Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PhillipWhitefield,UniversityofSydney
CarlaDeAngelis,NSWDepartmentofEducation
Yasmin Ibrahim,NSWDepartmentofEducation
SelectingTier1FidelityInstruments:Perspectives
fromEvaluators
Introduction
• FocusonimplementationissuesforSchool-WidePositiveBehaviour Support/PositiveBehaviour forLearning
• Reportingonpreliminaryaction-basedpilotstudyofusabilityfactorsoffidelityinstrumentsbyexternaladvisorsinAustralianstates,mainlyNSW.
• Theinformationisintendedtocontributetoimprovementgoals,byfocusingonthetechnicalassistanceprovidedtoschools.
2
Acknowledgements
3
Wewouldliketoacknowledgethetechnicalassistancereceivedoverthe
pasttenyearsfromProfessorTimLewis,Dr LoriNewcomer,
ProfessorRobHorner&ProfessorTerryScott.
APBS:PBISAustralia
4
• AssociationofPositiveBehaviour SupportnetworkinAustralia
• Australia-widenetworkacrossschoolsectors,universities,agencies
• Advocacy,Research,Facilitation,Sustainability
PBIS Australia is a group of educationalists from universities, school and other agency sectors across Australia. It was established in 2013 in response to increasing numbers of Australian schools and systems implementing PBIS .The purpose of PBIS Australia is to improve the access to and scope of PBIS (Positive Behaviour Interventions and Support) implementation across Australia. This cooperative approach encourages innovation and sharing of information and resources across and between university and school sectors and promotes wellbeing in schools. PBIS Australia networks nationally and internationally to provide advocacy for research and implementation.
What is Positive Behaviour Interventions and Support (PBIS)? Positive Behaviour Interventions and Support (PBIS) is a problem solving process for creating safer and more effective schools. The process is based upon a three-tiered continuum from universal prevention to individualised intensive supports and emphasises analysing data to inform decision making, identifying systems that support staff, and identifying, implementing and evaluating evidenced-based practices that improve the social-emotional and learning outcomes of all students. PBIS is a proactive instructional approach to discipline aiming to increase the likelihood that students and staff are responsible, safe, respectful and engaged learners.
Implementation of PBIS involves building the capability of teachers to embed the teaching and monitoring of social-emotional skills into the curriculum. Some students, approximately 10-15%, will respond to Tier 1 universal prevention supports but will still exhibit some specific difficulties. As with Tier 1 systems, Tier 2 targeted support is a team driven process designed to enhance and build upon what has been taught to students at the universal level. A smaller group of students, approximately 1-5%, may require more individualised and intensive supports, in conjunction with Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports. Interventions focus on creating and implementing individualised behaviour support plans that are linked to the universal system.
PBIS supports a cultural shift through the use of teacher performance feedback to increase the likelihood that effective, evidence-based strategies will be applied. The use of these strategies increases the self-efficacy of teachers and reduces the level of unproductive classroom behaviours. Student capabilities are aligned with the goal of developing self-discipline, connectedness to school and positive student-teacher relationships. These factors are strongly associated with an increased protection from risks such as bullying, violence and substance abuse.
PBIS was developed initially in the USA over 30 years ago. It is solidly grounded in evidence based practices and systems and is currently being implemented in over 20,000 USA schools and in many countries worldwide.
Implementation of PBIS in Australia Over 2,000 Australian schools in all states and territories are implementing PBIS systems. PBIS
Australia aims to determine the scope of implementation in Australian schools. PBIS in Australia is referred to variously as Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL), Positive Behaviour Supports (PBS) and School Wide Positive Behaviour Supports (SWPBS).
PBIS Australia Strategic Directions
Sustaining and supporting the scale up of PBIS implementation in Australia
Facilitating collaboration and advocacy for PBIS framework/systems in Australia
Promoting research on PBIS implementation fidelity and efficacy in Australia
PBIS Australia
NewSouthWalesPublicSchools
Approximately2200PublicSchoolsinNSWeducatingover790,000studentsin:PreschoolsInfantsschools
(Kindergarten- Year2)
Primaryschools(Kindergarten- Year6)
HighSchools(Year7-Year12)
SchoolsforSpecificPurposes(includinghospitalschoolsandSpecialEducationsettings)
JuvenileJusticeSchools
DistanceEducation
5
QualityofLifeObjectives(Carr,2007)
“Ourchiefconcernisnotwithproblembehaviour,andcertainlynotwithproblempeople,butratherwithproblemcontexts”
Outcomes to be Sustained
• Environments that encourage pro-social behaviour
• Environments where positive behaviour is more effective than problem behaviour
• Systems that support teaching, learning and leading
• Adults and students knowing what is expected of them.
• Student academic and social & emotional learning is supported by a continuum of
practices.
ThePBLProcess
WellbeingOutcomesandAcademicAchievement
SupportingDecisionMakingSupportingStaff
SupportingStudentOutcomes
Planned processes & procedures that support adults to use evidence-based educational
programs as intended
Systems in schools
SignificanceofImplementationBlueprints
SignificanceofImplementationBlueprints
11
Improving Student Performance – 7 Themes
Whatworksbest:Evidence-basedpracticestohelpimproveNSWstudentperformanceCentreforEducationStatisticsandEvaluation
1. High expectations
2. Explicit teaching
3. Effective feedback
4. Use of data to inform practice
5. Classroom management
6. Wellbeing
7. Collaboration
WellbeingFrameworkforschoolsAContextofWellbeing&Prevention
Discourse
PositiveBehaviourForLearninginNSW
ApplicationsofMulti-TieredSystemsofSupport
ImplementationFidelityMatters!
• Implementingasintended
• Positivelypredictsstudentoutcomes
• Validationpurposes• Hard-wiredintoPBL/SWPBSprocess
• Actionplanningpurpose(notascoringpurpose)• Researchtopracticebridging• Improvedoutcomesforourteachers&students
• Datahasashortlife-span
17
TypesofFidelity(Harn,Paris &Stoolmiller,2013)
Structural/surface
• Objectiveevaluationofthedeliveryofcomponents
• Measuredbyobservationorself-report.
Process
• Examiningthequalityofthedelivery(rating,subjectivequalities).
Multi-dimensional
• Combinationoftheabove
NSWPBL/SWPBSImplementation
• Statelevelcoordinationpersonnel=2(FTE)
• 2016-2017AdvisorsacrossfourDirectoratesteams=36
(FTE)
• Coachingnetworksofinternal/external:non-dedicated
personnel
19
Contextualmatters:TechnicalAssistance
• Availabilityofinstruments(SET,BOQ,BAT,ISSET,TFI,SAS,TIC,IPI)
• Variationsbetweenstates(training,technicalassistance,fidelityinstrumentuse)
• Variationswithinstates(training,technicalassistance,fidelityinstrumentuse)
• Variationwithfidelityinstrumentselectionandusage(knowledge,timing,selectionofinstruments)
FidelityInstrumentUsabilityRationale
1.Startingpoint:
• Advisorteamsplayacriticalrolewithevaluationpractices
• Self-assessmentpracticesareencouraged
• Instrumentsevaluatefidelityindifferentways
2.Problems:
• Selectionprocessforinstrumentsisnotdefined
• Potentialfornon-strategicuseofinstruments,particularlyinsettingsover2-3+yearsofimplementation
• Comparativeknowledgeofinstrumentrangeispossiblylimited
• Traininginuseofinstrumentsispotentiallyinadequate
3.Goalofmakingdataaccurate,notinstrumentadvocacy
Expectations
• Basicquestion:“Whatusabilityfactorsinfluencethe
selectionofafidelityinstrumentforusewithaschool”?• Usabilitypreferencesmorelikelytobebasedonfamiliarityof
aninstrument.
• Usabilitypreferencesmaytranslateintoconservative
practices
• Knowledgeofmulti-levelinstrumentsislikelytobelimited.
22
Instrumentguide(sample)
Purpose
Usage
Sources
School-WideEvaluation
Tool
BenchmarksofQuality TieredFidelity
Inventory(Tier1)
Formative:Universals
• Animprovementmeasurethatsupportstheschooltodeterminethedegreeandqualityofuniversalsupports.
• Contributetoamonitoringprocesstoannuallyreviewachievement.
Formative:Universals
• Animprovementmeasurethatsupportstheschooltodeterminethedegreeandqualityofuniversalsupports.
• Contributetoamonitoringprocesstoannuallyreviewachievement.
• Supportsiterativeself- evaluationandreviewpractice
Formative:Continuum• Aninitialassessmentto
determineiftheyareusing,orneedPBL
• AguideforimplementationofUniversal,TargetedandIntensivesupports
• Anindexofsustainedimplementationateachofthethreetiers.
