The Educational Culture of School Districts in …pcit.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Girard-TCIT...The Educational Culture of School Districts in Relation to Teacher-Child

The Educational Culture of School

Districts in Relation to Teacher-Child

Interaction Training (TCIT):

The Social-Emotional Connection and

Regaining Control

Emma Girard, Psy.D.

Riverside County Department of Mental Heath

Preschool 0-5 Programs

(951) 358.6895

[email protected]

Acknowledgements & Thank You

• TCIT Coaches

• Anna Loza

• Brenda Palacios

• Dinery Villagomez

• Emma Girard

• Isabel Santilli

• Jeanne Jackson

• Rachel Douglas

• Starr Ramirez

• Zulma Espinoza

• Research & Evaluation Team

• Suzanna Juarez-Williams

• Margaret Spanish

• Ryan Torres

• Cortney Shaw

• Jurupa Unified School District

• Ann Valle, Supervisor Head Start/Preschool

• Mission Bell Elementary Head Start

• Sunnyslope Elementary Head Start

• Rustic Lane Elementary Head Start

• Lake Elsinore Unified School District

• Frieda Brands, Director Children & Family Services

• Heald Academy

• Rail Road Canyon Head Start

• Children’ Care Center

• Riverside Unified School District

• Joe Nieto, Coordinator Early Childhood Family Ed

• Beatty Elementary Head Start

• Adams elementary Head Start

Girard, E. (2013) Pilot TCIT Project

Why Start TCIT?

• Help

• Help

• HELP!

• Voice of the teachers who saw

changes with their students who

previously completed PCIT

treatment wanted TCIT.

• School Administrators saw

treatment as a way to provide

support to staff that report

increasing behavior problems

with new students entering

school.

• TCIT was done in general

education classrooms only,

typically at Head Start settings

for pre-kindergarten.


TCIT Model Design

• Interest Survey Outreach

• Selected 20 teachers/assistants (note 3 dropped, missed training)

• Conducted Pre-Tx Observation

• T-DPICS

• SESBI – 4 identified students

• Classroom Observation

• 6 Hour Training Workshop

• CDI – “Do & Don’t Skills” – PRIDE

• TDI – Classroom Bx Mgmt Skills

• Teachers use both CDI & TDI skills at the same time

• No mastery criteria for CDI skills

• 8 sessions on-site coaching

• Weekly T-DPICS coding

• Live coaching during class with all students

• Live demonstration of skills by coach for teacher to observe

• Debriefing of session

• Daily homework discussed

• Conducted Post-Tx Observation

• T-DPICS

• SESBI – same identified students

• Classroom Observation

• TAI – Teacher modified


Teacher Demographic Information

(N=17)

Master Teacher (N=10)

59%

Teacher Assistant

(N=7) 41%

Description of Work African-

American 6%

Hispanic/ Latino 70%

Other 6%

White/Non-Latino

18%

Ethnicity of Teacher


Teaching Experience

8

10

7

16

7

19

20

11

12

18

4 4

10

26

13

20

13

15

10

1

4

6

21 20

11

12

20

12

4

10

24

3 4

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Teaching Experience

(years)

Teacher

Teaching overall Teaching preschool age

Total

Teachers

(N=17)


Student Identified Bx Problems

6

12

1 4 6 5 4 2

6 10 10 12

6 6 3 4 4

34 35

24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

35

18

24 24 24 24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Number of

Children

Classrooms

Student Identified Bx Problems in each Classroom

Children with Behavior Problems Children without Behavior Problems

Total

Classrooms

Total Students

(N=434)


Children with

Behavior Problems (N=101)

23%

Children without

Behavior Problems (N=333)

77%

Percentage of Children Identified with Behavior

Problems

Classroom/Teacher Observation

Rules and Discipline

• Domain is an average of 8

items based on observations of

classroom and teacher rules and

discipline

• Observations rated on 5 point

Likert scale

• 22.7% increase from Pre to

Post test

• (Average increase per item on 5

point scale is .8333)



Rules and Discipline

Items (8 total)

• 1) Rules are posted in the class or teacher reminds students of rules.

• 2) Students have a chance to rehearse following class rules.

• 3) The rules are enforced in a consistent manner.

• 4) The teacher and aide work together to enforce rules

• 5) The aide takes the initiative to enforce rules

• 6) The students have classroom duties.

• 7) Classroom management strategies are done in a positive manner.

• 8) The teacher and aide are clam when students break rules or disobey.

3.6750

4.5083

1

2

3

4

5

Time 1 (pre) Time 2 (post)

t(14)=-5.699,p<.001 Total Observations

(N=15)



Giving Directions



classroom and teacher giving

directions.


Likert scale

• 18.1 % increase from Pre to

Post test





Giving Directions

Items (3 Total)

• 10) Commands are given one at

a time.

• 11) Commands are direct, clear

and positively stated..

• 12) Commands are given in a

neutral or positive tone of

voice.

3.5556

4.2000

1

2

3

4

5

Time 1( pre) Time 2 (post)

t(14)=-4.005,p=.001 Total Observations

(N=15) Girard, E. (2013) Pilot TCIT Project


Praise and Positive Context



classroom and teacher praise

and positive context.


Likert scale


Post test


point scale is 1.2667)



Praise and Positive Context

Items (7 total)

• 14) The teacher and aide notice students' appropriate / positive behavior.

• 15) The teacher and aide praise compliance with his / her directives.

• 16) The teacher and aide attend to positive behavior more than negative behavior.

• 17) Prompts are provided in a positive way.

• 18) The teacher and aide ask questions with no right or wrong answers.

• 19) The teacher and aide reflect students' appropriate verbalizations.

• 20) Behavior expectations are clearly and positively stated before the activity begins.

3.0857

4.3524

1

2

3

4

5





Student Behavior



classroom student behavior.


Likert scale


Post test





Student Behavior

Items (6 Total)

• 22) Students comply with commands and directions.

• 23) Students listen when the teacher gives commands / directions.

• 24) Students are positive with one another.

• 25) Students understand how to resolve conflict in a positive way.

• 26) Students react positively to attention and praise from the teacher.

• 27) Students follow the rules and expect others to follow them.

3.5889

4.4889

1

2

3

4

5




Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior

Inventory (SESBI)

• Attrition Rate : 21.7 %

• total of 13 students dropped out

• 8 due to student moving

• 2 due to not having behavior

problems

• 3 due to lost measures

• Only data of students who

completed both pre and post

tests included in analysis

• original N= 60; adjusted N=47


Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior

Inventory (SESBI)

62.38 61.30

54.94 52.83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Intensity Problem

Frequency of

Behavioral Problems at

School (T-Score)

SESBI Entire Sample Pre to Post Changes

Pre Post

Total

Students

(N=47)

Clinical

Cut-off

60+

1 2

t(46)= 9.164,p<.001

t(46)= 8.335,p<.001

Students showed statistically significant decrease in scores

from Pre to Post on both Intensity and problem scales. Girard, E. (2013) Pilot TCIT Project

SESBI Intensity Scale by School

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Frequency of

Behavioral Problems at

School (T-Score)

Frequency of Problem Behavior By School (Intensity Scale)

Pre

Post

Clinical

Cut-off N=4

N=4 N=7 N=2 N=7 N=8

N=4 N=3 N=8

Total Schools

(n=9)


SESBI Intensity Scale by School

School

Pre

(T-score)

Post

(T-score)

Adams Elementary Preschool 53.00 41.50

Beatty Elementary 68.00 60.50

Children's Care Center 67.14 56.14

Heald Academy 61.00 55.00

Mission Bell Elementary 63.14 58.43

Mission Bell Elementary Preschool

55.00 52.63

Rail road Canyon Head Start 68.75 57.75

Rustic Lane Elementary 66.33 55.67

Sunnyslope Elementary 62.50 55.38


SESBI Problem Scale by School

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Impact on Teacher

( T-score)

Child Problem Behavior Impact on Teacher by School (Problem Scale)

Pre

Post

Clinical Cut-off

60+

N=4 N=4

N=7 N=2 N=7 N=4 N=8 N=3

N=8

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Total Schools (n=9)


SESBI Problem Scale by School

School

Pre

(T-score)

Post

(T-score)

Adams Elementary Preschool 52.75 43.00

Beaty Elementary 72.00 71.25

Children's Care Center 64.71 54.71

Heald Academy 61.50 45.00

Mission Bell Elementary 56.29 54.43

Mission Bell Elementary Preschool

59.00 49.25

Rail Road Canyon Head Start 64.00 54.00

Rustic Lane Elementary 66.67 55.33

Sunnyslope Elementary 60.50 49.50


SESBI Comparison of IEP Student

vs. Non-IEP Student Samples

• Both IEP students and Non-IEP

students showed decreases from Pre

to Post scores on both Intensity and

Problem scales

• Note difference between total

amount of students in each group

o 10 IEP students

o 37 Non- IEP students


SESBI Comparison of IEP Student

vs. Non-IEP Student Samples

66.30

61.32

65.20

60.24 59.50

53.70 56.00 51.97

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

IEP Students (Intensity Scale)

Non-IEP Students (Intensity Scale)

IEP Students (Problem Scale)

Non-IEP Students (Problem Scale)

Pre Post

3 4

Clinical

Cut-off

60+

t(9)= 4.499,p=.001

t(36)=7.975,p<.001

t(9)= 4.080,p=.003

t(36)=7.180,p<.001

1

2

3

4

There is no statistically

significant difference

between students

identified

as IEP vs. students

identified as Non- IEP

on the Intensity or

Problem scale of the

SESBI

t(45)= -.410,p=.634

t(45)= .371,p=.712

5

6

5

6

1 2

Total Non-IEP

Students

(N=37)

Total IEP

Students

(N=10)


Behavior Management Skills Change

Over Treatment (In Rank Order)

• Labeled Praise was the most

frequently used behavior

management skill

• (Used 776 times throughout

treatment).

• Use of Labeled Praise

Increased from pre to post tests

(statistically significant).

• Reflective statements were the

second most frequently used

behavior management skill

(Used 765 times throughout

treatment).

• Use of reflective statements

Increased from pre to post tests

(not statistically significant).




1.59

6.59

.47

2.59 2.06

9.18

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Labeled Praise Non-index Students

Labeled Praise Index student

Labeled Praise ALL Students

Labeled Praise Mean Changes (Rank Order = 1)

3.41 4.53

.88 1.06

4.29

5.59

0

2

4

6

8

10


Reflective Statement Non-index Students

Reflective Statement Index

Student

Reflective Statements ALL

Students

Reflective Statement Mean Changes (Rank

Order =2)

4t(16)= -.929,p=.367 5t(16)= -.320,p=.753 6t(16)=-.881, p=.392

1t(16)= -5.195,p<.001 2t(16)= -2.763,p=.014 3t(16)=-5.230, p<.001

1 2 3

4 5 6




• Direct Commands were the

third most frequently used

behavior management skill

(Used 757 times throughout

treatment).

• Use of direct commands

decreased from pre to post

tests.

• Pre to Post change between

ALL students statistically

significant

• Unlabeled Praise was the fourth

most frequently used behavior

management skill (Used 731

times throughout treatment).

• Use of unlabeled praise

increased from pre to post tests

(not statistically significant).




6.29

4.71

1.59

.53

7.88

5.24

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Direct Commands Non-index Students

Direct Commands Index Student

Direct Commands ALL Students

Direct Command Mean Changes (Rank Order = 3)

2.88

4.88

1.13 1.31

4.18

6.47

0

2

4

6

8

10


Unlabeled Praises Non- Index

Students

Unlabeled Praises Index Students

Unlabedled Praises ALL Students

Unlabeled Praise Mean Changes (Rank Order = 4)

1t(16)= 1.683,p=.112 2t(16)= 1.562,p=.138 3t(16)=2.628, p=.018

4t(16)= -1.745,p=.100 5t(15)*=-.417, p=.682 6t(16)=--1.834, p=.085

1

2 3

4

6 5

•Please note one classroom in unlabeled

praise index students was missing a post

test and was excluded from analysis

( total N dropped from 17 to 16) Girard, E. (2013) Pilot TCIT Project



• Indirect commands were the fifth most frequently used behavior management skill (Used 573 times throughout treatment).

• Use of indirect commands decreased from pre to post tests.

• Pre and Post change between Non- index students and ALL students were statistically significant.

• Behavior descriptions were the sixth most frequently used behavior management skill (Used 386 times throughout treatment).

• Use of behavior descriptions increased from pre to post test.

• Pre and Post change between Non- index students and ALL students were statistically significant.




6.65

2.59 1.53

.35

8.18

2.94

0

2

4

6

8

10


Indirect Commands Non-Index Students

Indrect Commands Index Student

Indirect Commands ALL Students

Indirect Command Mean Changes (Rank Order =5)

.94

3.88

.24 .94 1.18

4.82

0

2

4

6

8

10


Behavior Descriptions Non-

Index Students

Behavior Descriptions

Index Students

Behavior Descriptions ALL

Students

Behavior Description Mean Changes (Rank

Order =6)

1t(16)= 3.046,p=.008 2t(16)= 2.455,p=.026 3t(16)=2.628, p=.001

4t(16)= 3.046,p=.008 5t(16)=2.455 ,p=.026 6t(16)=4.065, p=.001

1 2 3

4 5

6




• Negative statements were the

seventh most frequently used

behavior management skill. Used 88

times throughout treatment.

• Use of negative statements

decreased from pre to post tests.

• Pre and Post change between of

Index student was statistically

significant.

• Negative commands were the eighth

most frequently used behavior

management skill. Used 34 times

throughout treatment.

• Use of negative commands

decreased to no usage at time of

post test ( not statistically

significant).




1.53

.41 .53 .00

2.06

.41

0

2

4

6

8

10


Negative Statements Non-Index Students

Negative Statements Index

Student

Negative Statements ALL

Students

Negative Statement Mean Changes (Rank Order = 7)

.94

.00 .12 .00

1.06

.00 0

2

4

6

8

10


Negative Commands Non-Index Students

Negative Commands Index Students

Negative Commands ALL Students

Negative Command Mean Changes (Rank Order = 8)

1t(16)= 1.864,p=.081 2t(16)= 2.496,p=.024 3t(16)=2.460, p=.026

4t(16)= 2.175,p=.045 5t(16)=1.461 ,p=.163 6t(16)=2.314, p=.034

1 2 3 4

5 6


Greatest Change Recorded Over

Treatment of Bx Management Skills

• Labeled Praise ALL Students Increased on average by 7.118 from pre to post.

• Indirect Commands ALL Students decreased on average by 5.235 from pre to post.

• Behavior descriptions ALL students increased on average by 3.647 from pre to post.

• Direct commands ALL students decreased on average by 2.647 from pre to post .

• Unlabeled Praise ALL Students increased on average by 2.294 from pre to post.

• Negative Statements ALL students decreased on average by 1.647 from pre to post .

• Reflective Statements ALL students increased on average by 1.294 from pre to post.

• Negative Commands ALL students decreased on average by 1.059 from pre to post.


TAI Satisfaction Survey Scores

73 74 73 70

64 64

72 75

63

69

73

66

63 67

69 67 66

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Satisfaction Survey Score

Teachers

• The TAI Satisfaction Survey score is a sum of 15 survey items.

• Satisfaction rated on 5 point Likert scale

Average

Score

68.7

Overall average satisfaction

score of 17 teachers is

68.7 out of 75

(91.6% rate of satisfaction)


Debriefing Meeting

Why Held

• Held to discuss pro and cons of

treatment implementation

• Attendance was voluntary

• Not all staff able to attend due

to no classroom coverage

• Feedback is cortical to improve

service delivery

Future Thoughts

• Unclear with school districts

taking responsibility for mental

health treatment the impact on

future implementation

• Have both teacher/assistant

team train together at the same

time for internal support


Teacher Quotes

• “I felt like I had Isabel in my

pocket with me and I knew I

could do it.”

• “I felt so scared at first to have

someone watch me and thought

I wasn’t going to get it right.

Then I realized it was great to

have someone live with me in

the classroom to help with

exactly what was happening .”

• “I wish our coaches could be

with us everyday in the

classroom. It was such a good

experience.”

• “I found that TCIT let me

regain control of my classroom

in a way that is so effective

when I saw the clues the

students were giving me.”


Thank You Friends!


Documents

The Educational Culture of School Districts in …pcit.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Girard-TCIT...The Educational Culture of School Districts in Relation to Teacher-Child