Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 313–327 | Cite as

Daily Behavior Report Cards and Systematic Direct Observation: An Investigation of the Acceptability, Reported Training and Use, and Decision Reliability Among School Psychologists

  • T. Chris Riley-Tillman
  • Sandra M. Chafouleas
  • Amy M. Briesch
  • Tanya L. Eckert
Original Paper


More than ever, educators require assessment procedures and instrumentation that are technically adequate as well as efficient to guide data-based decision making. Thus, there is a need to understand perceptions of available tools, and the decisions made when using collected data, by the primary users of those data. In this paper, two studies that surveyed members of the National Association of School Psychologists with regard to two procedures useful in formative assessment, (i.e., Daily Behavior Report Cards; Systematic Direct Observation), are presented. Participants reported greater overall levels of training and use of Systematic Direct Observation than Daily Behavior Report Cards, yet both techniques were rated as equally acceptable for use in formative assessment. Furthermore, findings supported that school psychologists tend to make similar intervention decisions when presented with both types of data. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.


Daily behavior report cards Direct behavior ratings Systematic direct observation Social behavior assessment 



The authors would like to extend sincere thanks to Julie Chanese for her assistance with this study.


  1. Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Briesch, A. M., & Chanese, J. A. M. (2007a). Generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Ratings to measure social behavior of preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36, 63–79.Google Scholar
  2. Chafouleas, S. M., McDougal, J. L., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Panahon, C. J., & Hilt, A. M. (2005). What do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 669–676. doi: 10.1002/pits.20102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Eckert, T. L. (2003). A comparison of school psychologists’ acceptability, training, and use of Norm-referenced, Curriculum-Based, and Brief Experimental Analysis methods to assess reading. School Psychology Review, 32, 272–281.Google Scholar
  4. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Sassu, K. A. (2006). Acceptability and reported use of Daily Behavior Report Cards among teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 174–182. doi: 10.1177/10983007060080030601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Sugai, G. (2007b). School-based behavior assessment and monitoring for informing instruction and intervention. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Sassu, K. A., LaFrance, M. J., & Patwa, S. S. (2007a). The consistency of Daily Behavior Report Cards in monitoring interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 30–37. doi: 10.1177/10983007070090010401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curtis, M. J., Lopez, A. D., Batsche, G. M., & Smith, J. C. (2006, March). School psychology 2005: A national perspective. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Eckert, T. L., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1997). School psychologists’ acceptability of behavioral and traditional assessment procedures for externalizing problem behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 150–169. doi: 10.1037/h0088956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckert, T. L., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1999). Development and refinement of a measure for assessing the acceptability of assessment methods: The Assessment Rating Profile-Revised. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 15, 21–42. doi: 10.1177/082957359901500103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 621–626.Google Scholar
  11. Hintze, J. M. (2005). Psychometrics of direct observation. School Psychology Review, 34, 507–519.Google Scholar
  12. Hintze, J. M., & Matthews, W. J. (2004). The generalizability of SDOs across time and setting: A preliminary investigation of the psychometrics of behavioral observation. School Psychology Review, 33, 258–270.Google Scholar
  13. Macmann, G. M., & Barnett, D. W. (1999). Diagnostic decision-making in school psychology: Understanding and coping with uncertainty. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 519–548). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., & Briesch, A. M. (2007). A school practitioner’s guide to using Daily Behavior Report Cards to monitor interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 77–89. doi: 10.1002/pits.20207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., Sassu, A., Chanese, J. A., & Glazer, A. D. (2008). An analysis of the agreement of Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) and direct observation data for both on-task and disruptive behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 136–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Kalberer, S. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2005). Selecting the right tool for the job: A review of behavior monitoring tools used to assess student response to intervention. California School Psychologist, 10, 81–91.Google Scholar
  17. Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  18. Shapiro, E. S., & Heick, P. F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred for social/behavioral/emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 551–561. doi: 10.1002/pits.10176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stone, C. A. (2001). Issues in data-based decision making in special education: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 30, 463–465.Google Scholar
  20. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Snyder, P. (2006). Integrating frameworks from early childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young children. School Psychology Review, 35, 519–534.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Chris Riley-Tillman
    • 1
  • Sandra M. Chafouleas
    • 2
  • Amy M. Briesch
    • 2
  • Tanya L. Eckert
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  3. 3.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations