Developing a School-Based Multitiered Model for Self-Regulation

Abstract

Self-regulation is the control mechanism that enables a student to manage attention, emotion, behavior, and cognition to engage in goal-directed actions, such as learning. Too often, students at risk for poor school outcomes do not enter school with strongly developed self-regulation skills and have difficulty developing them on their own. Self-regulation skills can be taught and are especially effective when introduced within the school setting. This article describes a school-based model for fostering self-regulation.

Keywords

self-regulation multitiered system of support

Self-regulation, or the ability to regulate one’s thinking, behavior and emotions, is critical for success in school (Galinsky, 2010). Self-regulation is the control mechanism that enables a student to manage attention, emotion, behavior, and cognition to engage in goal-directed actions, such as learning (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Calkins & Howse, 2004; Neuenschwander, Rothlisberger, Cimeli, & Roebers, 2012). Both cognitive and behavioral regulatory processes are needed for effective self-regulation skills to navigate a formal learning environment or structured classroom setting. The cognitive components of self-regulation are thought to support processes necessary for knowledge acquisition, problem solving, and other learning related tasks, whereas behavioral components of self-regulation are thought to support processes such as conforming to social rules and behavior norms in classroom contexts, and sustaining and regulating engagement and motivation, or regulating behavioral impulses (Neuenschwander et al., 2012).

Successful school functioning relies on a fully developed self-regulation capacity, but many students, particularly students with learning, attention, and socioemotional disabilities, do not enter school with the requisite self-regulation abilities, and unfortunately do not adequately develop them on their own. Exploring ways to promote self-regulation within the school context has the potential for a wide-ranging impact on students’ ongoing socioemotional and academic development (Flook et al., 2010). When students are more self-regulated academically, they are able to work independently, process more efficiently, experience improved and more stable moods and behavior, have a stronger self-concept as a learner, and work in groups more flexibly and productively (Johnson & Clohessy, 2014).

Self-regulation is facilitated by the executive functions, which are needed (a) internally, to control thoughts and feelings, (b) externally, to meet the demands of the physical environment, and (c) socially, to regulate behavior according to the expectations of others (Johnson & Clohessy, 2014). Executive functions involve a collection of interdependent, yet somewhat independent, processes involved in planning and executing regulated, goal-oriented tasks (Flook et al., 2010). There is wide variability in the way in which executive functions are defined and the specific skills that have been identified as executive functions (Baggetta & Alexander, 2016). In general, executive functions can be thought of as the set of cognitive skills required to direct one’s behavior to achieve a goal. The model of self-regulation used for this work includes the following six executive function skills:

Metacognition: Thinking about thinking; keeping track of progress toward a goal; self-monitoring; recognizing the need for a strategy; evaluating the effectiveness of problem-solving

Planning/organizing: Goal setting and preparing; delineating steps to accomplish a goal; managing time; keeping belongings in order; arranging information; sequencing complex behaviors

Initiating: Starting a task; engaging in a behavior to achieve a goal; beginning a thought process; interacting with others to start or maintain social relations

Sustaining; Maintaining focus, effort, or attention; resisting distraction; continuing behavior or thought processes for prolonged periods of time

Inhibiting: Controlling impulsive and negative behaviors; suppressing thoughts to prevent interrupting or blurting out answers; resisting a well-practiced response in favor of a new one

Flexibility: Thinking about things from various perspectives; being open to new ways of doing things or solving problems; shifting easily from one activity to another; adapting to change (Johnson & Clohessy, 2014)

Self-regulation is achieved through the use of these executive functions to control thoughts, feelings, and behavior in response to others, or within the environment (e.g., classroom). Therefore, student needs are understood both through the self-regulation framework (e.g., In what setting and in what ways is the student experiencing difficulty?) and through an assessment of their executive functions (e.g., Does the student have difficulty sustaining attention and effort or difficulty flexibly shifting from one learning task to the next?). This allows for the careful alignment of strategies to address a student’s presenting needs.

Children who come from low income backgrounds tend to have greater difficulty with executive functions, effortful control, and the regulation of emotions. The exposure to the chronic ecological stressors associated with low income has serious negative implications on children’s ability to manage emotions, on the development of their higher-order cognitive function, and on their behavior (Blair & Raver, 2012; Evans & English, 2002; Raver, 2012). Children experiencing lower levels of executive function and more difficulty with behavioral and emotional self-control have been found to be at greater risk for difficulty in educational contexts (Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; Li-Grining, Vortuba-Drzal, Maldonado-Carreno, & Haas, 2010; Raver, 2002).

To address the needs of children from low income backgrounds, a self-regulation framework used to inform this model was developed at a center that provides psychoeducational evaluations, academic coaching, and intervention and counseling support to students with learning and attention challenges. The model is situated within a multitiered systems of support (MTSS) framework, to focus on the importance of implementing strategies through a preventive approach (Mellard & Johnson, 2008). MTSS frameworks are consistent with public health models of intervention, in which the most efficient interventions are provided for all students, and more intensive supports are designed to meet the needs of students for whom primary prevention is insufficient to achieve successful outcomes. Many schools nationally have adopted MTSS frameworks to create a responsive system of academic and behavioral supports. Building on this established approach to implementation, we worked with staff at an elementary school in the Northwest serving a high percentage of students from low-income backgrounds to include self-regulation strategies as an important component within the school’s cohesive, responsive, and inclusive system of services.

The Framework

An MTSS is defined as a continuum of research-based, system wide practices of data-based decision making used to meet the academic and behavior needs of all students (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010). Within the MTSS framework, there is a focus on inclusive academic and behavior instruction that is driven by data-based decision making and supported by increasingly intensive tiers of support to meet the needs of all students. Although specifics of MTSS implementation can differ somewhat, in general they include (a) a multilevel prevention system, (b) screening, (c) progress monitoring, and (d) data-based decision making. Under the MTSS framework, schools improve their capacity to deliver effective and appropriate levels of intervention with a focus on preventive services. Derived from the public health model, the goal is to improve outcomes for all students and to develop a system that is responsive and able to provide early intervention.

Recent policy surveys indicate that all 50 states have either state-level policies or guidance documents that inform MTSS implementation. In surveys conducted to determine the number of schools and districts implementing MTSS models in academics (e.g., response to intervention), more than 70% of districts reported some level of implementation (Balu et al., 2015). For behavior (e.g., positive behavior intervention and supports), more than 8,000 schools nationally reported some level of implementation, and that number continues to grow (Spaulding, Horner, May & Vincent, 2008). To leverage this familiar framework of service delivery and facilitate implementation, a self-regulation system of supports was situated within the MTSS framework.

Self-Regulation Model

The school-based MTSS approach was informed by a model of self-regulation that reflects the complexity of the construct and depicts the ways in which self-regulation impacts students within the school setting (see Figure 1). The self-regulation model indicates the need for individuals to manage their thoughts, feelings, and behavior in relation to their self, others, and the environment. Specific examples and situations of the self-regulation activity that may be required across these contexts are included within Figure 1. Across all components of the model, executive functions are used to achieve self-regulation.

Figure 1.

Self-regulation model that indicates the components of self, others, or the environment; the regulation of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; and some specific examples. Self-regulation is achieved through the use of the executive functions, which include metacognition, initiating, planning/organizing, sustaining, inhibiting, and flexibility.

The components of the self-regulation model include the following:

Self, or internal self-regulation—The individual must regulate internal thoughts and feelings. Staying focused, applying an appropriate problem-solving strategy, and controlling negative feelings are all examples of internal self-regulation.

Others, or social self-regulation—Social interaction is almost constant at school. Students must interact with peers, teachers, and parents to participate in the learning environment. Social self-regulation helps students build friendships. It also helps students ask for help from the teacher, complete a group project, and inform parents about what is happening at school.

Environmental self-regulation—Students must also regulate to the demands of the physical environment. Keeping physical activity at a level appropriate for the situation, inhibiting negative behaviors, and resisting distractions are all part of this aspect of self-regulation. Across all three focus areas (i.e., self, others, environment), a student will need to regulate their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors as needed to respond appropriately to the learning demands.

Developing a Responsive System

The school setting offers a conducive environment for developing self-regulation skills, because formal learning environments are highly structured and require self-regulation to be successful. The responsive system included strategies for use within a multilevel prevention system, appropriate assessments that included a process for screening students in need of more intensive support, and progress monitoring instruments to inform the ongoing implementation of the work.

Multilevel Prevention

Tier 1

Tier 1 self-regulation strategies are designed to be delivered in the classroom setting by the general education teacher. Developing Tier 1 strategies that could be easily articulated to teachers required reviewing the evidence-based strategies that support self-regulation skill development and categorizing them in ways that would be relevant for teachers, and that would promote understanding of the self-regulation framework to build their capacity to select and implement appropriate strategies. Strategies fell into the following categories:

Self-monitoring strategies that allow children to improve meta-cognition, and marshal planning, initiating, and sustaining attention to the learning environment (Raver, 2012)

Movement and breathing strategies that leverage the growing research base suggesting that physical activity can positively impact specific executive functions, in particular inhibiting thoughts and behaviors that can interfere with learning, and promote greater flexibility (Barenberg, Berse, & Dutke, 2011; Kraag, Zeegers, Kok, Hosman, & Abu-Saad, 2006)

Connection strategies that support a child’s ability to become more flexible in their responses to changing situations and interactions with others, and to inhibit disruptive behaviors (Bailey, 2015; Woltering & Shi, 2016)

Teachers learned how these strategies supported the executive functions, and how they might be applied and adapted depending on the situation. For example, the use of visual rubrics (Sam & AFIRM Team, 2015) is a self-monitoring strategy that supports metacognition, and the rubrics can depict desired behaviors within the school environment (e.g., how the class should line up and walk to the library) and desired learning tasks that support self-regulation of thoughts (e.g., organizing their paper to take notes effectively).

Select examples of the strategies within each category, and the target area the strategies address within the self-regulation framework are included in Table 1. Many of the strategies address more than one area and more than one executive function. All of the strategies are brief and easy to implement, and designed to focus the students’ attention on the importance of regulating thoughts, feelings and behaviors in ways that support learning. At the beginning of the school year, teachers attended a one-day workshop, during which they learned about the importance of self-regulation to academic success, and also learned how to integrate self-regulation strategies within their classrooms. Teachers were given a set of self-regulation strategy cards that were color-coded by category (e.g., self-monitoring, movement/breathing, connection), and included the primary focus of the strategy (e.g., environment, behaviors, inhibit), and a brief description of how to implement the strategy. This provided teachers with an easy reference system to support selection and implementation of these strategies.

Table 1.

Sample Activities and Related Self-Regulation and Executive Function Skill Targets.

Strategy	S, O, E	T, F, B	Executive Function
Self-Monitoring Strategies
Visual rubrics—display the steps of a process or depict appropriate behaviors or actions as a guide for students	E, O	B	Metacognition
Goal setting—a meta-cognitive strategy that helps students identify and reflection on target performances or behaviors	S	T	Metacognition, planning/organizing
Movement/breathing strategies
Boom-squat—a movement strategy to energize students	E	B	Sustaining
Lazy-8 breathing—a calming strategy	S	F, T	Inhibit, flexibility
Drain breathing—a calming and focusing strategy	S	T, F	Sustain, inhibit
Connection strategies^a
Validation—letting students know you understand they are experiencing emotions	S, O	F	Metacognition
Noticing—a connection strategy that draws the child’s attention to the behavior without shaming	S, O	B, F	Inhibit, flexibility, metacognition

Note: S = self; O = others; E = environment; T = thoughts; F = feelings; B = behavior.

Connection strategies are from conscious discipline.

To begin implementation teachers, in collaboration with the school counselor, identified areas of challenge they wanted to address in their classrooms. For example, one of the third grade teachers commented that her students tended to get very anxious before any testing situation, and as a result, their test performance was not consistent with the ability they displayed on lower stakes assignments. This teacher chose to implement a connection strategy during which she validated the students’ concerns about wanting to do well and also briefly reviewed how well they had done on prior classwork. Through this strategy, she helped students become aware of (metacognition) and name their feelings and concerns, and also modeled how to begin to change their thoughts to be more positive. She also implemented a movement/breathing strategy, lazy 8 breathing (Bailey, 2015), to calm and focus their attention, and to provide them with a tool they could use anytime they could feel their anxiety or stress begin to rise.

Another teacher commented that her students had significant difficulty getting ready for different aspects of the school day. This teacher selected the use of visual rubrics (Sam & AFIRM Team, 2015) that they created to illustrate what being prepared for different times of the day looked like, and then rated themselves on how well they did following the rubric. Visual rubrics became a powerful tool within this teacher’s classroom. The visual reminder provided a cue for children who needed a prompt, and the evaluation of performance supported students’ awareness of their actions.

Finally, one of the third grade teachers expressed concern about her students’ inability to sustain attention and wanted to learn more efficient ways to provide movement breaks without disrupting instruction. She reported that currently, she would allow individual students the opportunity to move when needed, but the constant movement of a few students throughout the lesson made her class feel unfocused. This teacher scheduled intentional movement breaks, and included these on the daily schedule on the board so students would know that there were planned opportunities to move across the day.

Throughout the first semester of implementation, teachers received support each week regarding any questions they had about how to implement strategies and which strategies might be the most appropriate to address the needs of their children in the classroom. In addition, the teacher who implemented visual rubrics in her classroom was experiencing significant success, and shared this with her team. Soon, nearly all teachers across the school worked with their students to develop visual rubrics for the various transitions and times during the day when students benefitted from having more guidance and structure.

Tier 2

The use of Tier 1 strategies in the classroom will support the needs of many students. However, even with Tier 1 strategies in place, there will likely be a smaller group of students whose difficulty regulating their thoughts, feelings and behavior will negatively impact school performance and will require more intensive intervention. In the MTSS self-regulation framework, Tier 2 strategies include small group counseling techniques using a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approach.

This approach asserts that a person must change the way they think before they can change the way they act. This is known as cognitive restructuring. Although the focus of small group counseling will vary somewhat depending on the needs of the students receiving Tier 2 services, counseling centers around enabling students with more intensive self-regulation needs to regulate their thoughts, feelings and behavior in relation to themselves, others and within the environments in which they operate. A number of tools are used to help students develop coping skills, build on their strengths, improve cognitive flexibility, boost positive thinking and beliefs, manage stress and negative emotions, inhibit negative behaviors, and increase their social cognitive skills. These strategies help students change behavior, improve mood and enhance their social relationships. Within the school setting, the counselors from the learning center and the school counselor cofacilitates small group counseling once per week to small groups of between three and six students in Grades 3 through 5.

Tier 3

At this point in the development of our school-based, self-regulation model, we have not specified a within-school approach to Tier 3. Children with needs that cannot be addressed through Tier 1 or 2 services do receive one-to-one support from the school counselor, but this often includes referral to the appropriate community-based organization.

Universal Screening

Universal screening is conducted to identify students who may require more intensive support to develop self-regulation than can be provided in the classroom. The Student Risk Screening Scale–Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE; Lane et al., 2012), was completed by each teacher for their students. The SRSS-IE has been determined to be both psychometrically sound and socially valid for use at the elementary school level (Lane et al., 2012). In addition, the SRSS-IE has been shown to be more effective than other screening tools in identifying students with either or both internalizing behaviors and externalizing behaviors. This information is important, as it better identifies the areas of need and informs grouping decisions and focus areas for Tier 2 interventions.

Once the initial risk pool was identified with the SRSS-IE, teachers completed the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007). The BESS is a standardized, norm-referenced tool designed to screen for externalizing, internalizing, school problem behaviors and adaptive skills in children and adolescents. The psychometric soundness of the BESS has been evaluated as strong both for reliability and validity (Jenkins et al., 2014). The data from the BESS teacher form were used to inform the prioritization of Tier 2 services and the composition of the small groups to maximize the time spent on Tier 2 counseling services.

Progress Monitoring

Tier 1 Progress Monitoring—Teacher Implementation Surveys

Teachers completed an online weekly survey that prompted them to reflect on their implementation of the self-regulation strategies. The survey is included in Figure 2. The data collected from these weekly surveys were compiled at the teacher level and then across the grade levels. Discussion with the implementation team also allows teachers to share their experiences and to encourage each other to implement those that they find impactful.

Figure 2.

Teacher self-regulation strategy implementation survey.

Tier 1 Progress Monitoring—SRSS-IE

As described earlier, the SRSS-IE is used as a screening instrument, and children are screened every 8 to 9 weeks in the school-based model. As a progress monitoring tool, the repeated administration of the SRSS-IE provides feedback on the extent to which students continue to display the externalizing and internalizing behaviors measured by the scale.

Tier 2 Progress Monitoring

The Child Outcome Rating Scales (CORS) and Child Session Rating Scales (CSRS) were developed as a means for young children and clinicians to obtain real time feedback to inform their treatment (Miller & Duncan, 2004). The CORS is a simple, four-item measure that is given after every counseling session. It is designed to assess (a) personal or symptom distress, (b) interpersonal well-being, (c) social role, and (d) overall well-being. These are four areas of life functioning known to change as a result of intervention. The CSRS was designed to give counselors feedback on the extent to which they and their students have developed what is called a therapeutic alliance—agreement on goals, agreement on tasks in therapy and emotional bond (Bordin, 1979). The CSRS is a four item measure designed to assess the client’s perceptions of (a) respect and understanding, (b) relevance of the goals and topics, (c) client–practitioner fit, and (d) overall alliance (Low & Miller, 2017). Both the CORS and the CSRS have been shown to demonstrate strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Campbell & Hemsley, 2009). These measures are used to provide formative feedback on the Tier 2 counseling sessions, and data from these measures are managed through the myOutcomes.com system.

Data-Based Decision Making

Data-based decision making is a critical component of the MTSS framework. Through structured reviews and analysis of data, school teams make decisions about academic and behavioral interventions and their efficacy. Data are periodically reviewed during a planned team meeting that follows a standard format. Building on this process, we integrated the systematic review of the various self-regulation data described in the screening and progress monitoring sections above. Specifically, data from the CORS and CSRS inform the counselors about the well-being of the students in the small groups as well as the health of the therapeutic alliances between the students and the counselors, allowing the counselors to adjust implementation of the groups to best meet the needs of the students.

At the classroom level, teachers reviewed the data from the surveys they completed to determine which strategies were most frequently implemented. In addition, the discussion of implementation provides an opportunity for teachers to reflect on the response of the students to the strategies and the needs of the classroom. Data from the counseling feedback sessions inform the Tier 2 interventions and allow counselors to make immediate adjustments to ensure they are reaching all of the students in small group. By leveraging an existing team meeting, self-regulation was successfully added as another component to the MTSS framework without requiring teachers to learn to work within a new system.

Conclusion

Self-regulation is a critical aspect of school functioning, but many students, especially those at risk for poor school outcomes do not possess adequate self-regulation skills and need support to develop them. Self-regulation is a complex construct. The self-regulation framework that informed this school-based model indicates the need for an individual to manage their thoughts, feelings, and behavior in relation to their self, others and the environment through the use of their executive functions. Creating a model of implementation consistent with the MTSS framework presents a feasible and effective way for teachers and school staff to address the self-regulation needs of their students using evidence-based strategies and data-based decision making. With the tools and resources we have compiled, the school will be able to continue its implementation of this self-regulation model to continue to serve the needs of their students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Cambia Health Foundation.

References

Baggetta

Alexander

P. A.

(2016). Conceptualization and operationalization of executive function. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10, 10–33.

Bailey

B. A.

(2015). The new conscious discipline book—Expanded & updated. Oviedo, FL: Loving Guidance.

Balu

Zhu

Doolittle

Schiller

Jenkins

Gersten

(2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Barenberg

Berse

Dutke

(2011). Executive functions in learning processes: Do they benefit from physical activity? Educational Research Review, 6, 208–222.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2004). Handbook of self-regulation. New York, NY: Guilford.

Blair

Raver

C. C.

(2012). Child development in the context of poverty: Experiential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67, 309–318. doi:10.1037/a0027493.

Bordin

E. S.

(1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy, 16, 252–260.

