Journal Article Review on Behavioral Disorders

The purpose of this article review is to discuss the outcome of Check-in, Check-out (CICO) interventions for students who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders.  The article review will start with an overview of the research, a summary of the findings, and the limits that the article addresses.  Discussion about connections to our classroom textbooks, personal experiences, and a general critique of the article will follow.

            The article was a systematic review of previous research done on the CICO intervention strategy.  In the final analysis, it looked at 28 different studies; 8 of which were group design and 20 single subject design.  All of the studies they looked at had to meet the same seven criteria:

·         CICO was implemented school-wide

·         Included a DPR or similar to record daily progress monitoring of students

·         Use of data for decision making and evaluating the success of the intervention

·         Students had to check-in with a staff member every morning

·         Students had to check-out with the same staff member at the end of the day

·         The intervention had to provide multiple feedback opportunities throughout the day on the behavior being monitored

·         Experimental control had to be demonstrated

In a typical school setting, most students would be able to handle a Tier I behavior management structure.  Approximately, 5-15% of the students would need a Tier II intervention model, while 5-7% of the student body would need a Tier III intervention.  This article focused on the Tier II students using the CICO behavior intervention.  For those unfamiliar with the CICO model, the general method consists of having a student, who is at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders, check in with a staff member each morning.  This staff member would make sure that the student had the Daily Progress Report (DPR) from the day before, homework, pencils, paper, and other supplies needed for the day.  The student would be given a new DPR with the behavioral expectations clearly listed, which the student would use to check in with each teacher throughout the day.  The different content teachers would provide feedback regarding the child’s behavior.  At the close of each day, the child would return to the designated staff person and would check out.  The points would be tallied for the day and recorded on an electronic charting system, and the DPR would be sent home with the child for the parents to review and sign.  At the check-out, if the student met the daily goals, a small reward would be given to the student.

“CICO is one of the most widely implemented Tier II interventions” (Hawken, 2014) used in schools today.  Out of the 28 studies, 64% were conducted in grades K-5, while 36% were conducted in grades 6-12.  The article found that there was some level of success using the CICO procedures, especially in group settings.  21 out of 28 studies favored the use of CICO as an intervention for at risk students.  It was a little less effective when based on single subject participants.  It was also noted that the elementary students found greater success using this method than their secondary student counterparts.  The article questioned whether this was due to the steps used in the CICO procedure and the social implications to the secondary students.  It also notes that “CICO was designed to be a Tier II, targeted intervention, rather than an intensive, individualized intervention” (Hawken, 2014).  While some problem behaviors are reduced using CICO, some students may need more intervention that what this model allows. 

As noted in our textbook reading in Chapter 6, the students who would likely be considered at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders, and receiving a plan such as CICO, are those exhibiting externalization of their problems.  A CICO plan would not be effective for students with internalization issues.   However, I think that the benefit of having a consistent person to check in/out with each day, clearly stated expectations, and frequent feedback would definitely benefit a child exhibiting emotional and behavioral disorder problems. 

The person carrying out the CICO should make sure to be fully engaged in the child’s schedule, and make sure that their case load is not overloaded with students.  Although this article did not focus on studies where the classroom teacher was performing the CICO, it might be more beneficial at the elementary level for the general education teacher to fulfill this role.  I can also understand the need for modification and more research to be done using CICO at the secondary level.  The needs of the students and their development may not be a great fit for this method, unless it is modified to be more socially discreet.  Overall, the article was informative, but very difficult to understand in parts due to the extensive charts and wording of research terminology. 

Reference:

Hawken, L.S., Bundock, K., Kladis, K., O’Keeffe, B., & Barrett, C.A. (2014) Systematic 

       review of the check-in, check-out intervention of students at risk for emotional and 

       behavioral disorders.  Education & Treatment of Children, 37(4), 635658.

http://ezproxy.trnty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=991              27161