Assessment in School Consultation

  • William P. Erchul
  • Brian K. Martens
Part of the Issues in Clinical Child Psychology book series (ICCP)


As discussed in Chap. 6, our integrated model of school consultation involves three interrelated tasks; problem-solving, social influence, and support and development. Of these, the problem-solving task is the primary vehicle through which school-based interventions are designed, implemented, and evaluated. As such, problem solving (or the general problem-solving model described in Chap. 2) forms the basis of school consultation as a method of service delivery.

Accomplishing the problem-solving task requires that the consultant or consulting team address specific objectives over the course of the three interviews (i.e., the PII, PAI, and PEI). Although these objectives were listed in Chap. 5, it is important to recognize that each interview contains objectives related to the assessment of client (i.e., student) behavior. During the PII, consultants are required to begin identifying conditions that may be contributing to problem behavior as antecedents and consequences and to establish procedures for data collection. A more thorough assessment of behavioral function is conducted during the PAI to support hypotheses about why problem behavior is occurring and to select conceptually relevant interventions. Finally, a primary goal of the consultant during the PEI is to evaluate treatment outcomes relative to consultee goals that were established in the PII as well as baseline levels of client performance.


Repeated Reading Oral Reading Fluency Early Literacy Skill Functional Behavior Assessment Teacher Attention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Department of Psychiatry: Burlington University of Vermont.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. M., & Long, E. S. (2002). Use of a structured descriptive assessment methodology to identify variables affecting problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 137-154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Suldo, S. M., Connell, J. E., Hoenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., et al. (2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33, 218-233.Google Scholar
  4. Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K., Ganuza, Z. M., & London, R. M. (2009). Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation: Single-case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 20-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly, E. J., Johnson, S., & LeClair, C. (2009). An experimental analysis of phoneme blending and segmenting skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 5-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Hamler, K., Dool, E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Skinner, C. H., & Noell, G. H. (2009). Contributions of applied behavior analysis. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 84-106). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Drasgow, E., & Yell, M. L. (2001). Functional behavioral assessments: Legal requirements and challenges. School Psychology Review, 30, 239-251.Google Scholar
  12. Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99-117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Eckert, T. L., Martens, B. K., & DiGennaro, F. D. (2005). Describing antecedent-behavior-consequence relations using conditional probabilities and the general operant contingency space: A preliminary investigation. School Psychology Review, 34, 520-528.Google Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986a). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986b). Linking assessment to instructional intervention: An overview. School Psychology Review, 15, 318-323.Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.Google Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R. M. (1991). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20, 49-66.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbon, J., Berryman, R., & Thompson, R. L. (1974). Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 585-605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from
  20. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147-185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harding, J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Millard, T., & Jensen-Kovalan, P. (1994). Brief hierarchical assessment of potential treatment components with children in an outpatient clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 291-300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes, S. C. (1981). Single case experimental design and empirical clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 198-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hintze, J. M., & Christ, T. J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33, 204-217.Google Scholar
  24. Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980). Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, K. M., Wickstrom, K. F., Noltemeyer, A. L., Brown, S. J., Schuka, J. R., & Therrien, W. J. (2009). An experimental analysis of reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 35-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kavale, K. (1990). Effectiveness of special education. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 868-898). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown, D. K. (1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysis data to implement interventions to decrease students’ problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 227-238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Luiselli, J. K., Reed, D. D., & Martens, B. K. (in press). Academic problems. In M. Hersen & J.C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Psychology Competencies (Volume III). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Martens, B. K., & Ardoin, S. P. (2010). Assessing disruptive behavior within a problem-solving model. In G. G. Peacock, R. A. Ervin, E. J. Daly, & K. W. Merrell (Eds.), Practical handbook in school psychology: Effective practices for the 21st century (pp. 157-174). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Martens, B. K., & DiGennaro, F. D. (2008). Behavioral consultation. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (pp. 147-170). New York: Taylor & Francis Group/Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Martens, B. K., DiGennaro, F. D., Reed, D. D., Szczech, F. M., & Rosenthal, B. D. (2008). Contingency space analysis: An alternative method for identifying contingent relations from observational data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 69-81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Martens, B. K., & Eckert, T. L. (2000). The essential role of data in psychological theory. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 369-376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Begeny, J. C., Lewandowski, L. J., DiGennaro, F., Montarello, S., et al. (2007). Effects of a fluency-building program on the reading performance of low-achieving second and third grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 39-54.Google Scholar
  34. Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Bradley, T. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (1999). Identifying effective treatments from a brief experimental analysis: Using single-case design elements to aid decision making. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 163-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martens, B. K., & Gertz, L. E. (2009). Brief experimental analysis: A decision tool for bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 92-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martens, B. K., & Witt, J. C. (2004). Competence, persistence, and success: The positive psychology of behavioral skill instruction. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 19-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Daly, E. J., & Vollmer, T. (1999). Behavior analysis: Theory and practice in educational settings. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 638-663). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  38. McDougal, J. L., Chafouleas, S. M., & Waterman, B. (2006). Functional behavioral assessment and intervention in schools: A practitioner’s guide - grades 1-8. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
  39. McKerchar, P. M., & Thompson, R. H. (2004). A descriptive analysis of potential reinforcement contingencies in the preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 431-444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Miltenberger, R. G. (2008). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (4th ed.). Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  41. Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. (2000). Questions about behavioral function (QABF): A behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 223-229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Reed, D. D., & Martens, B. K. (2008b). Sensitivity and bias under conditions of equal and unequal academic task difficulty. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 39-52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Reschly, D. (2004). Paradigm shift, outcomes, criteria, and behavioral interventions: Foundations for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 408-416.Google Scholar
  44. Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  45. Shinn, M. R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 671-698). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  46. Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 295-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sterling-Turner, H. E., Robinson, S. L., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2001). Functional assessment of distracting and disruptive behaviors in the school setting. School Psychology Review, 30, 211-226.Google Scholar
  48. Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343-351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Volpe, R. J., DiPerna, J. C., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34, 454-474.Google Scholar
  50. Weeks, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task difficulty and aberrant behavior in severely handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 19-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Witt, J. C., Daly, E. M., & Noell, G. (2000). Functional assessments: A step-by-step guide to solving academic and behavior problems. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  52. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Marston, D. (1990). The use of assessment information to plan instructional interventions: A review of the research. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 661-682). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations