Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Critical Issues Affecting the Field of Behavior Disorders

515

(mentioned earlier). Descriptions of some of these advances

and seminal contributions are briefly described below.

Functional Behavioral Assessment

The development and validation of functional behavioral as-

sessment (FBA) techniques and approaches stands as perhaps

one of the most important advances in the field of behavior

disorders (O’Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Newton, 1997).

Functional behavioral assessment (a) provides a usable

methodology for identifying and validating the motivations

that drive maladaptive forms of student behavior in applied

settings, (b) allows for the identification of the factors that

sustain such behavior over time, and (c) provides a prescrip-

tion for intervening on these sustaining variables with the

goal of producing fundamental, enduring changes in the rate

and topography of problem behavior. 

Functional behavioral assessment, which is based on oper-

ant learning theory and its application to the learning and be-

havioral difficulties of children and youth, is derived from the

field of applied behavior analysis. The dominant theoretical

orientation of the BD field has historically been applied be-

havior analysis, and its many contributions to BD date back

over 30 years. They were chronicled in the edited volume

titled Behavior Analysis in Education (Sulzer-Azaroff,

Drabman, Greer, Hall, Iwata, & O’Leary, 1988). In 1997 the

amendments to IDEA required use of both FBA and positive

behavioral supports (PBS) and interventions in evaluating

and intervening with students having a possible disabling con-

dition. Prior to this landmark legislation, many BD profes-

sionals and behavior analysts considered FBA and PBS to be

best practices, but federal law did not mandate their use.

Based on a valid FBA, PBS programming has much to

offer the BD community in fulfilling the mandates of IDEA.

The 1997 IDEA amendments do not specify what constitutes

a valid FBA, nor do they state the essential components of a

positive behavioral support plan. However, in the few years

since the passage of this law, the BD field has vigorously

responded in developing a range of feasible FBA and PBS

models and approaches.

FBA methods can be categorized as (a) indirect, using

interviews, historical-archival records, checklists, and rating

scales; (b) direct or descriptive in nature, using system-

atic behavioral observations in naturalistic settings; and

(c) experimental, employing standardized experimental pro-

tocols that systematically manipulate and isolate contingen-

cies that control the occurrence of problem behavior using

primarily single-case experimental designs (Horner, 1994;

O’Neill et al., 1997). Despite the methodological rigor of

functional analysis approaches, there are limitations regarding

the external validity of its findings as well as the amount of

time and expertise required to conduct a valid functional

analysis (Gresham, Quinn, & Restori, 1998; Repp & Horner,

1999). Many of the studies using functional assessment proce-

dures over the past decade were based on low-incidence dis-

ability groups, thus limiting the applicability of these results to

high-incidence groups.

Walker and Sprague (1999) argued that there are two

generic models or approaches to the assessment of behavior

problems. One model, termed the longitudinal or risk factors

exposure model, grew out of research on the development of

antisocial behavior (Loeber & Farrington, 1998) and seeks

to identify molar variables that (a) operate across multiple

settings and (b) put students at risk for long-term, negative out-

comes (e.g., drug use, delinquency, school failure). The sec-

ond model, called the functional assessment approach, seeks

to identify microlevel variables operating in specific situations

that are sensitive to setting-specific environmental contin-

gencies. Both models are useful in school-based assessment

processes, but they answer quite different questions. If your

goal, for example, is to understand and manage problem be-

havior in a specific setting, the FBA is valuable and should be

the method of choice. However, if your goal is to understand

the variables and factors that account for risk status across

multiple settings and what the student’s future is likely to in-

volve, then knowledge about the student’s genetic-behavioral

history (risk factor exposure) is required. Admittedly, the FBA

model (primarily functional analysis) suffers from several

threats to its external validity; one should not assume that the

same results could be generalized to other populations, meth-

ods, settings, and behavioral forms.

Despite these limitations, FBA methods represent a valu-

able tool for the BD professional working in school settings.

They hold the potential to identify setting-specific causal fac-

tors that account for problematic student behavior, and their

use may enhance the power and sustainability of behavioral

interventions. However, this latter outcome remains to be

demonstrated empirically. Although FBA has its share of

critics (see Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, 1999),

this assessment methodology has been widely adopted by

BD researchers and professionals and by other disciplines

(e.g., school psychology). 

Positive Behavioral Support Intervention Approaches

The development of PBS approaches is another significant

contribution of the BD field in the area of creating well disci-

plined, orderly schools with positive school climates. Sugai

and Horner (in press) along with their associates have been

leaders in this effort and were recently awarded a 5-year cen-

ter grant from the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs

to investigate and promote the adoption of PBS approaches

516

School-Related Behavior Disorders

nationwide (see the ERIC/OSEP Special Project, winter, 1999

issue of Research Connections in Special Education for an ex-

tensive treatment of PBS). This approach has the advantages

of (a) targeting all students within a school; (b) coordinating

the implementation of universal, selected, and targeted inter-

vention strategies; and (c) focusing on positive, proactive ap-

proaches as opposed to punitive, reactive interventions.

Sugai and Horner (in press) developed the EBS program,

which is a combined universal-selected intervention that

teaches behavioral expectations in both schoolwide and spe-

cific contexts (i.e., classroom, playground, lunchroom). EBS

is a systems approach to creating and sustaining effective and

orderly school environs, and it has now been implemented in

over 400 schools nationwide. The program teaches generic

behavioral expectations such as being responsible, respect-

ful, and safe and requires complete buy-in from all personnel

within the school. Full implementation of the EBS program

usually requires 2 or more years. 

Office discipline referrals from teachers has been the pri-

mary means used to evaluate the schoolwide impact of EBS.

In one of the earliest evaluation studies of EBS, Taylor-Green

and Kartub (2000) found that the number of disciplinary

referrals in an at-risk middle school decreased by 47% in

1 year; after 5 years the initial number of office referrals had

been reduced overall by 68% from the pre-EBS level. A study

by Lewis, Sugai, and Colvin (1998) found that the EBS pro-

gram also reduced problem behavior within specific school

settings including the lunchroom, playground, and hallways.

Hunter and Chopra (2001) recently reported a review of pri-

mary prevention models for schools, in which they endorsed

EBS as a universal intervention that works. 

Positive behavioral support is a popular intervention ap-

proach with regular educators, and PBS models will likely have

a substantial school adoption rate over the next decade. Most

significantly, PBS has been incorporated as a required best

practice into the reauthorized legislation supporting the 1997

IDEA amendments for students suspected of having a behavior

disorder or disability. When used in concert with more special-

ized intervention approaches that address secondary and

tertiary prevention goals, PBS models have the potential to in-

tegrate qualitatively different interventions that will compre-

hensively impact the behavior problems and disorders of all

students within a school setting (Walker et al., 1996). This is

indeed a rare occurrence in the field of general education.

Analysis of Teacher Interactions With Students With

Behavior Disorders

Two important lines of work have recently developed in the

BD field relating to the interactions that occur between BD

students and their teachers in classroom settings. Together,

they shed considerable light on the interactive dynamics and

processes occurring in these teacher-student exchanges

wherein the behavior of each social agent is reciprocally con-

trolled by the actions of the other. The resulting effects can

damage the teacher-student relationship, disrupt the instruc-

tional process, and reduce allocated instructional time for

everyone.

Colvin (1993) developed a conceptual model that captures

the phases of behavioral escalation that a teacher and an ag-

itated student typically cycle through in a hostile confronta-

tion. It begins with the teacher’s making a demand of an

agitated student who appears calm but is not. The teacher’s

approach serves as a trigger that accelerates the agitation.

This acceleration process typically occurs through a recipro-

cal question-and-answer exchange between the teacher and

the student. There is an overlay of increasing hostility, emo-

tional intensity, and anger during these exchanges until the

interaction hits a peak, usually expressed as teacher defiance

or a severe tantrum. This is followed by a rapid de-escalation

and recovery of the calm state. However, seething anger is

the usual by-product of this type of interaction, on the part of

both teacher and student, which, as a rule, plays out in less

than 60 s.

These escalated interactions are usually modeled for and

learned by BD students in the family context as dysfunctional

families often use a process of coercion to control the behav-

ior of family members (see Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid,

& Dishion, 1992). These same types of negative, destructive

interactions typically occur between students with challeng-

ing behavior patterns and their teachers. They resemble be-

havioral earthquakes that come out of nowhere, do incredible

damage, and require long periods for recovery. This behav-

ioral escalation game is one that teachers should not play for

two primary reasons: (a) Even if the teacher gets the better

of the student in this public exchange, he or she will likely

have created an enemy dedicated to revenge; and (b) if the

reverse occurs, the teacher’s ability to manage and control the

classroom will be severely compromised and even damaged.

It is best to avoid and escape from such escalated interactions

whenever possible. Colvin explained how to recognize these

developing episodes and how to avoid and short-circuit them

(see Colvin, 1993; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). 

Shores, Wehby, and their colleagues (see Shores, Gunter,

et al., 1993; Shores, Jack, et al., 1993; Wehby, Symonds,

Canale, & Go, 1998) have designed and conducted a series of

observational studies that spotlight the interplay of precipitat-

ing stimuli, setting events and behavioral actions occurring

within many of the interactions between BD students and

their teachers that occur on a daily basis. Their work confirms

Critical Issues Affecting the Field of Behavior Disorders

517

key parts of the Colvin escalation model and should be re-

quired reading for all prospective teachers, and especially for

teachers of students with behavior disorders. The results of

their studies also replicate the findings of Patterson et al.

(1992) and Wahler and Dumas (1986) with families who pro-

duce antisocial children; in these families family members

learn to control each other’s behavior through aversive means

including punishment and coercion. This same coercive

process spills over into the school setting and is replicated

with teachers by these behaviorally at-risk children. That is,

the effect of the student’s behavior on the teacher is highly

aversive, leading to reduced levels of praise, negative student

recognition, and less instructional time. Ultimately, both

teachers and students come to view these exchanges, and the

classroom environment, as punishing. This can lead to escape

and avoidance forms of behavior by both parties. Wehby

et al. (1998) developed a set of teaching recommendations,

based on results of this work, that should be incorporated into

preservice teacher preparation programs and adopted by

experienced teachers as well.

The Relationship Between Language Deficits and

Conduct Disorder

Hester and Kaiser (1997) investigated the relationship be-

tween conduct disorder and language deficits and examined

the conjoint risk factors (impoverished language environs,

poverty, social stressors, and coercive family dynamics) that

produce children who are both highly aggressive and very

unskilled in their functional use of language. These investi-

gators have developed an intriguing social-communicative

perspective on the prevention of conduct disorder using early

language intervention. This work involves both descriptive

and experimental studies and has the potential to be a seminal

contribution to the BD knowledge base relating to our under-

standing and accommodation of at-risk children having con-

duct disorders. 

Analysis of Office Discipline Referrals as a Screening and

Program Evaluation Tool

For the past decade a group of researchers at the University of

Oregon have been investigating the metric of school discipline

contacts or referrals to the principal’s office for student infrac-

tions (teacher defiance, aggression, harassment, etc.) that merit

more than just classroom-based sanctions (Sugai, Sprague,

Horner, & Walker, 2000; Walker, Stieber, Ramsey, & O’Neill,

1993). Discipline referrals can be used to profile an entire

school, small groups of students, and selected individual

students within a school. Walker et al. (1993) found discipli-

nary referrals to be a powerful variable in discriminating low-

risk from high-risk antisocial students. Tobin and Sugai (1999)

reported that discipline referrals are associated with the out-

comes of identification for special education, restrictive place-

ments, and later school dropout. Walker and McConnell (1995)

found a moderately strong relationship between discipline con-

tacts and later arrests in a longitudinal study of a sample of

high-risk boys. Loeber and Farrington (1998) cited research

showing a similar relationship of moderate strength between

these two variables among antisocial youth.

In addition to profiling a school and selected students

therein, aggregated discipline contacts across school years

can be a sensitive measure of effective schoolwide interven-

tions that address disciplinary issues (see Sprague, Sugai,

Horner, & Walker, 1999). One of the clear advantages of this

measure is that it accumulates as a natural by-product of the

schooling process and can be culled unobtrusively from the

existing archival student records of most schools. Currently,

there is a need to establish normative databases on this mea-

sure at elementary, middle, and high school levels. In our

view, this is a very promising measure that will prove attrac-

tive to BD researchers, scholars, and practitioners in the

future. Readers should consult Wright and Dusek (1998) for

a recent critique of the advantages and limitations of this

measure.

Resistance to Intervention as a Tool for Determining

Eligibility and Treatment Selection

A relatively new approach to making eligibility determinations

and selecting or titrating interventions is based on the concept

of resistance to intervention or, alternatively, lack of respon-

siveness to intervention. Gresham (1991) defined this concept

as a student’s behavioral excesses, deficits, or situationally-

inappropriate behaviors continuing at unacceptable levels sub-

sequent to empirically supported interventions implemented

with integrity. Resistance to intervention is based on the

best practice of prereferral intervention and allows school

personnel to function within an intervention context rather

than a psychometric eligibility framework in identifying BD

students.

