Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3
School Mental Health
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09321-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Efcacy of a Combined Approach to Tier 2 Social‑Emotional
and Behavioral Intervention and the Moderating Efects of Function
Katie Eklund
1
· Stephen P. Kilgus
1
· Crystal Taylor
2
· Amanda Allen
2
· Lauren Meyer
1
· Jared Izumi
2
·
Megan Beardmore
3
· Sara Frye
3
· Deija McLean
2
· Fedra Calderon
3
· Kayla Kilpatrick
2
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Systematic literature reviews have supported the efectiveness of behavioral Tier 2 interventions, with research being par-
ticularly plentiful in relation to Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) and social skills training (SST). Though fndings indicate either
approach is efective in isolation, a recent study suggested these approaches might be particularly efective when integrated.
The purpose of the current study was to build upon this initial single-case design study with a larger sample within a ran-
domized controlled trial. Participants included 91 elementary students who had been identifed as being at risk of social-
emotional and behavioral difculties. Students were randomized into three intervention conditions: CICO only, SST only,
and CICO + SST. Prior to intervention, information was collected regarding the function of student problem behavior and the
extent of social skill defcits. Systematic direct observation data were then completed at pre- and post-test regarding student
positive and negative social engagement. Multivariate general linear models were then conducted, with pre-test scores serving
as covariates and intervention group and behavioral function serving as fxed factors. Results indicated that implementation
of CICO, SST, and a combined CICO + SST was functionally related to a reduction in negative social engagement. Follow-
up post hoc tests indicated that after adjusting for pre-test responding, the diference between conditions in efectiveness
was moderated by behavioral function. Specifcally, SST was less efective for students whose behavior functioned to escape
social and academic situations. No such diferences were noted between students whose behavior functioned to attain adult
or peer attention. Implications for practice, methodological limitations, and directions for future research are reviewed.
Keywords Targeted intervention · Tier 2 intervention · Check-In/Check-Out · Social skills · Function-based assessment
Introduction
Approximately 15–20% of children experience signifcant
behavioral and emotional problems that present as barri-
ers to learning in the school setting (Costello, Mustillo,
Erkanli, Keeler, & Angold, 2003; Skiba et al., 2011). These
children are at a higher risk of many negative outcomes,
including school failure, substance abuse, and employment
difculties (Lee, Humphreys, Flory, Liu, & Glass, 2011;
Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004). In an
efort to provide a prevention-oriented approach to address-
ing student behavioral concerns, schools across the country
use multi-tiered systems to support students with varying
levels of need (Greenwood, Horner, & Kratochwill, 2008;
Tilly, 2008). These behavioral support frameworks typically
involve three tiers of intervention. Tier 1 (universal) supports
are implemented throughout the school with a focus on the
prevention of problem behavior and development of proso-
cial behavior. Tier 1 may consist of the development and
explicit instruction of expected behavior and the application
of consistent consequences for appropriate and inappropriate
behaviors. Tier 2 (targeted) interventions are implemented
with students who do not respond to Tier 1 support. For
schools utilizing a multi-tiered approach, Tier 2 conforms
to a standard protocol approach, wherein all students requir-
ing targeted support receive the same intervention (Hanni-
gan & Hannigan, 2018). Such interventions are intended to
* Katie Eklund
katie.eklund@wisc.edu
1
Department of Educational Psychology, University
of Wisconsin-Madison, 1025 W. Johnson Street, Madison,
WI 53706, USA
2
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
3
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA