Direct behavior rating: An evaluation of alternate definitions to assess classroom behaviors

School Psychology Review

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 181-199

  Christ, Theodore J ^a   Riley Tillman, T Chris ^b   Chafouleas, Sandra ^c   Jaffery, Rosemary ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051533191     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T. J., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2009). Generalizability and dependability of scaling gradients on direct behavior ratings. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 69, 157-173.
2. Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C, Briesch, A. M., & Chanese, J. A. M. (2007). Generalizability and dependability of Daily Behavior Report Cards to measure social behavior of preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36, 63-79.
3. Chafouleas, S. M., Kilgus, S. P., Riley-Tillman, T. C, Jaffery, R., & Harrison, S. (2010). Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS): An evaluation of the impact of various components to rater training on accuracy of rating academic engagement and disruption. Manuscript in submission.
4. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. G, & Christ, T. J. (2009). Direct Behavior Rating (DBR): An emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 195-200.
5. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C, & McDougal, J. L. (2002). Good, bad, or in-between: How does the daily behavior report card rate? Psychology in the Schools, 39, 157-169. (Pubitemid 41310467)
6. Chafouleas, S. M., Volpe, R. J., Gresham, F. M., & Cook, C. (2010). School-based behavioral assessment within problem-solving models: Current status and future directions. School Psychology Review, 34, 343-349.
7. Chang, L. (1995). Connotatively consistent and reversed connotatively inconsistent items are not fully equivalent: Generalizability study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 991-997.
8. Christ, T. J., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Rating scale items: A brief review of nomenclature, components and formatting. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 242-250.
9. Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C, & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). Foundation for the development and use of Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) to assess and evaluate student behavior. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 201-213.
10. Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C, Chafouleas, S. M., & Boice, C. H. (2010). Direct Behavior Rating (DBR): Generalizability and dependability across raters and observations by facet and universe of generalization. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 70. doi: 10.1177/0013164410366695
11. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.
13. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
14. Deno, S. L. (2005). Problem solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 10-42). New York: Guilford Press.
15. Fabiano, G., Vujnovic, G., Naylor, J., Pariseau, M., & Robins, M. (2009). An investigation of the technical adequacy of a Daily Behavior Report Card (DBRC) for monitoring progress of students with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in special education placements. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 231-24.
16. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions' between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-500.
17. Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain (2nd ed.). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
18. Harrison, S. E., Riley-Tillman, T. C, & Chafouleas, S. M. (2010). Practice with feedback and base rates of target behavior: Implications for rater accuracy using Direct Behavior Ratings. Manuscript in submission.
19. Hintze, J. M. (2005). Psychometrics of direct observation. School Psychology Review, 34, 507-519. (Pubitemid 43332119)
20. Hintze, J. M., & Matthews, W. J. (2004). The generalizability of systematic direct observations across time and setting: A preliminary investigation of the psycho-metrics of behavioral observation. School Psychology Review, 33, 258-270. (Pubitemid 39051390)
21. Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
22. Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings: An individual guide. New York: Plenum Press.
23. LeBel, T. J., Chafouleas, S. M., & Sugai, G. M. (2006). Project VIABLE technical report for Direct Behavior Rating Scales: Rationale for selection of behaviors to be investigated. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
24. Riley-Tillman, T. C, Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T. J., Briesch, A. M., & LeBel, T. J. (2009). The impact of item wording and behavioral specificity on the accuracy of Direct Behavior Rating (DBR). School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 1-12.
25. Schlientz, M. D., Riley-Tillman, T. C, Briesch, A. M., Walcott, C. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). The impact of training on the accuracy of Direct Behavior Ratings (DBRs). School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 73-83.
26. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
27. Shapiro, E. S., & Heick, P. F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred for social/behavioral/ emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 551-561. (Pubitemid 38640023)
28. Tapp, J. (2004). MOOSES (Multi-Option Observation System for Experimental Studies). Retrieved from http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/mooses/mooses.html
29. Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
30. Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2003). Heading off disruptive behavior: How early intervention can reduce defiant behavior-and win back teaching time. American Educator, Winter (2003/2004), pp 6-15, 18-21, 45.
31. Walker, H. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1983). Assessing the behavioral expectations and demands of less restrictive settings. School Psychology Review, 12, 274-284.