Prevention Is the Best Intervention: Proactive Strategies for Supporting Students Who Engage in Escalated Behaviors

Defining Target Behaviors

Educators can use the “stranger test” prior to collecting data on escalated problem behaviors to ensure that the behavior(s) targeted for data collection are specific, objective, and measurable. If a behavior is clearly defined, a stranger (an individual unfamiliar with the student’s behavior) should be able to accurately describe what the target behavior looks like given only a written definition of the target behavior (Cooper et al., 2020). For example, when defining elopement, an educator may state that elopement is occurring any time a student leaves an assigned area without being accompanied by an educator or with educator permission. Defining escalated student behaviors in specific, objective, and measurable terms is a crucial prerequisite to accurate and consistent data collection, especially when multiple educators are collecting data in a variety of settings (O’Neill et al., 2014).

Collecting Data

Noncontingent Reinforcement

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is the use of positive reinforcement delivered to students independent of their behavior (Cooper et al., 2020). In other words, students do not need to earn reinforcement that is contingent upon engaging in desired behaviors, nor can they lose access to reinforcement contingent upon engaging in undesired behaviors. To maximize the effectiveness of NCR, educators should ensure that (a) the type of reinforcement delivered through NCR is the same as the type of reinforcement the student accesses through engaging in the problem behavior(s) and (b) NCR is delivered on a predetermined schedule to ensure reinforcement is delivered consistently (Cooper et al., 2020).

Fixed interval (FI) and variable interval (VI) schedules of reinforcement, two common schedules of reinforcement used when implementing NCR procedures, involve providing students with reinforcement at the conclusion of predetermined time intervals. While FI reinforcement schedules involve the delivery of reinforcement after a set amount of time, VI reinforcement schedules involve the delivery of reinforcement after different amounts of time revolving around a specific average (Cooper et al., 2020).

For example, a classroom teacher may deliver verbal descriptive praise every 20 min (FI 20-min schedule) for a student whose problem behavior consists of leaving the classroom or school setting without teacher permission to access the teacher’s attention usually around every 30 min (as determined through data collection). The teacher could also use a VI 20-min reinforcement schedule to provide reinforcement through teacher attention initially after 18 min of instruction, next after 22 min of instruction, and again after 20 min of instruction (i.e., reinforcement is delivered approximately every 20 min). Essentially, by providing students with frequent access to the same type of reinforcement they previously accessed by engaging in the problem behavior(s), there is often less of an incentive for the student to exhibit problem behavior(s). Thus, engaging in problem behaviors becomes unnecessary and irrelevant, as student needs are already being met (Cooper et al., 2020).

Educators can proactively address escalated student behaviors by implementing NCR procedures and, consequently, minimize the need for reactive policies such as restraint and exclusionary procedures (Phillips et al., 2017; Richman et al., 2015). Three important characteristics of NCR contribute to the effectiveness of this intervention as a viable preventive measure to exclusionary and restraint procedures within school settings. First, since NCR involves the delivery of reinforcement independent of student behaviors, there is no reinforcement delay associated with the wait for students to engage in desired behaviors (Phillips et al., 2017). This is especially advantageous when supporting students with acquiring new behaviors that can serve as socially acceptable alternatives to problem behaviors for accessing wants and needs within the school setting.

Second, as reinforcement is delivered independent of student behavior, teachers do not have to monitor occurrences of desired behaviors when delivering NCR. It is important to note that, as NCR involves delivering reinforcement that is independent of student behavior, it is possible that reinforcement could be delivered after instances of escalated behaviors and unintentionally increase escalated behaviors in the process. While it is important to monitor student behavior and ensure escalated behaviors do not increase after NCR is implemented, the ability to deliver NCR with minimal interruption to class instruction allows this intervention to be implemented with relative ease by educators with minimal formal backgrounds in applied behavior analysis. Finally, as student displays of escalated behavior decrease over time, delivery of reinforcement through NCR can be decreased (Ritter et al., 2018).

Cindy is a first-grade student who, based on a FBA, engages in problem behaviors in order to access adult attention. For example, when her preferred (favorite) adults in the school setting have not interacted with Cindy in approximately 30 min, Cindy engages in problem behaviors that include biting, spitting at, and pulling the hair of her peers and teachers. She will also run out of her classroom and leave the school property. During previous school years, when Cindy engaged in these behaviors, the classroom teacher would immediately notify both the school behavior specialist and principal. Upon locating Cindy, the school behavior specialist and principal would attempt to verbally redirect Cindy back to her classroom and, if Cindy refused, attempt to verbally redirect Cindy to the principal’s office. If Cindy did not comply, restraint procedures were frequently used to move Cindy to the principal’s office.

Based on data collection, Mr. Walsh observed that Cindy engaged in problem behaviors maintained by access to adult attention approximately every 30 min throughout the school day. In order to render these problem behaviors irrelevant through NCR, Mr. Walsh and the rest of Cindy’s team decided to implement NCR on a VI 20-min schedule. Approximately every 20 min, NCR through task-specific praise from Cindy’s teacher, notes of encouragement from adults who worked with Cindy, radio calls with preferred adults, check-ins from preferred adults, and passes to visit preferred adults were provided to Cindy. Through data collected following the implementation of NCR, Mr. Walsh noted that the frequency of her problem behaviors decreased by 40% within 2 weeks of implementation.

Implementation Tip: Build and Maintain Positive Student–Teacher Relationships

If students have had predominantly negative interactions with their teachers in the past and, as a result, perceive their teachers as aversive, attention from teachers is unlikely to function as reinforcement (Haydon et al., 2020). To build positive relationships with their students, educators must pair themselves with established reinforcers such as safe, predictable, and enriching learning environments, positive student–teacher interactions and successful experiences throughout the school day, and student interests and goals for the future (Colvin & Scott, 2015; Cooper et al., 2020). Put simply, educators can foster positive relationships with their students by building trust and rapport with their students as well as creating and maintaining learning environments that promote student engagement and success. For example, in order to build and maintain positive student–teacher relationships with Cindy, educators who worked with Cindy began each day with positive interactions (e.g., greeting Cindy on the bus ramp or upon entering her classroom), interacted with Cindy during non-instructional times throughout the school day (e.g., in the cafeteria during lunch and on the playground during recess), and ended each day with positive interactions (e.g., thanked Cindy for her attendance and effort throughout the school day, reminded her how much they were looking forward to working with her the following day).

In an effort to support educators with implementing NCR procedures, Table 2 includes a NCR implementation checklist, an application of the NCR implementation checklist used with Cindy, and helpful questions to consider when implementing NCR procedures. The intent of this table is to support educators with customizing, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of NCR interventions delivered within their classrooms, with the ultimate goal of enhancing inclusive experiences for students who engage in escalated behaviors within school settings.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Checklist for Implementing Noncontingent Reinforcement (NCR) Within School Settings.

Implementation steps	Implementation with Cindy	Questions to consider when implementing
Gather and review baseline data for the problem behavior.	Cindy engages in problem behaviors (biting, spitting at, and pulling the hair of her peers and teachers) approximately every 30 min.	Is baseline data based on objective and accurate data? If no, develop a data collection plan for obtaining this information. If yes, proceed to the next implementation step.
Determine initial rate of reinforcement to provide through NCR.	Cindy’s team decides to implement NCR on a VI 20-min schedule.	Will the initial rate of reinforcement provide student with access to reinforcement more frequently than the problem behavior? If no, revise the NCR schedule. If yes, proceed to the next implementation step.
Hypothesize function.	Based on a recent FBA, Cindy engages in problem behaviors (biting, spitting at, and pulling the hair of her peers and teachers) in order to access adult attention.	Is the hypothesized function linked to student’s FBA? If no, revisit the student’s FBA. If yes, proceed to the next implementation step.
Select reinforcer(s).	Cindy’s team includes task-specific praise from Cindy’s teacher, notes of encouragement from adults that work with Cindy, radio calls with preferred adults, check-ins from preferred adults, and passes to visit preferred adults as part of their NCR intervention.	Is reinforcer(s) linked to the function of the problem behavior? If no, choose a different reinforcer(s) that is linked to the function of the problem behavior. If yes, proceed to the next implementation step.
Continue monitoring occurrences of the problem behavior.	Cindy’s attention-maintained problem behaviors (biting, spitting at, and pulling the hair of her peers and teachers) decrease by 40% 2 weeks after implementing NCR.	Are occurrences of the problem behavior decreasing? If no, revisit the steps above and meet as a team to determine if NCR procedures are consistently being implemented as intended. If yes, gradually fade the NCR reinforcement schedule and continue monitoring the occurrences of the problem behavior.

Note. VI = variable interval; FBA = functional behavior assessment.

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior

Differential reinforcement is defined as the reinforcement of some behaviors but not others (Cooper et al., 2020). In other words, reinforcement is provided contingent on occurrences of desired behaviors or the absence of problem behaviors and minimized or withheld contingent on occurrences of problem behaviors. Similar to NCR procedures, it is important to ensure the type of reinforcement delivered through differential reinforcement procedures is the same as the type of reinforcement the student accesses through engaging in the problem behavior(s), and that differential reinforcement procedures are implemented using a predetermined schedule of reinforcement based on baseline data related to escalated student behaviors. Providing students with frequent access to reinforcement through the use of differential reinforcement procedures can render engaging in problem behaviors irrelevant as students are already accessing reinforcement consistently. Frequent access to differential reinforcement can also make problem behavior inefficient for students because refraining from engaging in problem behaviors takes less effort than engaging in problem behaviors (Cooper et al., 2020; Jessel & Ingvarsson, 2016).

Fixed-interval differential reinforcement of other behavior (FI-DRO), a type of differential reinforcement, involves establishing time intervals for data collection purposes, providing reinforcement contingent on the absence of the problem behavior during a time interval, and withholding reinforcement contingent on the occurrence of the problem behavior during a time interval (Cooper et al., 2020). If problem behaviors do occur during a time interval, the time interval is discontinued, and a new time interval begins. It is important to note that, in order to increase the probability that students frequently access reinforcement through FI-DRO procedures, time intervals should initially be determined based on data collection related to the escalated behavior. For example, for a student who engages in physical aggression approximately every 30 min, time intervals included in a FI-DRO procedure may begin at approximately every 20 min. Then, as occurrences of physical aggression decrease, the length of intervals can be gradually increased.

There are several DRO procedures for preventing escalated student behaviors available to educators. In an effort to support educators with identifying and implementing DRO procedures for use in their classrooms, Table 3 provides brief overviews and practical examples of these DRO procedures applied to preventing escalated student behaviors within school settings.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) Procedures for Preventing Escalated Student Behaviors.

Procedure	Description	Example application	Reinforcement schedule used
Fixed Interval DRO (FI-DRO)	Reinforcement is delivered contingent on the problem behavior not occurring within a set interval of time.	Student accesses reinforcement after participating in class for 15 min without hitting a peer or adult.	FI-DRO 15-min schedule
Variable Interval DRO (VI-DRO)	Reinforcement is delivered contingent on the problem behavior not occurring within a variable interval of time that is based on a specific average.	Student accesses reinforcement after participating in class for approximately 15 min without hitting a peer or adult.	VI-DRO 15-min schedule
Fixed-Momentary DRO (FM-DRO)	Reinforcement is delivered contingent on the problem behavior not occurring at the end of a set amount of time.	Student accesses reinforcement if, at the conclusion of a 15-min time interval, the student is not engaging in property destruction (e.g., ripping bulletin board displays).	FM-DRO 15-min schedule
Variable-Momentary DRO (VM-DRO)	Reinforcement is delivered contingent on the problem behavior not occurring at the end of a variable amount of time that is based on a specific average.	Student accesses reinforcement if, at the end of a time interval approximating 15 min, the student is not engaging in property destruction (e.g., ripping bulletin board displays).	VM-DRO 15-min schedule

Instead of following her second-grade classroom schedule, Wendy frequently wanders around the classroom engaging in preferred tasks and activities. Specifically, tangibles Wendy frequently accesses include books, dolls, center items in her classroom, and items off of her teacher’s desk such as figurines and stuffed animals. When tangibles listed above are taken away, Wendy engages in physically aggressive behaviors toward adults (primarily her classroom teacher) such as biting, scratching, hitting with a closed fist, kicking, and spitting. A recent FBA has determined that Wendy engages in the behaviors listed above to access tangibles.

During past school years, when Wendy engaged in physical aggression, the teacher working with Wendy would immediately notify both the school behavior specialist and principal. After arriving in Wendy’s classroom, the school behavior specialist and principal would interlock arms with Wendy and walk with her to the principal’s office (i.e., implement a restraint procedure). If Wendy continued to engage in physical aggression in the principal’s office, Wendy’s parents were typically notified, and Wendy was sent home for the remainder of the school day.

Based on data collection, Mr. Walsh observed that Wendy engaged in physical aggression toward adults approximately every 15 min throughout the school day. In order to provide Wendy with frequent access to reinforcement without engaging in problem behaviors, Mr. Walsh and the rest of Wendy’s team decided to implement a FI-DRO procedure beginning with 10-min time intervals. At the conclusion of a 10-min interval during which zero occurrences of physical aggression occur, Wendy is permitted to choose from a wide array of preferred items and activities (e.g., books, dolls, figurines, stuffed animals) and play with one of these tangibles for 3 min. If Wendy does engage in physical aggression toward adults during a time interval, the time interval is discontinued and, when Wendy is no longer engaging in physical aggression, a new time interval begins.

In order to minimize and eliminate access to reinforcement contingent on problem behaviors, Wendy’s teacher removes the figurines and stuffed animals from her desk and locks them in a cabinet in her classroom. She also stores preferred items and activities Wendy previously accessed through problem behaviors (e.g., books, dolls, center items in her classroom) in a locked file cabinet until these materials are available for student use during free time and center activities.

Implementation Tip: Identify and Respond to Precursor Behaviors

Precursor behaviors refer to mild problem behaviors that typically precede more escalated problem behaviors and can be identified through conversations with students’ family members and educators, as well as by directly observing students in settings where escalated behaviors typically occur (Heath & Smith, 2019; Najdowski et al., 2008). For example, a student who engages in physical aggression toward educators in order to avoid or escape independent seatwork may first refuse to complete their seatwork, request to leave class (e.g., request to use the restroom, visit the school nurse), or use profanity if not permitted to do so. Students often engage in different problem behaviors for the same reason and, by responding to mild problem behaviors, we can more safely, more efficiently, and less restrictively address student problem behaviors they escalate in intensity. Specifically, as precursor and escalated problem behaviors can be maintained by the same function, identifying precursor behaviors allows educators to better understand root causes of problem behaviors, respond to problem behaviors before problem behaviors escalate in nature, and minimize disruptions to student learning within inclusive school settings (Hoffmann et al., 2018).

Scaffolding instruction, incorporating choice-making opportunities into daily instruction (e.g., allowing students to choose what reinforcer they can earn contingent on completing classroom assignments), and reminding students of reinforcement contingencies available in the classroom (e.g., DRO procedures) are all potential strategies for responding to precursor behaviors displayed by students such as Wendy who engage in escalated problem behaviors maintained by avoidance/escape of non-preferred tasks and activities (Colvin & Scott, 2015; Cooper et al., 2020). For example, when Wendy’s teacher observes Wendy engaging in relatively minor problem behaviors that typically precede occurrences of physical aggression (e.g., requests to leave assigned area, complaints about schoolwork), Wendy’s teacher prompts Wendy to view the timer on her desk and reminds her that she will have her choice of preferred items and activities as soon as the timer beeps (contingent on physical aggression not occurring). She also checks in frequently with Wendy to ensure Wendy understands assignment expectations and provides instructional scaffolding and supports as needed to ensure Wendy is successful with class assignments.

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior involves teaching and reinforcing socially acceptable alternatives to problem behaviors. The rationale behind DRA is that by teaching and reinforcing alternative strategies students can use to access wants and needs within the school setting, educators can facilitate meaningful behavior change among their students by simultaneously reinforcing desired behaviors and withholding reinforcement contingent on occurrences of problem behaviors (Cooper et al., 2020).

There are three essential components of alternative behaviors taught and reinforced as parts of a DRA intervention. First, alternative behaviors need to be function-based. That is, in order to incentivize engaging in the alternative behavior as opposed to the problem behavior, engaging in the alternative behavior must allow the student to consistently and immediately access or avoid the same stimuli as engaging in the problem behavior. Second, the alternative behavior should be a step toward the long-term behavior goal within a particular context or situation, such as verbally requesting to leave the classroom instead of leaving the classroom without permission, or taking a brief activity break after completing independent seatwork instead of engaging in property destruction to avoid independent seatwork. This is crucial to encourage the acquisition and development of socially acceptable behaviors, in addition to discouraging occurrences of problem behaviors through DRA interventions (Cooper et al., 2020). Third, the alternative behavior must be perceived as socially acceptable among educators. If the alternative behavior is not perceived as socially acceptable, educators are less likely to consistently reinforce occurrences of the alternative behavior.