Brock

L. L.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Nathanson

Grimm

K. J.

(2009). The contributions of hot and cool executive function to children’s academic achievement, learning-related behaviors and engagement in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 337–349. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.06.001

Calkins

S. D.

Howse

R. B.

(2004). Individual differences in self-regulation: Implications for childhood adjustment. In Philippot

Feldman

R. S.

(Eds.), The regulation of emotion (pp. 307–332). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Campbell

Hemsley

(2009). Outcome Rating Scale and Session Rating Scale in psychological practice: Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures. Clinical Psychologist, 12, 1–9.

11.

Drummond

(1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Grants Pass, OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program. doi:10.1177/10634266070150040301

12.

Evans

G. W.

English

(2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1238–1248. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00469

13.

Flook

Smalley

S. L.

Kitil

M. J.

Galla

B. M.

Kaiser-Greenland

Locke

. . . Kasari

(2010). Effects of mindful awareness practices on executive functions in elementary school children. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 70–95. doi:10.1080/15377900903379125

14.

Galinsky

(2010). Mind in the making: The seven essential life skills every child needs. New York, NY: William Morrow.

15.

Jenkins

L. N.

Demaray

M. K.

Smit Wren

Secord

S. M.

Lyell

K. M.

Magers

A. M.

. . . Tennant

(2014). A critical review of five commonly used social-emotional and behavioral screeners for elementary or secondary schools. Contemporary School Psychology, 18, 241–254. doi:10.1007/s40688-014-0026-6

16.

Johnson

E. S.

Clohessy

A. B.

(2014). Identification and evaluation of learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

17.

Kamphaus

R. W.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

18.

Kraag

Zeegers

M. P.

Kok

Hosman

Abu-Saad

H. H.

(2006). School programs targeting stress management in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 449–472.

19.

Lane

K. L.

Menzies

H. M.

Oakes

W. P.

Lambert

Cox

Hankins

(2012). A validation of the Student Risk Screening Scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Patterns in rural and urban elementary schools. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 244–270.

20.

Li-Grining

C. P.

Vortuba-Drzal

Maldonado-Carreno

Haas

(2010). Children’s early approaches to learning and academic trajectories through fifth grade. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1062–1077. doi:10.1037/a0020066

21.

Low

D. C.

Miller

S. D.

(2017). The ORS & SRS: Feedback informed treatment in child and adolescent mental health services. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/175315141/Guidance-on-ORS-SRS-Feedback-Informed-Treatement-17-1-12

22.

Mellard

D. F.

Johnson

E. S.

(2008). Response to intervention: A practitioner’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

23.

Miller

S. D.

Duncan

B. L.

(2004). The Outcome and Session Rating Scales: Administration and scoring manuals. Chicago, IL: Author.

24.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

25.

Neuenschwander

Rothlisberger

Cimeli

Roebers

C. M.

(2012). How do different aspects of self-regulation predict successful adaptation to school? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 353–371.

26.

Norcross

J. C.

(2010). The therapeutic relationship. In Duncan

B. L.

Miller

S. D.

Wampold

B. E.

Hubble

M. A.

(Eds.), The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works in therapy (pp. 113–141). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

27.

Raver

C. C.

(2012). Low-income children’s self-regulation in the classroom: Scientific inquiry for social change. American Psychologist, 67, 681–689.

28.

Sam

AFIRM Team. (2015). Visual supports. Chapel Hill, NC: National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder, FPG Child Development Center, University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://afirm.fpg.unc.edu/visual-supports

29.

Shonkoff

J. P.

Garner

A. S.

(2011). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129, 232–246. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2663

30.

Spaulding

S. A.

Horner

R. H.

May

S. L.

Vincent

C. G.

(2008, November). Evaluation brief: Implementation of school-wide PBS across the United States. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Retrieved from http://pbis.org/evaluation/evaluation_briefs/default.aspx

31.

Wiesner

Schanding

G. T.

(2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling, bifactor models, and standard confirmatory factor analysis models: Application to the BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System teacher form. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 751–763.

32.

Woltering

Shi

(2016). On the neuroscience of self-regulation in children with disruptive behavior problems: Implications for education. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1085–1110.