• Supportsiterativeself-evaluationandreviewpractice
Atleastevery12months Atleastevery12months Multipletimesduringayear
• ExternalInterviews,• External
Observations• ExternalDocument
review• Datasourcesclearly
alignedtoevaluationquestions
• Structuredinternalrating• Structuredexternalreview
(discrepancyprocesswithrubric)
• ExternalObservations(Walk-throughtool)
• Externalinterviews• StructuredInternal
rating• Evaluationsub-
scalesclearlyidentifydatasources
InstrumentGuide(sample)
24
Productreview
Metric
Key
Publications
School-WideEvaluationTool(SET) BenchmarksofQuality TieredFidelityInventory(Tier1)
Formallyreviewed:
• Schoolbehaviourmanagementdocument
• SchoolStrategicDirections• PBLAnnualActionPlanfor
meetingschool-widebehavioursupportgoals
• Socialskillsinstructionalmaterials/implementationtimeline
• Behaviouralincidentsummariesorreports(e.g.,officereferrals,suspensions,expulsions)
• Disciplinereferralform(s)
Referencedinrubric:
• Teamminutes• Missionstatement• ActionPlanacrossthe10subscales• Disciplineproceduredocument,
includingminorvsmajordefinitions
• Scheduleoflessondelivery• Disciplinedatabase• Examplesofdisciplinesummaries• Rewardsystemguideline
Formallyreviewed:• Tier1handbook• Teammeetingroledescriptions• Schoolwebsite• Staffhandbook• Datadecisionrules• Professionaldevelopmentcalendar• Teamminutes• Surveydata• Teamactionplan• Fidelitytools• Studentoutcomesummaries• Disciplinepolicies&flowcharts• Lessonplans• Schoolnewsletters• Annualschoolreports• Staff,student,schoolcommunitysurveys
0-2subscalecode&scoringguideAscoreof≥80%isthecurrentcriterion
WeightedcodeswithadetailedscoringrubricAscoreof≥80%isthecurrentcriterion
0-2subscalecode&scoringguideAscoreof≥70%isthecurrentcriterion.
Sugai,G.,Lewis-Palmer,T.L.,Todd,A.W.,&Horner,R.H.(2001).School-wideEvaluationTool(SET).Eugene,OR:EducationalandCommunitySupports.Availablefromhttp://www.pbis.org
Cohen,R.,Kincaid,D.,&Childs,K.E.(2007).Measuringschool-widepositivebehavioursupportimplementation:Developmentandvalidationofthebenchmarksofquality.JournalofPositiveBehaviorInterventions,9,203-213.
Mcintosh,K.,Massar,M.M.,Algozzine,R.F.,George,H.P.,Horner,R.H.,Lewis,T.J.,Swain-Bradway,J.(2017)TechnicalAdequacyofSWPBISTieredFidelityInventory.JournalofPositiveBehaviourInterventions,19(1)
InstrumentGuide(Sample)
25
EvaluationContentAreas
Italics
indicates
uniqueconcept/
Wording
School-WideEvaluationTool(SET) BenchmarksofQuality TieredFidelityInventory(Tier1)
System for responding: A documented system formanaging/responding to “behavioural violations”; Definition of“office” versus classroom managed problems; A documented crisisplan for dangerous situations and displayed; Staff agreement onhandling a crisis.
Documented Discipline systems: Processdocumented (narrative/graphic); disciplineprocedures documented; Referral formincludes “useful” information; Problembehaviour defined; Major/Minor defined;“Suggested array” of responses.
Problem behaviour definitions: Clear definition ofbehaviour that “interferes with academic & socialsuccess”; clear documentation of executive vs teachermanaged problems: sharing with community.Discipline Policies: Policies & procedures describe &emphasise “proactive, instructive or restorative”approaches with consistent implementation.
Monitoring and decision-making: Documented referral process usingthe big 5; Documented process for summarising discipline data;Discipline summaries shared with staff at least every 4 months; Data isused by team to designing, implementing and revising school-widesystem.
Data management: System is used to collect &analyse “ODR” by big 5.Additional: attendance, academic.Usage: Analysed by team monthly; shared withstaff monthly.
Discipline data: “Instantaneous access” to graphedsummaries of big 5.Data-based decision making: team uses discipline &academic outcome data at least monthly- linked toaction plan.
Expectations defined: Staff agreement on 3-5 positively stated schoolrules; Displayed In 8-10 designated locations (including classrooms).
Expectations: 3-5 positively stated &displayed; Apply to staff & students;Developed & displayed in specific settings;Rules are linked to expectations; Staff involvedin development & review.
Behavioural expectations: 5 or fewer positivelystated; Defined by location for students & staff(matrix).
System for rewarding expectations: A documented system forrewarding.
Rewards: System enables consistent usage;Range of rewarding methods; Linked torules/expectations; Variation for effectiveness;Ratio standard; Students involved; Staffrewards.
Feedback&acknowledgment:documentedsystem-linkedtoschool-wideexpectations,usedacrosssettings&withinclassrooms.
PilotStudy
• DistributionofGoogle-basedsurveytoTAteamsin
Australianstates
• Requirementofminimumuseofaspecificinstrumentof
threetimes
• InvestigatedparticipantviewsonT1&T2+oversixteenfactors
• Investigatedparticipantratings• SharedcomparisontablefortheTFI,SET&BOQ
• Plannedfocus-groupfollow-upinsemester1,2017
Respondents (n=21)
Lessthan1
year 24%
1year,9%
2years,
33%
3years,5%
5years,5%
5+years,
24%
TAEXPERIENCE
76.19%
4.76%
19.05%
NSW QLD ACT
LOCATION
RespondentsarePBL/SWPBSadvisors/trainerswithtrainingandexperienceintheuseoffidelityinstruments
RespondentExperience(n=21)
28
57.14%
9.52%
33.33%
BOQ
0-3 3-6 7+
85.71%
9.52%4.76%
TFI
0-3 3-6 7+
14.29%
9.52%
76.19%
SET
0-3 3-6 7+
SelectionofTier2&3InstrumentISSET,TFI,BAT
29
BAT TFI ISSET0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Tier2/3Preferences
1 2 3 unsure
Preferredinstrumentforadministrationpurposes(Timerequirements,simplicity,resourceorganistion,demandonschool)
30
66.67%
20.00%
13.33%
Administration
SET TFI BOQ
Preferredinstrumentforaccuracypurposes(Validityovertime)
31
61.54%15.38%
23.08%
Accuracy
SET TFI BOQ
Preferredinstrumentforschoolutilitypurposes(Howwellthedataisusedbytheschool)
32
61.54%15.38%
23.08%
Accuracy
SET TFI BOQ
UsabilityfactorsInvestigated
SET,TFI,BOQ(Universal) overT1&T+2
Personalexperience Externalassessment properties
Expectationsoftheschool Graphicsummary
Preferenceforareasevaluated Schoolself-assessment
Preferenceforterminology Teamcapacitybuilding
Evaluationdepth(detailsofthedata) ConnectionwithTier2/3
Comprehensiveness(numberof features) Maintaining accuracyofmeasurement(validity)
Simplicityofuse Maintainingreliability(consistent,stable)
Usabilityforteamactionplanning Maintainingactionplanning
Administration time
AdministrationTime
34
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 28.57% 33.33% 4.76% 23.81% 9.52%
2+ 28.57% 28.57% 9.52% 28.57% 4.76%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
TimetoAdminister
1 2+
PersonalExperiencewithAdministering
35
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 52.38% 33.33% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00%
2+ 33.33% 57.14% 0.00% 9.52% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
PersonalExperiencewithadministering
1 2+
Terminology
36
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 23.81% 19.05% 9.52% 38.10% 9.52%
2+ 23.81% 19.05% 9.52% 38.10% 9.52%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Preferenceforterminologyused
1 2+
Simplicity(Easytouse&understand)
37
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 42.86% 28.57% 9.52% 14.29% 4.76%
2+ 33.33% 38.10% 14.29% 9.52% 4.76%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Simplicity
1 2+
GraphicSummaryCapacity
38
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 52.38% 38.10% 4.76% 0.00% 4.76%
2+ 42.86% 42.86% 9.52% 0.00% 4.76%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Capacityforgraphicsummaries
1 2+
ExternalProperties(Interviews,Observations)
39
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 33.33% 47.62% 4.76% 14.29% 0.00%
2+ 28.57% 52.38% 4.76% 14.29% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Externalassessmentproperties
1 2+
Tier2/3Connections
40
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 23.81% 33.33% 23.81% 19.05% 0.00%
2+ 33.33% 47.62% 19.05% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Connectionwithadvancedtiersevaluation
1 2+
EvaluationAreas
41
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 47.62% 42.86% 0.00% 4.76% 4.76%
2+ 47.62% 47.62% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Preferenceforareasevaluated
1 2+
Depth(Detailofthedatacollected)
42
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 61.90% 33.33% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00%
2+ 71.43% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Depthofdatathattheevaluationyields
1 2+
Comprehensiveness(Numberofuniversalfeaturescovered)
43
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 42.86% 38.10% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00%
2+ 47.62% 38.10% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Comprehensivenessoftheevaluation
1 2+
Self-AssessmentCapabilities
44
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 33.33% 47.62% 0.00% 14.29% 4.76%
2+ 33.33% 52.38% 4.76% 9.52% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Capacityforschoolself-assessment
1 2+
SchoolTeams
Stronglyagree
Agree Unsure DisagreeStronglydisagree
1 61.90% 33.33% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00%
2+ 66.67% 23.81% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Contributiontoteamcapacitybuilding
1 2+
Stronglyagree
Agree Unsure DisagreeStronglydisagree
1 85.71% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2+ 85.71% 9.52% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Usabilityforteamactionplanning
1 2+
ExpectationsoftheSchool
46
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
1 38.10% 38.10% 9.52% 9.52% 4.76%
2+ 38.10% 42.86% 9.52% 9.52% 0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Expectationsoftheschool
1 2+
Maintenance+2:Reliability(Stability&Consistency)
47
71.43%
19.05%
4.76%
Reliabilityofinstrument
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
Maintenance(+2):Validity(Accuracyofmeasurement)
48
57.14%
28.57%
4.76%
4.76%
Validityofinstrument
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
Maintenance(+2):ActionPlanning
49
76.19%
19.05%
4.76%
0.00%
Maintainingactionplanningbytheschoolteam
Stronglyagree Agree Unsure Disagree Stronglydisagree
CommentsonSchoolWideEvaluationTool(SET)
50
Strengths AreasforImprovement SpecificReasonsforUsage SpecificReasonsforNot
Using
Implications
• Quickandeasy
• Triangulationofdata
• Comparativedata
generated
• Evaluatescritical
featuresschool-wide
• Externalmeasure
• Randomcollection
• Usedforbaselinedata
• Includeresponsesfromparents
• Questionsshouldhaveequalvalue.Somequestionstooheavilyweightede.g.regionalsupport
• Clearerscoringcriteria• Timeconsuming–
wholeprocess• Contextualisationof
language• Timeconsuming
processtocollectdocumentation
• Baselinedata• Comparativedata• Annualtracking• Actionplanning• Easeofinterpretation• Externalmeasureof
implementation
• LinkstoSchoolExcellenceFramework
• Reviewcurrentstatus
• Datanotdetailedenough
• Onlymeasures
Tier1
• Moreconsistenttrainingtousethetoolclearlyandconsistentlytogathermoreaccuratedatae.g.questiontoT–“doyouteachbehaviour…”
BenchmarksofQuality(BOQ)
51
Strengths AreasforImprovement SpecificReasonsforUsage SpecificReasonsforNot
Using
Implications
• Comprehensiveassessment
• Teambasedreflectionprocess
• Supportsactionplanning• Clearinformationon
whatexemplarypracticelookslike
• Coversalluniversalareas• Rubricstosupport
decisiononscoring• Depthofanalysis• Externalmeasure
• BoQ walkthroughincludedaspartofscore
• Providesupporttodealwithdiscrepancies
• AccuracyofimplementationreliesondepthofknowledgebyPBLadministrator
• Abilitytouseelectronically
• Annualplanninguseful• Gaugeforreadiness
foradvancedtiers• Specificallylooksat
classrooms• Datausefulfor
planning• Comprehensive
• Notsuitableforschoolsimplementinglessthanayear
• DoesnotindicatehowwellateamimplementsTier2
• Schoolsneedanexternalcoachtoadminister
• Timetoadminister
• Provideopportunitiesfortraininganduseoftoolasmisconceptionsexist
TieredFidelityInventory
52
Strengths AreasforImprovement SpecificReasonsforUsage SpecificReasonsforNot
Using
Implications
• Feedbackisexplicit
• Self-assessment
• Addressesalltiersusingonetool
• Walkthrough
• Feedbackandactionplanningneeddevelopment
• Encouragesschoolstoself-monitor
• Scaffoldforteamself-reflection
• Noclassroomsystems
• Notvalidatedbyresearch
• Nottrainedtouseit
• Provideopportunitiesfortraininganduseoftoolasmisconceptionsexist
GeneralComments
53
BoQ SET TFI Other
• Providesmoredetaileddata
• Mostexperiencedtoolused
• Idealforschoolsinstart-upphase
• Lackofexperienceadministeringtool
• Feedbackandactionplanning
• Choiceoftooldependsoncontext
Implications&FutureWork
1.Focusgroupstoinvestigatespecificfactors:
• Administrationtime
• Externalversusinternalproperties• Self-assessmentversusexternalvalidation
• Language/terminologyoftheinstruments
• Integrationoftierswithinaninstrument
2.PlantrainingforAdvisorswithafocuson:
• Comparativefeaturesoftheinstruments
• Tier2/Tier3instrumentuse54