ClassDojo; Robacker et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]). Another behavioral intervention is self‐monitoring, which is a method that uses a low‐tech item such as a timer or checklist to give prompts to encourage stimulus control. Self‐monitoring has been shown to increase independence, decrease dependency on outside adults (e.g., teachers, paraprofessionals, parents), increase instructional time, and improve overall quality of life (Rosenbloom et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref24">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Behavioral contracts, also known as contingency contracts, include three parts: stating the behavioral expectations, offering rewards for following the contract, and providing consequences for not meeting the expectations (Kidd & Saudargas, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]). One meta‐analysis found a moderate effect of behavior contracts, and that the practice is more effective in decreasing inappropriate behaviors than increasing appropriate behaviors (Bowman‐Perrott et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]). Examples of other class‐wide behavioral interventions include response‐cost raffle (Proctor & Morgan, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]), peer assisted learning strategies (Heller & Fantuzzo, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]), and good behavior game (Barrish et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]; Kellam et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>School‐based interventions are commonly considered based upon the function of the student's behavior, as the same behavior could occur for different reasons. For example, if a student is observed engaging in inappropriate physical behavior (e.g., destroying classroom materials) to obtain attention from the teacher, interventions that require dense attention from the teacher may or may not be appropriate for the student. Likewise, if a student is observed engaging in inappropriate verbal behavior (e.g., cursing at the teacher or yelling) to escape doing work, the teacher may want to ensure that the intervention does not allow the student to continue to escape their work, as this would reinforce the behavior. Tools such as functional behavior assessments can be used to determine the functions of a behavior, and in turn a behavior intervention plan can be developed to help decrease inappropriate problem behaviors (Horner, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]; Sugai et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref32">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-4">School coaching as a mechanism for behavior intervention implementation</hd> <p>School coaching has emerged as a popular and promising approach to enhance teachers' knowledge and skills for implementing research‐based behavior interventions in classroom (Reinke et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref33">47</reflink>]). While coaching models differ in scope and foci, meta‐analytic and systematic reviews of the existing coaching literature have found job‐embedded coaching can improve teacher practices and student educational outcomes (e.g., Kraft et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]; Kretlow & Bartholomew, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]). However, limited research has examined the efficacy of coaching with paraprofessionals (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Paraprofessionals are often tasked with managing and teaching students with disruptive behavior disorders (Brock & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]). However, paraprofessionals receive limited professional development opportunities to learn how to implement behavioral interventions and strategies (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref38">46</reflink>]). One promising model of training paraprofessionals is known as Behavior Support Coaching for Paraprofessionals (BSC‐P). BSC‐P is grounded in research on teacher coaching and behavioral consultation (e.g., Kraft et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>]; Reddy et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref40">44</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]). This model includes a solution‐oriented framework and is implemented through eight individualized coaching sessions that includes coaches, classroom teachers, and the paraprofessionals. The BSC‐P model follows a five‐phase problem solving approach that includes (a) needs identification and analysis, (b) goal settings, (c) plan development, (d) intervention implementation, and (e) evaluation of progress. BSC‐P coaches iteratively support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals through use of data, modeling, practice, ongoing feedback, and encouragement throughout the coaching process.</p> <p>The BSC‐P model was investigated in a recent clustered randomized controlled trial (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>]). Multilevel models found that BSC‐P paraprofessionals improved their behavior management practices (antecedent strategies, <emph>d</emph> = 0.91, reward appropriate behavior, <emph>d</emph> = 1.51), and emotional and instrumental support (<emph>ds</emph> = 0.60 and 0.63) compared to those in the waitlist control condition (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref43">45</reflink>]). Students supported by BSC‐P paraprofessionals exhibited significant improvements in observed verbal and physical aggression (<emph>ds</emph> = ‐0.68) and academic engagement (<emph>d</emph> = 0.87), as well as teacher‐rated school problems (<emph>d</emph> = −0.43), adaptive skills (<emph>d</emph> = 0.44), and social skills (<emph>d</emph> = 0.42) in comparison to waitlist controls.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-5">Purpose of current study</hd> <p>While the original study by Reddy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref44">45</reflink>]) investigated the general effectiveness of BSC‐P, the current study builds off of the efficacy study by exploring some of the BSC‐P model processes and nuances used by teachers and their paraprofessionals in BSC‐P implementation. Specifically, this study takes a deeper dive in understanding the common individual student behavior concerns and goals identified by teachers and paraprofessionals, as well as the common research‐based interventions used in BSC‐P implementation in elementary school classrooms. Furthermore, this study explores the effects of interventions on setting specific behavior goals (i.e., interventions on targeted and nontargeted classroom behaviors). By conducting a secondary data‐analysis using the data from Reddy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]), we addressed the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) What are the common behavior goals and interventions used by school participants in the BSC‐P model?</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) What is the average change in targeted behaviors versus nontargeted behaviors during the BSC‐P implementation?