Advertisement

Contemporary School Psychology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 488–502 | Cite as

The Electronic Home Note Program: An Effective Intervention Package to Improve Parent Program Participation, On-Task Behavior, and Academic Performance

  • Laura Lopach
  • William Jenson
  • John Davis
  • James Knorr
  • Rob O’Neill
Article

Abstract

The current study examined the efficacy of the Electronic Home Note Program (EHNP) for improving on-task behavior, math performance, and home-school collaboration. The EHNP is a package-ready web-based home note that utilizes Google Drive. The study was conducted in a public elementary school serving predominantly low-income ethnic minority students. Student participants were four males in either the fourth or fifth grade with lower rates of on-task behavior and math performance in comparison to classroom peers. The intervention phase was 4 to 5 weeks in duration. Results indicate large effects (Tau-U = 0.90) for on-task behavior, which were maintained for all students when compared with baseline at a 3-week follow-up. During the intervention phase, three of four student’s on-task rates improved to a level that approximated that of classroom peers. Results indicate medium effects (Tau-U = 0.65) for math problem completion and large effects in math accuracy (Tau-U = 0.70). Parents consistently reviewed electronic home note (EHN) data with their child 84% at home. Parent, student, and teacher ratings indicate acceptable social validity of the EHNP. All parents and teachers reported the EHNP improved their home-school collaboration. The utility of using a web-based package-ready EHN is discussed.

Keywords

Behavior interventions Electronic home note Daily behavior report card Academic achievement Educational technology 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Atkeson, B. M., & Forehand, R. (1979). Home-based reinforcement programs designed to modify classroom behavior: A review and methodological evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1298–1308.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.6.1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baggett, K. M., Davis, B., Feil, E. G., Sheeber, L. L., Landry, S. H., Carta, J. J., & Leve, C. (2010). Technologies for expanding the reach of evidence-based interventions: Preliminary results for promoting social-emotional development in early childhood. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(4), 226–238.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121409354782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, J. S., Wolf, M. M., & Phillips, E. L. (1970). Home-based reinforcement and the modification of pre-delinquents' classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blechman, E. A., Taylor, C. J., & Schrader, S. M. (1981). Family problem solving versus home notes as early intervention with high-risk children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 919–926.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.49.6.919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budd, K. S., Leibowitz, J. M., Riner, L. S., Mindell, C., & Goldfarb, A. L. (1981). Home-based treatment of severe disruptive behaviors: A reinforcement package for preschool and kindergarten children. Behavior Modification, 5, 273–298.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014544558152008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chafouleas, S. M. (2013). Direct Behavior Rating: Overview of use in assessing student behavior within multitiered models of service delivery. Paper presented at the Rhode Island School Psychologists Association Conference, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
  7. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & McDougal, J. L. (2002). Good, bad, or in-between: How does the daily behavior report card rate? Psychology in the Schools, 39(2), 157–169.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(3), 174–182.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007060080030601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Christ, T. J. (2009). Direct behavior rating (DBR): An emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, A. (2010). Google doc home notes: A paperless method to increase home-school collaboration. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  11. De Martini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37(2), 149–156.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200003)37:23.0.CO;2-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dougherty, E. H., & Dougherty, A. (1977). The daily report card: A simplified and flexible package for classroom management. Psychology in the Schools, 14(2), 191–195.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197704)14:2<191::AID-PITS2310140213>3.0.CO;2-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ducharme, J. M., & Shecter, C. (2011). Bridging the gap between clinical and classroom intervention: Keystone approaches for students with challenging behavior. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 257–274.Google Scholar
  14. Edlund, C. V. (1969). Rewards at home to promote desirable school behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1(4), 121–127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/004005996900100408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliot, S. N. (1986). Children's ratings of the acceptability of classroom interventions for misbehavior: Findings and methodological considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(86)90039-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliot, S. N., & Treuting, M. V. (1991). The behavior intervention rating scale: Development and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effectiveness measure. The Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 43–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(86)90039-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic math (2nd ed.). Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  18. Gable, L. F. (2002). The efficacy of a school-home note intervention using Internet communication for decreasing inappropriate classroom behaviors of secondary level students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3043147).Google Scholar
  19. Grady, E. (2013). The development of an enhanced school home note intervention: Applying key behavioral parenting training components to improve the outcomes of school based behavioral intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3588691).Google Scholar
  20. Hagermoser Sanetti, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Long, A. C., Kim, J., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2014). Using implementation planning to increase teachers' adherence and quality to behavior support plans. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 879–895.Google Scholar
  21. Horner, D. R., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe techniques: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1996). Homenotes to improve motivation. In H. K. Reavis, M. T. Sweeten, W. R. Jenson, D. P. Morgan, D. J. Andrews, & S. Fister (Eds.), Best practices: Behavioral and educational strategies for teachers (pp. 29–39). Longmont: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  23. Jenson, W. R., & Sprick, M. S. (2014). The Tough Kid: On-task in a box. Eugene: Pacific Northwest Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Jenson, W. R., Rhode, G., & Reavis, H. K. (2009). The Tough Kid Tool Box. Eugene: Pacific Northwest Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Kelley, M. L. (1990). School-home notes: Promoting children's classroom success. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Knorr, J. (2015). A validation and efficacy study examining the electronic home note intervention package for increasing rates of on-task and academic performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3727085).Google Scholar
  27. Knorr, J., Jenson, W. R., & Lopach, L. (2017). The Tough Kid electronic home notes. Eugene: Pacific Northwest Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Knorr, J., Lopach, L., Jenson, W. R., & Davis, J. (2018). A validation and efficacy study examining the electronic home note intervention package for increasing rates of on-task and academic performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology. Google Scholar
  29. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M. & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
  30. LeBel, T. J., Chafouleas, S. M., Britner, P. A., & Simonsen, B. (2013). Use of a daily report card in an intervention package involving home-school communication to reduce disruptive behavior in preschoolers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopach, L. C. (2016). The Electronic Daily School Note: A study examining an evidence-based school intervention package for improving on-task behavior, academics, and home-school collaboration. University of Utah, Department of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  32. Olmstead, K. (2017). A third of Americans live in households with three or more smartphones: Fact Tank: News in numbers. (Online Article) Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-think/2017/05/25/a-third-of-americans-live-in-a-household-with-three-or-more-smartphones/
  33. Owens, J. S., Holdaway, A. S., Zoromski, A. K., Evans, S. W., Himawan, L. K., Girio-Herrera, E., & Murphy, C. E. (2012). Incremental benefits of a daily report card intervention over time for youth with disruptive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 43, 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). Improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining nonverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pew Research Center (2017). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/#.
  37. Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, K. (2010). The Tough Kid Book: Practical classroom strategies (2nd ed.). Eugene: Pacific Northwest.Google Scholar
  38. Richards, L., Heathfield, L., & Jenson, W. R. (2010). Classwide peer-modeling intervention package to increase on-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rideout, D., Dunham, M. & McCall, M. (2014). Student time-on-task: Obtaining local norms. Explorations: A signature series of graduate student creative and scholarly works, 4, 1–7.Google Scholar
  40. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., Briesch, A. M., & Eckert, T. L. (2008). Daily behavior report cards and systematic direct observation: An investigation of the acceptability, reported training and use, and decision reliability among school psychologists. Journal of Behavior Education, 17(4), 313–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9070-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schlientz, M. D., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Briesch, A. M., Walcott, C., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). The impact of training on the accuracy of direct behavior ratings (DBRs). School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 73–83.Google Scholar
  42. Trovato, J., & Bucher, B. (1980). Peer tutoring with or without home-based reinforcement, for reading remediation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13(1), 129–141.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1980.13-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 403–411.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., Davis, C. R., Mason, B. A., & Burke, M. D. (2010). Effective intervention for behavior with a daily behavior report card: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 39(4), 654–672.Google Scholar
  45. Volpe, R. J., & Fabiano, G. A. (2013). Daily behavior report cards: An evidence based system of assessment and intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, K. L., Noell, G. H., Jones, B. A., & Gansle, K. A. (2012). Modifying students' classroom behaviors using an electronic daily behavior report card. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of UtahMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations