Research Question: How can IEP task
completion in a residential setting be increased?
Participants and Setting
The participants were X (lodge has 3 supervisors; 11 ABAC) direct care staff
consisting of (# of men and women) within an off campus residential home for an
organization serving children and adults with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. They were insert age range here, had insert
level of education here,
and had been employed at this setting between insert
employment ranges here. Direct care
staff’s [CA1] responsibilities include implementing
educational services for 10 students (insert age
range of students here) who
lived at the residential facility. Participants worked a minimum 40-hour work per[CA2] week, with most working between 8–12 hours
four days per week. Some staff elected to pick up
overtime the average overtime hours were X. Instructional tasks for participants involved teaching students various
skills related to self-care, activities of daily living, communication, social
interaction, and leisure. Additionally, participants implemented behavior
support guidelines and organized community activities. Participants
non-instructional responsibilities involved meal preparation, household tasks
such as cleaning and laundry, and relevant to this study data collection
utilizing organization specific software
Materials
Materials consisted of ten 8.5 x 11 inch visual task completion
checklists. Task completion checklists were individualized for each student and
consisted of 7 columns (one for each day of the week) that clarified which
student IEP tasks should be completed each hour.
Measurement
The study utilized three
dependent variables. [McG3] [CA4]
The first dependent measure was the percent of IEP completion for the
residential facility calculated by the number of programs completed divided by
the total number of programs. Program completion was determined by generating a
weekly summation of the session tally for the total number of individualized
educational programs (IEP) completed compared to the session tally for the
total number of opportunities for IEP programs. For example, if IEP Program A was completed 4 times in a week, but
scheduled to be completed 7 times, the percent completion for that program
would be 57.1%. [McG5] [CA6]
The second dependent measure was the percent of IEP tasks completed (signed off on) on the
visual schedule. This was calculated weekly by adding the total number of IEP
tasks completed divided by the total number of IEP opportunities on the visual
schedule. Task
completion on the visual schedule was determined by staff signing their
initials next to the assigned task. [McG7]
The third dependent measure [McG8] [CA9] was the percent correspondence between the
number of tasks signed off on the visual schedule and the number of programs
completed indicated by the organizations data collection software. This was
calculated weekly by adding the total number of IEP programs completed as
indicated by the visual schedule and dividing that by the total number of IEP
programs completed as indicated by the organizations data collection software.
Talk about the importance of IEP
compliance. Talk about criteria for being measured v not (ie which programs
were chosen and why? IEP chosen non IEP not). [McG10] [CA11]
Procedure and Experimental Design
The study was
designed as a performance improvement project and approved by administrators
and research review committee at the human services organization as well as the
institutional review board at Endicott College. [McG12] Procedures were evaluated in a ABAB design.
Pre- Baseline: The
human services organization has a structured two week on boarding process for
new hires in which basic job responsibilities such as data collection, and the
importance of IEP programming are reviewed. After the two weeks on boarding
staff at the human service organization receive on-site training including
daily operations and student specific training utilizing BST. During staff
training supervisors utilized on-site training to direct staff to the basic
functions of the residence. These processes include utilizing behavioral skills
training (instruction, model, rehearsal, feedback).
The residential setting utilized two task clarification systems. The
first task clarification was referred to as the “block schedule” which broke
down the required tasks each student was to complete for each hour during a
residential shift. The block schedule was located in the residential’s daily
binder and has been utilized for X[McG13] [CA14] .
Limitations of the block schedule included Staff not attending to it (insert percent here) as
well as requiring supervisors to attend to the block schedule in order to
provide antecedent and consequent feedback to staff as well adjustments to the
schedule. The variability in supervisory tasks, as well as the size and
location of the block schedule are all potential limitations as to why the
current block schedule is ineffective. The second form of task clarification
involves “focus sheets”. Focus sheets are placed in the front cover of
individual student’s binders and depict the weekly tasks students are to
complete. Staff are to initial the focus sheet after they complete a student’s
program. Both task clarification tools seek the same result, however, the focus
sheets are incompatible with the block schedule. Focus sheets do not give a
visual depiction of when specific tasks are to be completed, whereas the block
schedule does. The
significance of the block schedule is that it ensures that specific IEP programs
are run at socially significant times. [CA15] For
example, a student has “meal set up” at the 6p hour because dinner is at 6pm.
If a staff only attends to the focus sheet, they could run meal set up at any
time.
Verbal antecedent feedback is intermittently provided as reminders to
attend to student programming. Verbal consequent feedback is intermittently
delivered contingent on staff completing / not completing student IEP tasks.
Written feedback is intermittently implemented as positive and corrective
consequence feedback.
Baseline: During
the baseline phase of the experiment, the researchers collected data on IEP
completion. The purpose of this phase was to establish the level of direct care
staff’s performance prior to the intervention.
Intervention: The
independent variable was a multicomponent treatment package consisting of a
posted task list (i.e. task clarification) and publicly posted graphic
feedback. The task list was posted daily in between the kitchen and dining
room. This location was chosen as it was a central location that was easily
accessible and visible from all common areas within the residence. Publicly
posted graphic feedback was posted weekly for two components. The first
component depicted a bar graph for each student reflecting the percent of IEP programs completed[McG16] [CA17] .
The second component depicted a line graph reflecting the residential
facility’s total IEP completion as described by the first dependent variable.
Return to Baseline: The
treatment package consisting of a posted task list and publicly posted graphic
feedback were withdrawn. Data collection was the same as described above.
Please Note: Things to do.
1.
Add two more slides to the attached PPT that discuss
the future implications of this research and where it can be applied (i.e.,
across settings, unified culture, etc.)
2.
Discuss three limitations
of this research,
3.
Create a poster for this
research.