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178814807-6">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178814807-7">Sample</hd> <p>The sample included 83 paraprofessionals and 87 partner classroom teachers who served 163 elementary school students from 27 schools located within the Northeast region of the United States. The sample in this study represented those that participated in a behavior support coaching intervention, BSC‐P, as part of the randomized controlled trial (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]). On average, participating paraprofessionals were approximately 46 years old (<emph>SD</emph> = 12.77) and the majority identified as female (<emph>n</emph> = 52, 95%). Paraprofessionals identified as White (<emph>n</emph> = 25, 45%), Black or African American (<emph>n</emph> = 15, 27%), Asian (<emph>n</emph> = 3, 5%), or Other (<emph>n</emph> = 8, 15%). Approximately 24% (<emph>n</emph> = 13) possessed 0–2 years of experience, 16% (<emph>n</emph> = 9) possessed 2–5 years, 18% (<emph>n</emph> = 10) possessed 5–10 years, and 42% (<emph>n</emph> = 23) possessed more than 10 years of experience. Classroom teachers were on average 41 years old (<emph>SD</emph> = 12.54). All classroom teachers identified as female (<emph>n</emph> = 53, 100%) with the majority identifying as their race/ethnicity as either White (<emph>n</emph> = 40, 75%), Black or African American (<emph>n</emph> = 5, 9%), or Other (<emph>n</emph> = 4, 7%). Teachers' experience was varied, with 13% (<emph>n</emph> = 7) possessing 0–2 years of experience, 9% (<emph>n</emph> = 5) possessing 2–5 years of experience, 19% (<emph>n</emph> = 10) possessing 5–10 years, and more than half of teachers possessing greater than 10 years of teaching experience (<emph>n</emph> = 29, 55%). Table 1 summarizes the teacher and paraprofessional demographics.</p> <p>1 Table Paraprofessional and teacher demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Paraprofessionals (<italic>n</italic> = 83)<sup>a</sup></th><th align="left">Teachers (<italic>n</italic> = 87)<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Sex</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>52 (95%)</td><td>53 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>1 (2%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Not reported</td><td>2 (4%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>25 (45%)</td><td>40 (75%)</td></tr><tr><td>Black</td><td>15 (27%)</td><td>5 (9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>3 (5%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>8 (15%)</td><td>4 (7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Not reported</td><td>4 (7%)</td><td>4 (7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Years of experience</td></tr><tr><td>0–2</td><td>13 (24%)</td><td>7 (13%)</td></tr><tr><td>2–5</td><td>9 (16%)</td><td>5 (9%)</td></tr><tr><td>5–10</td><td>10 (18%)</td><td>10 (19%)</td></tr><tr><td><10</td><td>23 (42%)</td><td>29 (55%)</td></tr><tr><td>Not reported</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>2 (4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>46 (SD = 12.77)</td><td>41 (SD = 12.54)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>n</emph> = number of paraprofessionals/teachers.</p> <p>Students were in K‐5th grade and were at risk for or with disruptive behavior disorders (students were identified with the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System‐3; Kamphaus & Reynolds, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]). On average students were 7 years old (<emph>SD </emph>= 1.89) and the majority of students were male (<emph>n</emph> = 124, 76%).</p> <p>Seven coaches (four identified as female, three identified as male) were trained and supervised to work with the paraprofessionals and teachers. Six of the coaches held PhD's in special education or school psychology, while the fourth coach held a BA and had over 15 years of experience working as a behavior technician.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-8">Measures</hd> <p>A modified version of the Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools (BOSS), originally developed by Shapiro ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref50">51</reflink>]), was used to systematically measure student engagement and disruptive behaviors. Engagement (reverse‐coded as nonengagement) was defined as a student passively or actively participating. Inappropriate verbal behavior was defined as any verbal aggression or verbal interference (i.e., nonaggressive, inappropriate verbal behaviors). Inappropriate physical behaviors were any physical aggression towards others, objects, or physical interference (i.e., physical behavior that interferes with or disrupts classroom functioning). The third disruptive behavior was noncompliance. Finally, disruptive academic behavior was defined as being off task. For more detailed definitions of each of the behaviors, please see Table 3 of Reddy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]). Multiple studies have reported validity evidence supporting the BOSS as a student direct observation measure. Reported inter‐rater reliability agreement is typically moderate to high (Briesch & Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref52">8</reflink>]; Gormley & Dupaul, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Ota & DuPaul, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>]) for pairs of observers conducting co‐observations with BOSS. Similarly strong kappa coefficients (DuPaul et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]) have been found between co‐observers. A small number of studies have documented mixed evidence of convergent validity between the BOSS and rating scale measures. For example, Hosterman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref56">24</reflink>]) found moderate correlations (<emph>rs</emph> = 0.25–0.49) with the Conners Teacher Rating Scale and the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Rating Scale‐IV. Alperin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>]) found small to moderate correlations between the BOSS and the Behavioral Assessment System for Children 3. Discriminant validity between ADHD children and typically developing peers has been documented (DuPaul et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]; Junod et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref59">57</reflink>]), as well as indirect evidence of treatment sensitivity following intervention when the BOSS is used as an outcome measure (Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref60">13</reflink>]; Gormley & Dupaul, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]; Ota & DuPaul, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Behavior occurrences were measured and recorded using momentary time sampling (for engagement) and partial interval recording (for each of the four disruptive behaviors). The duration of each observation was 15 min with 15 s intervals. Every 15 s, the observer recorded whether the behavior occurred (either at the end of the 15 s interval for engagement, or whether the behavior occurred at all within the 15 s interval for each of the four disruptive behaviors).</p> <p>For this study, a behavior goal that was of the same behavior as the behavior observed was a "targeted" behavior, while all remaining behavior observations for that student were classified as "untargeted." For example, if a student had a behavioral goal related to inappropriate physical behaviors, their BOSS data tracking inappropriate physical behavior was classified as a "targeted" behavior, while their data of engagement, inappropriate verbal behavior, noncompliance, and disruptive academic behaviors were "untargeted."</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-9">Procedures</hd> <p>As noted, behavioral support coaches conducted a total of eight coaching sessions to support paraprofessionals in consultation with their teachers. Paraprofessionals received eight in‐person coaching sessions, approximately 25 min each, approximately one time per week. The first three sessions and last session were conducted with both the classroom teacher and paraprofessional together, while the remaining sessions included the paraprofessional. Each coach was formally trained and supervised; training included watching training videos and example coaching sessions, as well as feedback in adherence to coaching implementation fidelity. Implementation fidelity was measured by computing the percentage of steps completed by the coach within and across coaching sessions for each case. Coaching sessions were recorded, and implementation fidelity was evaluated by a different coach. This was to ensure that each coach performed the coaching procedure according to a well‐defined protocol. Coaching sessions followed a protocol‐specific procedure checklist. First, trained staff observed students who had been identified by the teachers as having or at risk of developing disruptive behavior disorders. These staff used the BOSS to formally observe and record student behaviors. Coaches met with the paraprofessionals and teachers to review the BOSS data; while considering the possible function of behaviors, the coach and paraprofessional used the data to determine the greatest behavior challenges for a student. Then, a goal was created related to the behavioral concern(s) (e.g., engagement or one of the disruptive behaviors). For example, a student who scored highest in the inappropriate physical behavior sub‐measure of the BOSS might be assigned a goal such as "Student will decrease inappropriate physical behaviors to 30% by the end of the 8th coaching session." After goals were determined, coaches and paraprofessionals worked together to choose appropriate interventions for the paraprofessional to implement to address the goal, while considering the possible function of behavior. These classroom interventions were selected from a toolkit of evidence‐based behavioral interventions. During the remaining sessions, the coach provided feedback to the paraprofessional regarding implementation of the selected interventions to ensure that interventions were implemented with fidelity. BOSS data were collected at the end of the study to determine the prepost intervention change in BOSS scores.</p> <p>BOSS data were used to identify student‐specific behavior needs, set goals, and match goals to interventions. This data was compiled, and the resulting data set was used for data analysis for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-10">Data analysis plan</hd> <p>R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref63">43</reflink>]) was used for analyses. The data set used for this study was derived from the data collected by Reddy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref64">45</reflink>]) during the BCS‐P study. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the commonly targeted behaviors (i.e., behavior goals) and commonly used interventions (Research Question 1).</p> <p>The R package <emph>lme4</emph> (Bates et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>]) was used to conduct multilevel linear modeling to determine the average change in behaviors for targeted and nontargeted behaviors (Research Question 2). A smaller data set than the one used to answer Research Question 1 was used for Research Question 2. This data set included only students that had one behavior goal. This was to prevent potential confounds present for students who had more than one goal; by only including those who had one behavior goal, we could better determine the relationship between changes in behavior and goal type. In this data set, the disruptive academic and noncompliance behaviors were utilized too infrequently as behavior goals (<emph>n</emph> = 12 and <emph>n</emph> = 3, respectively) to enable analysis, while behavior goals inappropriate verbal, inappropriate physical, and nonengagement were used more frequently and thus appropriate for inclusion within the model (<emph>n</emph> = 31, <emph>n</emph> = 25, and <emph>n</emph> = 18, respectively). The difference in behavior scores before and after receiving the interventions ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0001" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>Behavior</mi><mo> </mo><msub><mi>change</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\mathrm{Behavior}\unicode{x02007}{\mathrm{change}}_{{ij}}$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> ) was modeled as a function of students' behavioral goals. The model is introduced in Equation 1: 1 <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0002" display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>Behavior</mi><mo> </mo><msub><mi>change</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub><msub><mrow><mo>=</mo><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mn>00</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>γ</mi><mn>10</mn></msub><msub><mi>IP</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>γ</mi><mn>20</mn></msub><msub><mi mathvariant="italic">IV</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>γ</mi><mn>50</mn></msub><msub><mi>NE</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>e</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub><mo>.</mo></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\mathrm{Behavior}\unicode{x02007}{\mathrm{change}}_{{ij}}{=\gamma }_{00}+{\gamma }_{10}{\mathrm{IP}}_{{ij}}+{\gamma }_{20}{{IV}}_{{ij}}+{\gamma }_{50}{\mathrm{NE}}_{{ij}}+{u}_{0j}+{e}_{{ij}}.$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml></p> <p>In this equation, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0003" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><msub><mi>γ</mi><mn>00</mn></msub></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${\gamma }_{00}$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> indicates the intercept, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0004" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><msub><mi>γ</mi><mn>10</mn></msub><msub><mi>IP</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${\gamma }_{10}{\mathrm{IP}}_{{ij}}$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> , <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0005" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><msub><mi>γ</mi><mn>20</mn></msub><msub><mi>IV</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${\gamma }_{20}{\mathrm{IV}}_{{ij}}$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> , and <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0006" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><msub><mrow><mspace width="0.25em" /><mi>γ</mi></mrow><mn>50</mn></msub><msub><mi>NE</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${\gamma }_{50}{\mathrm{NE}}_{{ij}}$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> indicate the behavior goals inappropriate physical, inappropriate verbal, and nonengagement, for student "<emph>i</emph>" in classroom "<emph>j</emph>," respectively. Each model included a random intercept at the classroom level <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0007" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${u}_{0j})$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> indicates the random intercept for each paraprofessional, while <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0008" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><msub><mi>e</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></msub></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${e}_{{ij}}$</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml> is the residual for each student. Model assumptions were evaluated through visual analysis of the distributions of random effect estimates and residuals. Variables were standardized before model fit to facilitate the comparison of effects between different independent variables.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-11">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178814807-12">Behavior needs and goals</hd> <p>Table 2 displays the number of times each behavior was selected as a targeted goal for the intervention(s) selected. Inappropriate physical behavior was most often selected as the target goal behavior (<emph>n</emph> = 86), followed by inappropriate verbal behavior (<emph>n</emph> = 73) and engagement (<emph>n</emph> = 41). Disruptive academic behavior was selected 17 times, while noncompliance was least often selected as the target behavior (<emph>n</emph> = 10).