Consultation: Case
Presentation
Sarah Lipman
Operational Definitions
and Dimensions of
Behavior
Sarah Lipman
Behavior
Operational Definition
Dimension
On-Task
Sitting at a desk
Having appropriate work on
desk
No more than two
redirections
Increase duration
Off-Task
Decrease duration
Disruptions
Sarah Lipman
Banging on desk
Humming
Laughing loudly
Opening and closing desk
repetitively
Clicking or tapping pen
Screaming sounds such as
baa!
Decrease frequency
Sequence Analysis:
Sequence analysis
Sarah Lipman
Client Schedule
Time:
Activity:
8:10am - 8:40am
Morning Madness
8:40am - 9:15am
Grammar
9:15am - 9:45am
Reading
9:45am - 10:20am
Math
10:20am - 10:40am
Recess
10:40am - 11:20am
Math
11:20am - 12:00pm
Social Studies
12:00pm - 12:20pm
12:20pm - 1:05pm
Lunch
1:05pm - 1:45pm
Writing
1:45pm- 2:05pm
Recess
2:05pm - 2:25pm
P.E
2:25pm - 2:35pm
Compliments/Clean Up
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions
intervention
On-Task intervention
Baseline
Sarah Lipman
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions
Baseline
2.5
2
1.5
Mea
n= 5
SD=
3
Disruptions
Aimline
Class Mean
# of Disruptions
1
0.5
Mean= 2
0
Sarah Lipman
The Baseline
Data
Showed:
Consultees
Opinion:
Sarah Lipman
On-Task
100.00%
Baseline
Mean
=
89%
98.00%
96.00%
94.00%
On-Task
92.00%
% Time Spent On-Task
90.00%
Aim Line
Class
Mean
88.00%
86.00%
84.00%
Mean= 38%
SD= 16%
82.00%
Sarah Lipman
The Baseline
Data
Showed:
Consultees
Opinion:
Sarah Lipman
Intervention
Implementation
Sarah Lipman
Intervention Plan
DRI: Increasing time on-task
The student was rewarded for staying on-task for a
pre-set percentage of the total intervention time. As
Amy experienced success, the pre-set percentage
was increased, thus requiring more time on-task
before a reward was achieved. Amy was selfmonitoring with a visual aid/tracker. The visuals were
connect-the-dot puzzles. Amy tracked her progress
by connecting the dots and revealing a whole
picture. This was thought to increase motivation to
reach the next dot.
Sarah Lipman
Intervention Plan
DRL: Decreasing rate of disruptions
Amy was rewarded for making a pre-set number of
disruptions. As she experienced success, the pre-set
number was lowered, and thus only those instances of
lower rates of disruptions were rewarded. Amy was selfmonitoring the number of times she made a disruption,
using a visual aid/tracker sheet. The visual was a meter
with a stop sign at the top. This was thought to remind
her to decrease her disruptions as she got closer to the
top.
Sarah Lipman
Sarah Lipman
Student makes
<X disruptions by
the end of 30 min
interval
Student makes
>X disruptions by
the end of 30 min
interval
Student does not
have opportunity to
pick a tangible
reward
Phase
Interval
Days
4/30
3/30
2/30
1/30
Student is on-task
Student is off-task
Consultee redirects
student to get on-task,
and reminds her how
much of the puzzle is
left before earning a
tangible reward
Phase
# of Dots to
Connect
Min
% of
Time
Days
15
33%
20
44%
25
56%
30
67%
35
77%
40
89%
Sarah Lipman
As Observed by
Consultant and
Consultee
Seeks adult and peer
attention
Seeks physical
proximity
Intervention Data
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions
Baseline
2.5
2
Mea
n= 5
SD=
3
Pha
Mean=
se2
SD= 1
1
Phase 3
Phase 2
Mea
n= 5
SD=
2
Mean= 3
SD= 1
1.5
# of Disruptions
1
0.5
0
Sarah Lipman
Phase 4
Mean= 2
SD= 1
Disruptions
Mean
Criterion Line
Class Mean
On-Task
Phase 1
100.00%
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Baseline
98.00%
96.00%
94.00%
On-Task
Mean
92.00%
% Time Spent On-Task
90.00%
Criterion
Line
Class
Mean
88.00%
86.00%
84.00%
Mean= 38%
SD= 16%
82.00%
Sarah Lipman
Mean= 81%
SD= 19%
Mean= 63%
SD= 23%
Mean=
72%
SD=
05%
Mean=
78%
SD=
08%
Mean=
84%
SD= 12%
Mean=
96%
SD= 05%
Intervention Evaluation
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions Trendline
8
7
6
5
Disruptions
# of Disruptions
4
3
2
1
0
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions Evaluation
Phase
Mean
Standard
Deviation
% Change in
Mean from
Baseline
% Change in
Standard
Deviation
from Baseline
Baseline
N/A
N/A
Phase 1
60% Decrease
67% Decrease
Phase 2
0 % Decrease
34% Decrease
Phase 3
40% Decrease
67% Decrease
Phase 4
60% Decrease
67% Decrease
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions Efficacy
Baseline
6.00 Compared to Last Phase Completed:
5.00
4.00
# of Disruptions
3.00
2.00
1.00
Sarah Lipman
0.00
60%
Decrease
Phase
Phase 4
On-Task Trendline
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
% Time Spent
0.5
On-Task
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Sarah Lipman
On-Task
On-Task Evaluation
Phase
Mean
Standard
Deviation
% Change in
Mean from
Baseline
% Change in
Standard
Deviation from
Baseline
Baseline
38%
16%
N/A
N/A
Phase 1
81%
19%
113% increase
19% increase
Phase 2
63%
23%
66% increase
44% increase
Phase 3
72%
5%
89% increase
69% decrease
Phase 4
78%
8%
105% increase
50% decrease
Phase 5
84%
12%
121% increase
25% decrease
Phase 6
96%
5%
152% increase
69% decrease
Sarah Lipman
On-Task Efficacy
Baseline
Compared to Last Phase Completed:
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
152%
70.00%
Increase
60.00%
% Time On Task
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
Sarah Lipman
0.00%
Phase
Phase 6
Program Efficacy
Goal Was
Met for OnTask
Intervention
Goal Was
Met for
Disruptions
Intervention
Sarah Lipman
Sarah Lipman
Friends
Opinion
Familys
Opinion
Maintenance and
Generalization
Sarah Lipman
Maintenance
On-Task
Amy has reached criterion
levels for staying on-task
89% of the time.
Amy will be expected to
meet criterion levels for 10
consecutive school days.
During the maintenance
phase Amy will still be
asked to complete her 8
connect puzzles, and will
continue to earn a reward
for each puzzle.
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions
Amy has reached the
criterion of two disruptions
per hour.
Amy will be expected to
meet criterion levels for 10
consecutive school days.
During the maintenance
phase, Amy will still be
asked to mark no more
than two boxes in her
thermometer visual and
will receive a reward at
the end of English
instruction.
Maintenance: Disruptions
Maintenance Phase (In Progress)
10
9
8
7
6
# of Disruptions
5
4
Mean= 1.2
SD= .42
3
2
1
0
Sarah Lipman
Disruptions
Mean
Class Mean
Maintenance: On-Task
100.00%
98.00%
96.00%
94.00%
On-Task
Mean
Class mean
92.00%
% Time Spent On- Task
90.00%
88.00%
Mean= 89%
SD= 0%
86.00%
84.00%
82.00%
Sarah Lipman
Generalizing Plan
After maintenance
criterion has been met:
Switch to variable interval
schedule
Student will be reinforced at the
same rate as her peers
Fade antecedent
Condition the tangible reinforcers
to natural classroom reinforcers
Sarah Lipman
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Individual praise
with nontangible
reinforcer
Use visual
trackers 4 out of
5 school days
VI 25
Remove the
non-social
reinforcer
options
Use visual
tracker 3 of the
5 school days
VI 26
Use visual
tracker 2 of the
5 school days
VI 27
Use visual
tracker 1 of the
5 school days
VI 29
No visual tracker
VI 30
Sarah Lipman
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Individual praise
with non-social
reinforcer
Use visual
tracker 4 of the
5 school days
VI 32
Remove the
non-social
reinforcer option
Use visual
tracker 3 of the
5 school days
VI 34
Use visual
tracker 2 of the
5 school days
VI 36
Use visual
tracker 1 of the
5 school days
VI 38
No visual tracker
VI 40
Sarah Lipman
Comments or Questions?
Email Sarah Lipman at:
selipman000@aol.com
Sarah Lipman