Behavior Support During Independent Work
Jamal is a 10-year-old fourth grader with ADHD and autism who attends a general education class of 26 students. During a 20-minute independent math block, he averages six to eight verbal outbursts, leaves his seat five times, and completes about 30% of the assigned problems. A functional behavior assessment included three observations and teacher interviews. The antecedent most often recorded is a worksheet with 20 two-digit multiplication problems; the behavior is calling out or walking to the teacher's desk; the typical consequence is a verbal redirect, followed by sending him to a buddy room after the third outburst. Work is often returned unfinished. He participates successfully in small-group science with a checklisted task and a peer partner. The team is drafting a behavior intervention plan and wants to reduce independent work refusal without removing him from the general education setting.
1. Write a testable hypothesis statement for Jamal's behavior. Identify the function and the evidence that supports it.
Read the worked answer
Hypothesis: When Jamal is given a 20-item worksheet of two-digit multiplication with no checklist or partner, he calls out and leaves his seat to escape or delay the task. Adult redirects and the buddy-room consequence sometimes remove the task, which maintains the behavior. Evidence:
- The antecedent is consistently the long independent worksheet; he succeeds in small-group science with a checklist and peer partner.
- The behavior occurs during independent work and often results in attention plus task removal.
- The consequence is inconsistent but includes escape after the third outburst.
- Work completion is 30%, consistent with escape or avoidance rather than attention alone. The team should test the hypothesis by changing the task format and measuring whether outbursts fall. If they fall, escape is supported. If they persist even with an easy task and attention, the team should consider sensory or attention functions. The hypothesis is testable because it names the condition, behavior, and consequence.
2. Design a behavior intervention plan with at least one antecedent modification, one replacement behavior to teach, and one consequence adjustment. Explain how each component connects to the hypothesis.
Read the worked answer
BIP components:
- Antecedent modification: Chunk the worksheet into four 5-item strips, provide a checklist, and start with two easier review items. This reduces the aversive task demand and makes the end visible. Connect to hypothesis: if the task is shorter and more predictable, escape motivation drops.
- Teach replacement behavior: Teach Jamal to use a break card or a help card and to self-check off each strip. Practice when he is calm, and reinforce the card immediately. This gives him a socially acceptable way to escape or get help instead of calling out.
- Consequence adjustment: When he calls out, give a brief neutral prompt to the break card, not a lecture; when he uses the card appropriately, allow a 2-minute break and return to the task. Avoid sending him to the buddy room for the target behavior, because that may reward escape. Reinforce completion with a preferred activity or points.
- Environmental support: seat near a supportive peer, use noise-reducing headphones if noise is a factor, and give a visual timer. Each component is tied to the hypothesis: reduce the aversive demand, teach an equivalent escape or help response, and remove the escape payoff for outbursts.
3. What data should the team collect during the first four weeks, and how should fidelity be monitored?
Read the worked answer
During the first four weeks, collect:
- Daily: frequency of call-outs and out-of-seat episodes during the 20-minute math block, using a simple tally; work completion, including items completed and accuracy.
- Weekly: break-card use and percentage of independent work completed.
- Biweekly: a brief preference assessment or check that the reinforcer is still effective. Fidelity:
- The teacher or para records whether the worksheet was chunked, whether the break card was prompted, and whether the consequence was delivered as planned on a 5-item checklist.
- A coach observes two math blocks and gives feedback.
- The team reviews the graph every two weeks. If call-outs do not decrease, check fidelity first, then revise the hypothesis. If they decrease, fade the checklist and increase strip length gradually. This is important because a BIP that is not implemented as written cannot be judged effective.