</p> <p>2 Table Behavior interventions selected for targeted behaviors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Intervention</th><th align="left">DA</th><th align="left">NE</th><th align="left">IP</th><th align="left">IV</th><th align="left">NC</th><th align="left">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Antecedent modifications</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Antecedent modifications × mystery motivator</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Antecedent modifications × say, show, check</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioral contract</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>3</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Choice making × choice of task sequence</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td /><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Differential reinforcement</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Differential reinforcement × reinforcement of natural occurrences</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Good behavior game</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Mystery motivator</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Response cards</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Response cost raffle</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>Say, show, check</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Say, show, check × self‐monitoring</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Say, show, check × token economy</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐monitoring</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐monitoring × choice making</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Self‐monitoring × social story</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Sit and watch</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Social story</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Token economy</td><td>3</td><td>10</td><td>27</td><td>19</td><td>2</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Token economy × choice making</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Token economy × good behavior game</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>17</td><td>41</td><td>86</td><td>73</td><td>10</td><td>229</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note</emph>: "×" indicates the combination of two interventions delivered together.</item> <item>3 Abbreviations: DA, disruptive academic (off‐task); IP, inappropriate physical; IV, inappropriate verbal; NC, noncompliance; NE, nonengagement.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178814807-13">Intervention selection</hd> <p>Table 2 also displays the interventions selected for each of the different behavior goals. Sometimes, students received two interventions instead of only one. These occurrences are included within Table 2.</p> <p>Overall, token economy was selected for implementation most often (<emph>n</emph> = 77), followed by behavioral contract (<emph>n</emph> = 38), say show check (<emph>n</emph> = 29), and response cost raffle (<emph>n</emph> = 27). The most popular intervention for disruptive academic and noncompliance behavior goals was a behavioral contract (<emph>n</emph> = 4 and <emph>n</emph> = 3, respectively). For nonengagement, inappropriate physical, and inappropriate verbal behavior goals, the most popular intervention implemented was a token economy (<emph>n</emph> = 10, <emph>n</emph> = 27, and <emph>n</emph> = 19, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-14">Change in student behavior by targeted versus nontargeted goals</hd> <p>The average change in behaviors for targeted and nontargeted behavior goals are displayed in Table 3. Note that estimates presented are <emph>standardized</emph> estimates. Inappropriate physical as the targeted behavior goal significantly predicted the change in inappropriate physical behavior ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0009" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −1.07, <emph>t</emph>[79.59] = −2.86, <emph>p</emph> < .01), as well as change in noncompliance behavior ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0010" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −0.97, <emph>t</emph>[78.21] = −2.91, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and nonengagement ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0011" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −1.04, <emph>t</emph>[88.39] = −3.31, <emph>p</emph> < .01). Inappropriate verbal as the targeted behavior goal did not significantly predict change in inappropriate verbal behavior ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0012" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −0.02, <emph>p</emph> = .96), but did predict change in noncompliance ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0013" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −0.86, <emph>t</emph>[73.75] = −2.67, <emph>p</emph> < .01) and nonengagement ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0014" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −0.90, <emph>t</emph>[87.21] = −2.85, <emph>p</emph> < .01). Nonengagement as the targeted behavior goal significantly predicted change in nonengagement ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0015" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −1.82, <emph>t</emph>[89.52] = −4.40, <emph>p</emph> < .01), as well as noncompliance ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0016" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −1.68, <emph>t</emph>[77.74] = −3.95, <emph>p</emph> < .01). The largest change in inappropriate physical behavior occurred when inappropriate physical was the targeted behavior ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0017" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −1.07). The largest change in inappropriate verbal behavior occurred when nonengagement was the targeted behavior ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0018" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −0.37). The largest change in nonengagement behavior occurred when nonengagement was the targeted behavior ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0019" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><mrow><mi>γ</mi></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> $\gamma $</annotation></semantics></math> </ephtml>  = −1.82).</p> <p>3 Table Behavior goals as predictors of student behavior concerns.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Inappropriate physical</th><th align="left">Inappropriate verbal</th><th align="left">Disruptive academic</th><th align="left">Noncompliance</th><th align="left">Nonengagement</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Est</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Est</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Est</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Est</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">Est</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fixed effects</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.43</td><td>.16</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.46</td><td>.76</td><td>−0.08</td><td>0.41</td><td>.84</td><td>1.28</td><td>0.39</td><td><.05</td><td>1.39</td><td>0.38</td><td><.05</td></tr><tr><td>NE BG</td><td>−0.58</td><td>0.46</td><td>.21</td><td>−0.37</td><td>0.5</td><td>.46</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.45</td><td>.97</td><td>−1.68</td><td>0.43</td><td><.05</td><td>−1.82</td><td>0.41</td><td><.05</td></tr><tr><td>IP BG</td><td>−1.07</td><td>0.37</td><td><.05</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.4</td><td>.96</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.36</td><td>.40</td><td>−0.97</td><td>0.33</td><td><.05</td><td>−1.04</td><td>0.33</td><td><.05</td></tr><tr><td>IV BG</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.36</td><td>.945</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.38</td><td>.95</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.34</td><td>.88</td><td>−0.86</td><td>0.32</td><td><.05</td><td>−0.90</td><td>0.31</td><td><.05</td></tr><tr><td>Random effects</td></tr><tr><td><p><math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0020" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics xmlns=""><mi>u</mi>0<mi>j</mi><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${u}_{0j}$</annotation></semantics></math></p></td><td>0.10</td><td /><td /><td>0.10</td><td /><td /><td>0.45</td><td /><td /><td>0.35</td><td /><td /><td>0.43</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p><math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits23256:pits23256-math-0021" display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics xmlns=""><mi>e</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi><annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> ${e}_{{ij}}$</annotation></semantics></math></p></td><td>0.51</td><td /><td /><td>0.76</td><td /><td /><td>0.44</td><td /><td /><td>0.34</td><td /><td /><td>0.35</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Abbreviations: IP BG, inappropriate physical behavior goal; IV BG, inappropriate verbal behavior goal; NE BG, nonengagement behavior goal.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-15">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The present study examined the implementation components of a promising research‐based coaching model for paraprofessionals serving young students at risk for or with disruptive behavior disorders (Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref66">45</reflink>]). Specifically, this study investigated which student behaviors were most commonly prioritized/targeted in goals by paraprofessionals with coaching support in elementary school settings, as well as the most often implemented behavior interventions used. Additionally, we explored the influence of creating goals and targeting student behaviors. Findings are discussed in relation to larger coaching and school‐based behavior intervention literature.</p> <p>The current investigation found paraprofessionals and classroom teachers prioritized a range of behavior targets that warranted intervention for K‐5 grade students with classroom disruptive behaviors. Certain behaviors were more commonly targeted as goals for behavior reduction. For example, student inappropriate physical behavior was identified as a targeted goal a total of 86 times (37%). This was closely followed by inappropriate verbal behavior as a targeted goal (<emph>n</emph> = 75, 32%) and goals related to nonengagement (<emph>n</emph> = 41, 18%). Noncompliance and disruptive academic behavior were less likely to be established as targets for behavior goals. One possible reason that inappropriate physical and inappropriate verbal behaviors were commonly established as targets for behavior goals is that such behaviors are prevalently observed by paraprofessionals and teachers. Westling ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]) found "disruption" and "physical aggression" to be the second and fourth most common challenging behaviors identified by special education teachers (out of a total of nine operationally defined behaviors). Interestingly, however, this particular study found defiance and noncompliance to be the most common challenging behavior exhibited. This finding is mirrored by Lowe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]), who found 70% of children with learning disabilities to have disruptive behaviors, and of those with disruptive behaviors, 94% of them displaying noncompliance behaviors. They also found 65% of children to display aggressive behaviors, such as hitting or pinching others. It is possible that inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors are perceived as more challenging and disruptive to the classroom instruction. This is in line with research from Butler and Monda‐Amaya ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>]) who found the top three most difficult behaviors for preservice teachers are related to inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors (i.e., physical aggression, bullying, and temper tantrums). If a student is hitting or screaming, a paraprofessional or teacher may have a difficult time ignoring the behavior(s), whereas if a student refuses to complete their work, the paraprofessional or teacher can choose to ignore the behavior. Thus, challenging physical and verbal behaviors are likely more "pressing" issues in need of addressing. This is a possible reason why inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors more commonly targeted as goals for behavior reduction.</p> <p>This investigation revealed a range of research‐based behavioral interventions were selected by coaches and paraprofessionals. The three of the four most commonly selected interventions (i.e., token economy, behavioral contract, and response cost raffle) can be considered attention‐seeking/reinforcement interventions (Alperin et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]; Lane, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref71">32</reflink>]). Token economy, behavioral contract, and response cost raffle are token reinforcement interventions (behavioral contracts are comprised of multiple components including token reinforcements). Previous research, such as a study by Hong and Matson ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref72">22</reflink>]) found attention‐maintained behaviors to be the most common among children. Another possible reason these three interventions were commonly selected could be due to their general popularity of reinforcement‐based strategies among teachers (DuPaul & Weyandt, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref73">19</reflink>]; Soares et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref74">52</reflink>]). Token reinforcements are flexible in that they can be used individually or class wide (Alperin et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>]). Furthermore, there exists a wide breadth of literature establishing the effectiveness of token reinforcements (Bowman‐Perrott et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref76">7</reflink>]; DeJager et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of this study highlight a meaningful change in behavior concerns prioritized and targeted by classroom teachers and paraprofessionals during job‐embedded coaching. We found a reduction in nonengagement and inappropriate physical behaviors when the corresponding behaviors were identified as targeted goals. Compared to nontargeted behaviors, targeted behaviors exhibited greater change (with the exception of inappropriate verbal behaviors). These results are meaningful, as they show that aligning an intervention to a specific challenging behavior is effective for reducing that specifically targeted behavior. However, results of this study show that the intervention effects can also generalize to other challenging behaviors, such as nonengagement (see Table 3, right column), which exhibited significant improvements in response to coaching even when it was not the target behavior. The carryover effects of behavioral interventions on a range of behaviors have been found in previous studies as well (e.g., DeJager et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]; Wiggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref79">60</reflink>]), showing that indeed school‐based behavioral interventions are effective for a wide range of behaviors and functions.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-16">IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL PRACTICE</hd> <p>The results of the study have several implications for paraprofessionals and classroom teachers working with students who display challenging behaviors. The most commonly targeted behaviors set for goals were inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors. Paraprofessionals and teachers can implement antecedent modifications (Clarke et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; Dunlap et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>]) to help reduce inappropriate verbal behaviors (such as calling out instead of hand raising) and inappropriate physical behaviors (such as touching other students without permission). Supporting school personnel in reviewing and reinforcing classroom rules, such as the expectation of hand raising and keeping hands to ourselves, <emph>before</emph> these inappropriate behaviors occur is one way to help reduce the frequency of such behaviors. Although off‐task behaviors and some forms of noncompliance may be less disruptive to the classroom environment, paraprofessional and teachers are also encouraged not to let students with such behaviors "slip through the cracks." Paraprofessionals and teachers should engage in ongoing monitoring and use of specific behavior praise when students actively engaged in classroom learning activities.</p> <p>Furthermore, the results of this study show the benefits of formulating data‐driven goals for operationally defined behaviors. Setting behavior goals is known to be an important step to shaping behavior (Poppes et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref82">40</reflink>]). Setting goals holds the teacher, or paraprofessional, accountable for supporting the learning environment and students' positive behavior. Paraprofessionals and teachers are encouraged to set one or two operationally defined behavior goals depending on the needs of the student, and tailor the selected intervention(s) for the specific goal(s). For example, if a student is observed having high frequencies of off‐task behavior, a paraprofessional or teacher could implement a token economy targeted to reduce this specific behavior; the implementer would explain to the student that they will receive tokens for completing their classwork.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-17">Limitations</hd> <p>The present investigation has several limitations that need to be considered. First, the sample in this investigation was derived from paraprofessionals who volunteered to participate in a large multisite coaching randomized controlled study. The coaching protocol used in this study may have resulted in the selection of goals and research‐based behavior interventions that may not resemble goals and interventions selected in other elementary school settings. Second, paraprofessionals in this study were assigned to support elementary school students with or at risk for disruptive behavior disorders. Thus, it remains unknown if the results in this study would be comparable to paraprofessionals serving other student populations (e.g., students with autism, intellectual disabilities, or emotional disturbance), age groups (e.g., preschool, middle school, high school), and school contexts (rural, suburban, urban). Another limitation of this study is that limited demographics of the student participants were collected.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-18">Future research</hd> <p>This study is one of only a few studies to measure the process of coaching with elementary paraprofessionals serving students with disruptive behaviors. More research is needed to advance an understanding of the impact of the BSC‐P model, as well as implementation processes of BSC‐P in schools. Larger paraprofessional samples are needed to replicate and validate the findings in this study. Mixed‐method design studies that assess the paraprofessionals' experiences of coaching or decisions to select behavior goals and interventions are warranted. Studies are needed to examine BSC‐P components and processes for different student populations (e.g., students with autism), age groups (e.g., middle school), and contexts (e.g., rural environments).</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-19">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Job‐embedded coaching support is needed for paraprofessionals serving vulnerable student populations such as those with or at risk for disruptive behavior difficulties in elementary school. Knowledge of the common behavior goals and interventions used in coaching offers valuable insights on the coaching process and possible outcomes of their specific use. It is our hope this study serves as an initial step in examining the components and processes of the BSC‐P model for elementary school paraprofessionals and classroom teachers. Additional investigations are needed to fully understand the process of BSC‐P on coach, classroom teacher and paraprofessionals decisions and intervention practices to support the needs of young students with challenging behaviors in elementary school.</p> <hd id="AN0178814807-20">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences to Rutgers University (R324A170069). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the IES.</p> <ref id="AN0178814807-21"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref46" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alperin, A., Dudek, C. M., Reddy, L. A., Glover, T. A., Wiggs, N. B., & Bronstein, B. (2023). Convergent validity of the behavior observation of students in schools for elementary school students with disruptive behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 60 (10), 4039 – 4060. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref10" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alperin, A., Reddy, L. A., Glover, T. A., Breeden, N., Dudek, C., & Regan, P. (2020). Behavior support coaching for a paraprofessional working with first‐grade students exhibiting disruptive behavior problems in an urban high‐poverty elementary school. Clinical Case Studies, 19 (5), 303 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bahry, S., Gerhardt, P. F., Weiss, M. J., Leaf, J. B., Putnam, R. F., & Bondy, A. (2023). The ethics of actually helping people: Targeting skill acquisition goals that promote meaningful outcomes for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16, 672 – 695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00757-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, T. R., & Weingarten, Z. (2019). Strategies for setting high‐quality academic individualized education programs (pp. 1 – 24). National Center on Intensive Intervention at American Institutes of Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref29" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2 (2), 119 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref65" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed‐effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bowman‐Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2016). Promoting positive behavior using the good behavior game: A meta‐analysis of single‐case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18 (3), 180 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715592355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref52" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Briesch, A. M., & Daniels, B. (2013). Using self‐management interventions to address general education behavioral needs: Assessment of effectiveness and feasibility. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 366 – 381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2017). A meta‐analysis of educator training to improve implementation of interventions for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38 (3), 131 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516653477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, A., & Monda‐Amaya, L. (2016). Preservice teachers' perceptions of challenging behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39 (4), 276 – 292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clarke, S., Worchester, W., Dunlap, G., Murray, M., & Bradley‐Klug, K. (2002). Using multiple measures to evaluate positive behavioral support: A case example. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 3, 131 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self‐regulation empowerment program: A school‐based program to enhance self‐regulated and self‐motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41 (5), 537 – 550. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, C. R., Collins, T., Dart, E., Vance, M. J., McIntosh, K., Grady, E. A., & DeCano, P. (2014). Evaluation of the class pass intervention for typically developing students with hypothesized escape‐motivated disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 107 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeJager, B., Houlihan, D., Filter, K. J., Mackie, P. F. E., & Klein, L. (2020). Comparing the effectiveness and ease of implementation of token economy, response cost, and a combination condition in rural elementary school classrooms. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 44 (1), 39 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Díaz, S., Zafra‐Calvo, N., Purvis, A., Verburg, P. H., Obura, D., Leadley, P., Chaplin‐Kramer, R., De Meester, L., Dulloo, E., Martín‐López, B., Shaw, M. R., Visconti, P., Broadgate, W., Bruford, M. W., Burgess, N. D., Cavender‐Bares, J., Declerck, F., Fernández‐Palacios, J. M., Garibaldi, L. A., ... Zanne, A. E. (2020). Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science, 370 (6515), 411 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duan, L., & Zhu, G. (2020). Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID‐19 epidemic. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7 (4), 300 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S22150366(20)30073-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunlap, G., Kern‐Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 (2), 387 – 397. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuPaul, G. J., Volpe, R. J., Jitendra, A. K., Lutz, J. G., Lorah, K. S., & Gruber, R. (2004). Elementary school students with AD/HD: Predictors of academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 285 – 301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuPaul, G. J., & Weyandt, L. L. (2006). School‐based intervention for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on academic, social, and behavioural functioning. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53 (2), 161 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120600716141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gormley, M. J., & Dupaul, G. J. (2015). Teacher‐to‐teacher consultation: Facilitating consistent and effective intervention across grade levels for students with ADHD. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 124 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, L. R., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993). Reciprocal peer tutoring and parent partnership: Does parent involvement make a difference? School Psychology Review, 22 (3), 517 – 534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong, E., & Matson, J. L. (2021). An evaluation of the functions of challenging behavior in toddlers with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 33 (1), 85 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09734-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 (2), 401 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosterman, S. J., DuPaul, G. J., & Jitendra, A. K. (2008). Teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms in ethnic minority students: Bias or behavioral difference? School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 418 – 435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jowett Hirst, E. S., Dozier, C. L., & Payne, S. W. (2016). Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49 (2), 329 – 345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2015). BASC‐3 behavioral and emotional screening system. NCS Pearson Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiologically‐based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259 – 281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidd, T. A., & Saudargas, R. A. (1988). Positive and negative consequences in contingency contracts: Their relative effectiveness on arithmetic performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 11 (2), 118 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta‐analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88 (4), 547 – 588.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kretlow, A. G., & Bartholomew, C. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence‐based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 279 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane, K. L. (2011). Managing challenging behaviors in schools: Research‐based strategies that work. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latham, G. P. (2003). Goal setting: A five‐step approach to behavior change. Organizational Dynamics, 32 (3), 309 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(03)00028-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35‐year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705 – 717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowe, K., Allen, D., Jones, E., Brophy, S., Moore, K., & James, W. (2007). Challenging behaviours: prevalence and topographies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51 (8), 625 – 636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00948.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 529 – 554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh, K., Girvan, E. J., Fairbanks Falcon, S., McDaniel, S. C., Smolkowski, K., Bastable, E., Santiago‐Rosario, M. R., Izzard, S., Austin, S. C., Nese, R. N. T., & Baldy, T. S. (2021). Equity‐focused PBIS approach reduces racial inequities in school discipline: A randomized controlled trial. School Psychology, 36 (6), 433 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meindl, J. N., Ivy, J. W., Glodowski, K. R., & Noordin, K. (2021). Applying standards of effectiveness to noncontingent reinforcement: A systematic literature review. Behavior Modification, 45 (4), 619 – 640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519865073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ota, K. R., & DuPaul, G. J. (2002). Task engagement and mathematics performance in children with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of supplemental computer instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (3), 242 – 257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poppes, P., Vlaskamp, C., de Geeter, K. I., & Nakken, H. (2002). The importance of setting goals: The effect of instruction and training on the technical and intrinsic quality of goals. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17 (3), 241 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210162149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor, M. A., & Morgan, D. (1991). Efectiveness of a response cost raffle procedure on the disruptive classroom behavior of adolescents with behavior problems. School Psychology Review, 20, 97 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., Nicholson, L. J., & Becker, S. (2018). Achievement goals, behavioural engagement, and mathematics achievement: A mediational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 68, 12 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">http://www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, L. A., Alperin, A., & Glover, T. A. (2020). A critical review of the professional development literature for paraprofessionals supporting students with externalizing behavior disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 58, 742 – 763.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, L. A., Glover, T. A., Dudek, C. M., Alperin, A., Wiggs, N. B., & Bronstein, B. (2022). A randomized trial examining the effects of paraprofessional behavior support coaching for elementary students with disruptive behavior disorders: Paraprofessional and student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 92, 227 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.04.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, L. A., Shernoff, E., & Lekwa, A. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of instructional coaching in high‐poverty urban schools: Examining teacher practices and student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 86, 151 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Dong, N. (2018). The incredible years teacher classroom management program: Outcomes from a group randomized trial. Prevention Science, 19 (8), 1043 – 1054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robacker, C. M., Rivera, C. J., & Warren, S. H. (2016). A token economy made easy through ClassDojo. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52 (1), 39 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216630279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenbloom, R., Wills, H. P., Mason, R., Huffman, J. M., & Mason, B. A. (2019). The effects of a technology‐based self‐monitoring intervention on on‐task, disruptive, and task‐completion behaviors for adolescents with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49 (12), 5047 – 5062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04209-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe, D. A., Mazzotti, V. L., Ingram, A., & Lee, S. (2017). Effects of goal‐setting instruction on academic engagement for students at risk. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40 (1), 25 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416678175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Direct observation manual for the behavioral observation of students in school (BOSS) in academic skills problem workbook. Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soares, D. A., Harrison, J. R., Vannest, K. J., & McClelland, S. S. (2016). Effect size for token economy use in contemporary classroom settings: A meta‐analysis of single‐case research. School Psychology Review, 45 (4), 379 – 399. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-4.379-399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2 (3), 131 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070000200302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Lewis, T. (2009). OSEP Technical assistance center on effective schoolwide interventions: Positive behavioral interventions & supports. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tetreault, E., Teferra, A. A., Keller‐Hamilton, B., Shaw, S., Kahassai, S., Curran, H., Paskett, E. D., & Ferketich, A. K. (2021). Perceived changes in mood and anxiety among male youth during the covid‐19 pandemic: Findings from a mixed‐methods study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 69, 227 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2017). 39th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2017. https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2017/parts-b-c/39th-arc-for-idea.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vile Junod, R. E., DuPaul, G. J., Jitendra, A. K., Volpe, R. J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Classroom observations of students with and without ADHD: Differences across types of engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 87 – 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westling, D. L. (2010). Teachers and challenging behavior: Knowledge, views, and practices. Remedial and Special Education, 31 (1), 48 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weston, R., Hodges, A., & Davis, T. N. (2018). Differential reinforcement of other behaviors to treat challenging behaviors among children with autism: A systematic and quality review. Behavior Modification, 42 (4), 584 – 609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517743487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiggs, N. B., Reddy, L. A., Glover, T. A., Dudek, C. M., Alperin, A., & Regan, P. (2021). Behavior support coaching for paraprofessionals and students with externalizing behavior disorders: A case study in a high‐poverty elementary school. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 37 (3), 221 – 245245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2020.1821272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williamson, O., Swann, C., Bennett, K. J. M., Bird, M. D., Goddard, S. G., Schweickle, M. J., & Jackman, P. C. (2022). The performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.2116723</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Joelle Fingerhut; Linda A. Reddy; Adam Lekwa and Christopher Dudek</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1434031
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Implementation of Paraprofessional Behavior Support Coaching: A Study of Behavior Concerns and Interventions Used in Elementary Schools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joelle+Fingerhut%22">Joelle Fingerhut</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8237-7578">0000-0002-8237-7578</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Linda+A%2E+Reddy%22">Linda A. Reddy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8314-2810">0000-0001-8314-2810</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adam+Lekwa%22">Adam Lekwa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christopher+Dudek%22">Christopher Dudek</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8338-4489">0000-0002-8338-4489</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2024 61(9):3840-3854.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R324A170069
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Paraprofessional+School+Personnel%22">Paraprofessional School Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23256
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Limited research has been conducted on coaching of paraprofessionals who serve students with disruptive behaviors. This study builds upon a randomized controlled trial investigating the intervention effects of the Behavior Support Coaching for Paraprofessionals model by examining the specific behavior concerns, coaching goals, and interventions used during behavior support coaching implementation. This study consists of 83 elementary school paraprofessionals who received behavior support coaching and served 163 elementary school students from 27 schools. Behavior support coaches used observational data to identify student behavior needs, set goals, prioritize intervention supports, and monitor progress toward goals. Results revealed inappropriate physical and verbal behaviors were most often targeted as behavior goals. Coaches and paraprofessionals and classroom teachers utilized a broad range of research-based behavior interventions, with token economy and behavioral contract most often implemented. Results indicated significant change in observed student nonengagement and inappropriate physical behaviors when these are targeted as behavior goals. Implications of these findings for research and school practice are presented.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1434031
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1434031
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23256
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 3840
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Paraprofessional School Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Implementation of Paraprofessional Behavior Support Coaching: A Study of Behavior Concerns and Interventions Used in Elementary Schools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joelle Fingerhut
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Linda A. Reddy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adam Lekwa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christopher Dudek
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1