Daily Report Card
Study: Fabiano et al. (2010)

The Daily Report Card (DRC) is an evidence-supported intervention for youth with disruptive behavior disorders and school performance challenges. The DRC is a list of targeted behaviors that are evaluated throughout the day by a teacher or other professional. The child is provided feedback on meeting/not meeting targets throughout the day. The DRC is then sent home with the child and home-based privileges and rewards are provided based on meeting daily goals.

• Students with disabilities only
• Students with learning disabilities
• Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
• Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
• Other: Students with ADHD

• Physical Aggression
• Verbal Threats
• Property Destruction
• Noncompliance
• High Levels of Disengagement
• Disruptive Behavior
• Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)

Acquisition & Cost

Where to Obtain: Guilford Press / Fastbridge Learning 43 Main Street SE, Suite 509 Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-424-3714 www.fastbridge.org

The book can be obtained from the Guilford Press for $31.45 DRC is available through FastBridge Learning. FAST is the Formative Assessment System for Teachers and it provides teachers with a set of tools and assessments for fast assessment of students’ skills, including Behavior assessment and intervention tools. Subscription to FAST is on an annual per student basis of $6/student and includes access to the full FAST system, all assessments and supporting tools, access to an online knowledge base, as well as online training and certification for teachers and administrators.

Training & Technical Support

• Special Education Teacher
• General Education Teacher
• Reading Specialist
• Math Specialist
• EL Specialist
• Interventionist
• Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
• Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
• Paraprofessional
• Other: Parents

Teachers, parents, and professionals will require some basic familiarity with behavioral principles and procedures.

Administration

• Individual students

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

The Daily Report Card (DRC) is an evidence-supported intervention for youth with disruptive behavior disorders and school performance challenges. The DRC is a list of targeted behaviors that are evaluated throughout the day by a teacher or other professional. The child is provided feedback on meeting/not meeting targets throughout the day. The DRC is then sent home with the child and home-based privileges and rewards are provided based on meeting daily goals.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

Age 0-3
Age 3-5
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelth grade

The program is intended for use with the following groups.

Students with disabilities only
Students with learning disabilities
Students with intellectual disabilities
Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
English language learners
Any student at risk for academic failure
Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
Other
If other, please describe:
Students with ADHD

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Print knowledge/awareness
Alphabet knowledge
Phonological awareness
Phonological awarenessEarly writing
Early decoding abilities
Other

If other, please describe:

Expressive and receptive vocabulary
Grammar
Syntax
Listening comprehension
Other
If other, please describe:

Phonological awareness
Phonics/word study
Comprehension
Fluency
Vocabulary
Spelling
Other
If other, please describe:

Computation
Concepts and/or word problems
Whole number arithmetic
Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
Algebra
Fractions, decimals (rational number)
Geometry and measurement
Other
If other, please describe:

Handwriting
Spelling
Sentence construction
Planning and revising
Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Physical Aggression
Verbal Threats
Property Destruction
Noncompliance
High Levels of Disengagement
Disruptive Behavior
Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
Other
If other, please describe:

Depression
Anxiety
Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
School Phobia
Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address 43 Main Street SE, Suite 509 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone Number 612-424-3714 Website www.fastbridge.org

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost $ 6.00 Unit of cost student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost $ 6.00 Unit of cost student Duration of license year

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

The book can be obtained from the Guilford Press for $31.45 DRC is available through FastBridge Learning. FAST is the Formative Assessment System for Teachers and it provides teachers with a set of tools and assessments for fast assessment of students’ skills, including Behavior assessment and intervention tools. Subscription to FAST is on an annual per student basis of $6/student and includes access to the full FAST system, all assessments and supporting tools, access to an online knowledge base, as well as online training and certification for teachers and administrators.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

Individual students
Small group of students
BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session Minimum number of sessions per week Minimum number of weeks

N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:
Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation? Yes
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program? No
If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:
Does the program require technology? No
If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ? 1
Is training for the instructor or interventionist required? Yes If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost? Free
Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training: Less than 1 hour of training
Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training: Teachers, parents, and professionals will require some basic familiarity with behavioral principles and procedures.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

Special Education Teacher
General Education Teacher
Reading Specialist
Math Specialist
EL Specialist
Interventionist
Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
Paraprofessional
Other

If other, please describe:

If yes, please describe:

Are training manuals and materials available? Yes
Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual? No
Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support? No

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Atkins, M.S., Pelham, W.E., White, .K.J. (1989). Hyperactivity and attention deficit disorders. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Psychological Aspects of Developments and Physical Disabilities: A Casebook. (pp. 137-156). California: Sage Publications.

Fabiano, G.A. & Pelham, W.E. (2003). Improving the effectiveness of behavioral classroom interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A case study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 122-128.

Fabiano, G.A., Vujnovic, R., Pelham, W.E., Waschbusch, D.A., Massetti, G.M., Yu, J., Pariseau, M.E., Naylor, J., Robins, M.L., Carnefix, T., Greiner, A.R., Volker, M. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with ADHD using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39, 219-239 .

Jurbergs, N., Palcic, J.L., & Kelley, M.L. (2010). Daily behavior report cards with and without home-based consequences: Improving classroom behavior in low income, African-American children with ADHD. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 32, 177-195.

Kelley, M.L. & McCain, A.P. (1995). Promoting academic performance in inattentive children. Behavior Modification, 19, 357-375.

McCain, A.P. & Kelley, M.L. (1993). Managing the behavior of an ADHD preschooler: The efficiacy of a school-home note intervention. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 15, 33-44.

McCain, A.P. & Kelley, M.L. (1994). Improving the classroom performance in underachieving preadolescents: The additive effects of response cost to a school-home note system. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 16, 27-41.

Miller, D.L. & Kelley, M.L. (1994). The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improving children’s homework performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 73-84.

Murray, D.W., Raniner, D., Schulte, A., & Newitt, K. (2008). Feasibility and integrity of a parent-teacher consultation intervention for students. Child and Youth Care Forum, 37, 111-126.

O’Leary, K.D., Pelham, W.E., Rosenbaum, A., & Price, G.H. (1976). Behavioral treatment of hyperkinetic children. Clinical Pediatrics, 15, 510-515.

Palcic, J.L., Jurbergs, N., & Kelley, M.L. (2009). Comparison of teacher and parent delivered consequences: Improving behavior in low-income children with ADHD. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 31, 117-133.

Pelham, W.E. & Fabiano, G.A. (2001). Treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: The impact of comorbidity. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 8, 315-329.

***Note there are numerous additional studies of the DRC as used for children with disruptive behavior in general see Vannest et al. (2012) for a review

Study Information

Study Citations

1) Fabiano, G. A., Vujnovic, R., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Massetti, G. M., Yu, J., Pariseau, M. E., Naylor, J., Robins, M. L. & Carnefix, T. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with ADHD using a daily report card. School Psychology Review, 39() 219-239; 2) (2012). WWC Review of the report: Enhancing the effectiveness of special education programming for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. Retrieved from: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

Participants

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Race–Ethnicity

Socioeconomic Status

Disability Status

ELL Status

Gender

Mean Effect Size

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups? Random Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups. During the spring and summer, children were recruited for participation in the study through mailings, radio advertisements, and school, doctor, and professional referrals. Following an intake to determine diagnosis and eligibility, eligible participants were randomly assigned to a business as usual control condition or an intervention condition.
What was the unit of assignment? Students If other, please specify:
Please describe the unit of assignment:
What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis? Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation

How was the program delivered? Individually
Small Group
Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks 21.00 Sessions per week Duration of sessions in minutes

What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists? School psychology graduate student consultants were assigned to work with a family and teacher for the entire school year. They were supervised by a Ph.D.-level psychologist
Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained. Integrity of implementation of DRC procedures were collected throughout the duration of the program in both groups.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure? Analyses to examine the integrity with which the intervention was implemented revealed that, on average, teachers completed 73% of DRCs compared to 77% of the ITBEs, and a chi-square test indicated this difference was not significant (p > .05). Interestingly this rate of adherence was nearly identical to another recent study that utilized DRCs across the school year (Owens et al., 2008). The range of completed DRCs was from 0%-98% with a median of 79%. ITBE completion ranged from 16%-99% with a median of 78%. Furthermore, across the entire school year, parents of participants in the DRC group returned 64% of the DRC’s with a signature; the range of signed DRCs was from 0%-100% with a median of 90%. Parents indicated that a reward was given for 56% of the returned DRC’s that should have earned one. Reward rates ranged from 0%-98% with a median of 68%. To explore the relationship between integrity and outcome, DRC completion rates were not significantly correlated with observations of classroom behavior at endpoint (p > .05), but the percent of DRCs rewarded was significantly correlated (r= -.53, p=.002), suggesting contingency management (i.e., contingent rewards based on school behavior) may be a key aspect of the approach used in this study. An examination of the integrity with which the behavioral consultation group implemented the DRC intervention revealed that teachers of students in the intervention condition participated in 94% of monthly behavior consultation meetings, completed 93% of meeting checklist items and met with the behavioral consultant in face-to-face meetings for approximately 20 minutes per month (SD=7.49). These meetings were supplemented by ongoing monitoring of DRC/ITBE data throughout the month and modification of the DRC as needed (e.g., multiple days in a row of missing a target, teacher comments reveal emerging behaviors that warrant targeting). The number of behaviors targeted for children across the study year ranged from 3-9. Children in the DRC group had an average of 5.53 (SD=1.22) behaviors targeted during the school year compared to 4.64 (SD=1.03) behaviors targeted on ITBEs, and this difference was significant, t (58) =3.03, p = .004. Table 4 lists the academic and social behaviors targeted on the DRCs/ITBEs and the percentage of children with each goal (homework was targeted for all children in the study as part of the consultation procedures).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms? The integrity/fidelity measure was collected in both groups.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted :
Measures Broader :