Sycamore Scholars at Indiana State University >
ISU - Electronic Theses and Dissertations (by Department) >
Communication Disorders, Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||A Descriptive Study of a Building-Based
Team Problem-Solving Process|
|Authors: ||Brewer, Alexander B.|
|Issue Date: ||21-Sep-2010 |
|Abstract: ||The purpose of this study was to empirically evaluate Building-Based Teams for General
Education Intervention or BBT for GEI. BBT for GEI is a team problem-solving process
designed to assist schools in conducting research-based interventions in the general education
setting. Problem-solving teams are part of general education and provide support to students with
academic or behavioral concerns by creating individualized interventions that teachers can use in
the classroom. Historically, problem-solving teams’ two primary goals were to reduce referrals to
special education and improve student performance on academic or behavioral concerns.
This study examined the effectiveness of BBT for GEI by analyzing BBT for GEI teams’
alignment with the best practice indicators of intervention design and by evaluating how BBT for
GEI teams’ practices predict student outcome. The analysis was done by reviewing permanent
products of team GEI practices submitted by elementary school problem-solving teams trained in
the BBT for GEI process by the Blumberg Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Special
Education. The teams’ permanent products were rated on 13 quality indicators of intervention
design using a Likert type scale of 1-5 on adherence and presence of the indicator. The higher the
rating on the scale, the greater the alignment with the identified best practices for that indicator.
The quality indicators include the following: (a) behavioral definition, (b) baseline data, (c)
problem validation, (d) problem analysis, (e) goal setting, (f) delivery specifics, (g) empiricallysupported
content variables, (h) measurement strategy, (i) decision-making plan, (j) progress
monitoring, (k) formative evaluation, (l) treatment integrity, and (m) summative evaluation. The average indicator ratings ranged from a low of 1.44 to a high of 3.64. This range
suggests that the teams implemented some of the best practice indicators to a high degree, while
other indicators were either not implemented to a high degree or not addressed. BBT for GEI
teams implemented the Problem Analysis and Plan Development components with the highest
fidelity while implementing the Plan Implementation and Plan Evaluation components with the
lowest fidelity. When analyzing the themes and commonalities, it became apparent that many
teams did not conduct more than their initial meeting in order to implement and monitor a plan.
In addition to the 13 indicator ratings, two student outcome ratings were also assigned to teams’
permanent products, Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and Student Measured Performance (SMP).
The average rating for GAS was 2.92. The average for SMP was 1.93. Two multiple regression
analyses were conducted to determine the effect the 13 quality indicators have on GAS and SMP.
The linear combination of the quality indicators of intervention design ratings was significantly
related to both GAS and SMP. Individually, Intervention Plan Development and Problem
Analysis were significant predictors of GAS. Four indicators were significant predictors of SMP,
Problem Validation, Goal Setting, Intervention Plan Development, and Formative Evaluation.|
|In Collections:||Communication Disorders, Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology|
Items in Sycamore Scholars are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.