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior interventions have been used to address escalated student behaviors, such as physical aggression, property destruction, and leaving assigned areas without permission (Athens & Vollmer, 2010; Boyle & Adamson, 2017), and are essentially “win-win scenarios” for students and educators. By engaging in socially acceptable behaviors, students are able to access the same type of reinforcement that previously maintained occurrences of problem behaviors. During this process, educators are able to maintain instructional control of their classrooms because reinforcement is contingent on the occurrence of behaviors they perceive to be desirable and minimized or withheld contingent on the occurrence of problem behaviors.

Marcus is a fifth-grade student who, based on a recent FBA, engages in escalated behaviors in order to avoid/escape non-preferred tasks and activities. For example, when Marcus is asked to engage in independent seat work during math class, Marcus engages in property destruction (e.g., throws computers and keyboards on the floor, flips over chairs and tables, rips down classroom bulletin boards). During past school years, when Marcus engaged in these escalated behaviors, the classroom teacher would immediately notify both the school behavior specialist and principal. Upon entering Marcus’ classroom, the school behavior specialist and principal would verbally prompt Marcus to stop engaging in property destruction. If Marcus did not comply (which was typically the case), the school behavior specialist and principal would implement a restraint procedure by interlocking arms with Marcus and escorting him to the principal’s office. If Marcus continued to engage in property destruction in the principal’s office, Marcus’ parents were typically notified, and Marcus was sent home for the remainder of the school day.

In an effort to support educators with teaching and reinforcing alternative behaviors, we have included a competing behavior pathway model for Marcus (see Figure 1). The competing behavior pathway model includes the current reinforcement contingency maintaining occurrences of escalated behaviors. Specifically, members of a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team (e.g., family members, educators) collaborate and identify setting events (i.e., slow triggers that typically occur before, but not immediately before, problem behaviors such as an argument at home with a parent or missed medication), antecedents (i.e., fast triggers that immediately precede problem behaviors such as transitioning from a preferred to non-preferred activity or the presentation of an academic task demand), and the maintaining consequence (i.e., what the student typically accesses or avoids by engaging in an escalated problem behavior) associated with escalated student behaviors (O’Neill et al., 2014).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The competing behavior pathway model used to address Marcus’ property destruction behaviors.

After completing this targeted analysis, the team also identifies the desired behavior presented as a long-term behavior goal, accompanied by the predicted maintaining consequence of the desired behavior and, thereby, generating the rationale for working toward the desired behavior. For example, because Marcus typically avoids or altogether escapes independent seatwork by engaging in property destruction, the newly developed long-term behavior goal for Marcus includes completing seatwork independently. The consequences associated with this behavior are likely to include improved grades and progress toward IEP goals and other indicators of academic achievement. Finally, because the desired behavior is not being exhibited by the student, the team identifies an alternative behavior that addresses both the function of the problem behavior and is a step toward achieving this desired behavior. For example, Marcus can utilize a break card to receive a brief activity break.

Implementation Tip: Present Alternative Behaviors as Steps Toward Long-Term Behavior Goals

It is possible that educators and students’ family members may feel uncomfortable reinforcing alternative behaviors, believing that alternative behaviors involve lowering expectations for students that engage in escalated behaviors. Consequently, it is important to communicate to educators and students’ family members that, except in cases when the alternative and desired behaviors are identical (e.g., hand-raising to access adult attention), reinforcing occurrences of the alternative behavior is only temporary (O’Neill et al., 2014). In other words, as occurrences of problem behaviors decrease and occurrences of the alternative behavior increase, the team can gradually begin teaching and reinforcing behaviors that more closely resemble the desired behavior.

Figure 2 outlines the process used by Mr. Walsh and the rest of Marcus’ team to decrease his property destruction behaviors. This resource is intended to support educators with facilitating student progress from engaging in the alternative behavior to engaging in the desired behavior, as well as communicating this progress to students’ educators and family members. As occurrences of property destruction decrease, Marcus’ educators will gradually fade the provision of brief breaks from independent seatwork (from the opportunity to present three break cards per class to the opportunity to request teacher or peer support with one problem on an independent seatwork math activity). Unlike the lengthy periods of independent seatwork Marcus previously avoided by engaging in property destruction behaviors, these brief breaks from independent seatwork are increasing the amount of independent seat work Marcus completes during math class. As Marcus more consistently accesses the same types of naturally occurring reinforcement that maintain the task completion of his peers (e.g., improved grades, skill mastery), the need for contrived reinforcers (e.g., break cards) can be reduced gradually as natural forms of reinforcement maintain and increase rates of desired behaviors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Marcus’ plan for progressing from the alternative behavior to the desired behavior.