• A Descriptive Study of a Building-Based Team Problem-Solving Process

      Brewer, Alexander B. (2010-09-21)
      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.