Resistance to intervention results in a lack of change in

target behaviors as a function of exposure to a proven inter-

vention. This failure can be taken as partial evidence for a

BD eligibility determination under auspices of the IDEA

certification process. Moreover, this same concept can be

used to modify, change, or titrate intervention procedures

much like medications are titrated based on an individual’s

responsiveness to a drug dosage or type. Third, resistance

to intervention can be used as a cost-effective basis for

518

School-Related Behavior Disorders

allocating treatment resources to those students whose lack

of responsiveness indicates that they need more intensive

intervention.

A number of factors are related to resistance to inter-

vention. Some of the factors that seem most relevant for

school-based interventions are (a) severity of behavior,

(b) chronicity of behavior, (c) the generalizability of behavior

change, (d) treatment strength, (e) treatment integrity, and

(f) treatment effectiveness. All of these factors have been iden-

tified as being related to resistance of student behavior to in-

tervention in past research (see Gresham, 1991, and Gresham

& Lopez, 1996, for a discussion of these factors).

The notion of resistance to intervention provides BD

professionals with a powerful method for managing school-

based interventions in a cost-effective manner and for

indirectly assessing the relative severity of a student’s prob-

lematic behavior. It stands as one of the most useful and valu-

able innovations in behavior disorders within the past decade.

This list of contributions by the BD field is selective and

not representative in that it reflects our biased views. In addi-

tion, it by no means exhausts the universe of innovative con-

tributions of the highest quality and impact in the BD field.

A perusal of the BD peer-reviewed journals over the past

few years documents many varied examples of outstanding

achievements by BD scholars, researchers, and on-line pro-

fessionals. These contributions have led to many enhance-

ments in the life quality of students with behavior disorders

and their families and have improved the skills and compe-

tence of those professionals who work with them. They pro-

vide solid evidence about what is right with the BD field (see

Walker et al., 2000, for a more detailed discussion of these

contributions).

What Is Wrong With Behavior Disorders?

No discipline can claim to be virtuous and above reproach in

its policy, directions, and management of its professional

agenda. That is certainly true of the BD field. However, it is

important to note that there is much more right about BD than

wrong with BD. 

This section discusses some of the decisions, directional

changes, and failures that have occurred within the BD field

and that we believe have not served the field well. The fol-

lowing topics in this regard are discussed next: (a) the BD

field’s failure to reference its interventions and achieved out-

comes to societal issues and problems, (b) the adoption of a

postmodern, deconstructivist perspective by some sectors of

the BD field, (c) the failure to identify and serve the full range

of K–12 students experiencing serious behavioral and

emotional problems in the context of schooling, and (d) the

lack of evidence of BD leadership in developing a prevention

agenda for behaviorally at-risk students.

Referencing BD Interventions and Results to Societal

Issues and Problems

Recently, Walker, Gresham, and their colleagues provided

commentary on some shortcomings of the BD field and sug-

gested some new directions for its consideration (see Walker

et al., 1998). These authors made the following major points

in this commentary:

1. During the last several decades, the field of special educa-

tion, of which BD is a subspecialty, has become politically

radicalized and, unfortunately, fragmented as a result of

internal strife and turf battles among professionals.

2. Due in part to this disciplinary conflict, special education

is often perceived by professionals in other fields as strife-

ridden, expensive, litigious, consumed with legislative

mandates, bound by court orders mandating certain prac-

tices, and ineffective.

3. These external perceptions of special education have dam-

aged its status and legitimacy, cast doubt on its ability to

manage its affairs, and hindered its ability to pursue a pro-

fessional agenda on behalf of individuals with disabilities

and their families. 

4. Though largely avoiding this political strife, the BD field,

by association, has suffered from these generic, pejorative

impressions about special education that have been widely

disseminated in the public media and through the profes-

sional networks of related disciplines.

Though regarded as controversial, this article has stimu-

lated an ongoing debate in the BD field regarding the role of

science in its activities, ways of knowing, and the legitimate

domains of influence that the field should seek to develop.

A central point of this commentary was that the BD field has

a specialized and well-developed knowledge base, much of

which is empirically verified and reasonably well integrated,

that deals with the adjustment problems of at-risk, vulnerable

children and youth in the context of schooling. However, as a

matter of practice, the BD field does not take advantage of

opportunities to demonstrate its contributions to solving

problems of great societal concern (e.g., school failure and

dropout, preventing gang membership, addressing bullying

and harassment, preventing school violence, participating in

delinquency prevention initiatives, ensuring school safety,