Premium
A school practitioner's guide to using daily behavior report cards to monitor student behavior
Author(s) -
RileyTillman T. Chris,
Chafouleas Sandra M.,
Briesch Amy M.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/pits.20207
Subject(s) - formative assessment , intervention (counseling) , psychology , popularity , behavior management , behavior change , report card , premise , applied behavior analysis , response to intervention , self monitoring , applied psychology , medical education , developmental psychology , pedagogy , social psychology , medicine , linguistics , philosophy , autism , psychiatry
Abstract With the growing popularity of a response to intervention model of service delivery, the role of intervention management is becoming more prominent. Although many aspects of intervention management have received significant attention, one area that warrants further development involves feasible methods for monitoring student behavior in a formative fashion. By formative, we mean behavior that is frequently monitored, such as on a daily basis, with the premise that the information will be used to make appropriate intervention decisions. Within a problem‐solving model of intervention development, implementation, and evaluation, at least one educational professional must be responsible for using an effective tool for monitoring behavior. Yet, identifying and using such a tool can be a challenge in applied settings in which resources are often limited. The purpose of this article is to briefly review available tools for behavior monitoring, with emphasis on reviewing the potential of the Daily Behavior Report Card to serve as a supportive methodology to more established measures of behavior assessment. Examples and guidelines for use of the Daily Behavior Report Card in behavior monitoring are provided. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 44: 77–89, 2007.