First Step to Success early intervention program: a study of effectiveness with Native-American children.

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of the First Step to Success (FSS) early intervention program with four Native-American students, their teachers, and their parents on (a) targeted students' problem behaviors, (b) class-wide student behaviors, and (c) teacher behaviors. Participant teachers and parents were also interviewed to gather their perceptions of the FSS program. The results of direct observations of targeted students' play behaviors on the playground revealed that the FSS program had a significant positive affect on all participant students' social play behaviors. As soon as the intervention started, all participant students' social play behaviors significantly increased and their nonsocial behaviors decreased. All participant students showed higher levels of social play behaviors as soon as the intervention was initiated. Substantial decreases in problem behaviors were also reported by two teachers. Some positive changes in class-wide student behaviors and teacher behaviors were reported by the participant teachers. All but one parent reported significant changes in problem behaviors of targeted students. They all were highly satisfied with the program and rated it as easy to use. Limitations of the study and directions for future research are discussed.

**********

The issues regarding young children with antisocial behaviors have been a growing concern for educators over the past decade with the alarming increase of the number of students with antisocial or disruptive behaviors in the public schools of the United States. Research has identified intense antisocial behaviors as the best predictors of delinquent and violent behaviors when aggression and other disruptive behaviors are seen early in a child's life (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992).

Children with antisocial behaviors have serious difficulties especially in the academic and social domains. The area of social skills / relations may be the most important one in which children with antisocial behaviors have trouble. It is widely accepted that peers, as important social agents, play vital roles in children's development especially in the development of social and emotional competence and the gaining of social skills and values. While the literature shows that interactions with peers are critical, children with antisocial behaviors frequently have trouble understanding most social behaviors / cues directed toward them by their peers (Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1998; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). As a main component of social skills, children with antisocial behavior patterns usually have difficulties with their peers in play interactions both in the classroom and on the playground. Walker et al. (1995) report that students with antisocial behaviors show easily aggressive intentions to their peers and teachers both in the classroom and on the playground during free play periods. Walker and his colleagues also indicate that children with antisocial behaviors generate more negative-aggressive behaviors than their non-antisocial peers during free play episodes in the classrooms (Walker, Shinn, O'Neill, & Ramsey, 1987).

Antisocial behavior patterns have been reported as severe and common among urban, low SES minority youth (Elliot & Ageton, 1980; Yung & Hammond, 1997). Because of several factors such acculturation, poverty, and social disruption, it has been reported that minority youths are at greater risk for involvement with violent crimes, as gang members, as substance abusers, and as sellers of illicit drugs (Yung & Hammond, 1997). Although there is some information on antisocial behavior among r minority groups in general, there is limited information on antisocial behavior among Native American youth. Studies by Gruber, Anderson, and DiClemente (1994); Gruber, DiClemente, and Anderson (1994); and Newcomb, Fahy, and Skager (1990) reveal that particular subgroups of male and female Native American high school students have higher rates of alcohol use, shoplifting, vandalism, and assaultive behavior than their Caucasian or African American peers. It was also reported that Native Americans are two to three times more likely to live at poverty level than non-Native American groups (Johnson, Anderson, Bastida, Kramer, Williams, & Wong, 1995), and school drop out rates for Native American youths have been estimated to be as high as 50% (Shafer, 1995).

Early intervention for antisocial behavior patterns must consider three primary settings and the key social agents within these settings. These settings and agents are (1) the home setting and parents, (2) the classroom and teachers, and (3) the playground and peers (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). In reviews of prevention programs for young children with antisocial behaviors (Joseph & Strain, 2003; Kashani, Jones, Bumby, & Thomas, 1999; Leff, Power, Manz, Costigan, & Nabors, 2001), only a few programs including family, school, and community have been considered somewhat effective in decreasing the number of risk factors associated with antisocial behaviors and increasing the overall well-being of children and adolescents. For example, Kashani et al. (1999) reviewed the literature on prevention programs for at-risk children for antisocial behaviors or conduct-disordered youth and found the First Step to Success early intervention program to be one of the only prevention programs for at-risk antisocial youth that reported positive effects.

The First Step to Success (FSS) is an early intervention program designed for at-risk preschoolers through second graders who indicate noticeable signs of antisocial behavior patterns. Developed to achieve secondary prevention goals, the FSS is a collaborative home and school intervention program including parents into the program as partners with the school in teaching the at-risk child appropriate behavior patterns. The effectiveness and social validity of the FSS has been extensively evaluated in several studies (Golly, Sprague, Walker, Beard, & Gorham, 2000; Golly, Stiller, and Walker, 1998; Overton, McKenzie, King, & Osborne, 2002; Perkins-Rowe, 2001; Walker, Kavanagh, Stiller, Golly, Severson, & Feil, 1998). Results of these studies indicate that the program generated strong positive treatment effects for the majority of at-risk children with antisocial behavior patterns. High levels of satisfaction with the program by teachers and parents were also documented in these studies.

Although there have been several studies conducted to assess the efficacy of the FSS, additional studies are needed to support the effectiveness and validity of the program with various student populations. To extend the effectiveness and validity of the program, studies with children from diverse cultural backgrounds and studies in different contexts, such as playgrounds, where children with antisocial behaviors may exhibit these behaviors will add insight into the usefulness of the program. Therefore, this study further examined the efficacy of the FSS program with Native American students.

The purposes of the study were twofold; (1) to examine the effectiveness of the First Step to Success (FSS) program, and (2) to investigate perceptions of participant teachers and parents regarding the FSS program. The following questions were addressed: (1) How does the FSS program change targeted students' nonsocial and social play behaviors?; (2) How does the FSS program influence targeted students' problem behaviors?; (3) How does the FSS program affect class-wide student and teacher behaviors?; (4) What are the perceptions of teachers and parents regarding the FSS program?

Method

Setting

This study was conducted in two kindergarten and two first-grade classrooms in an elementary school of a Southwestern indian tribe in Arizona. The school was located on an indian reservation within 15 miles of a large metropolitan area in Arizona.

Participants

Participants in the study were four students, their teachers, and their parent(s). Two groups of students were participant students of the study. Group 1 included two kindergarteners, and two first-graders were in Group 2. All four students were Native American, and their ages ranged from 5 to 7. Of the four students, three were males, and one was female. None of the participant students were receiving special education services at the time the study was conducted. Participant students were identified by their teachers as at-risk for antisocial behaviors by using the Student Risk Screening Scale-SRSS (Drummond et al., 1994). The SRSS is the third of four screening options offered in the FSS program.

Two kindergarten and two first-grade teachers were participant teachers in the study. All teachers were female and their ages ranged from 33 to 54. All teachers had Arizona elementary school teaching certificates. Teacher 4 had also a Special Education Certificate and had taught special education for 5 years. The teachers' teaching experience ranged from 3 to 8 years. Except for Teacher 3, who had four years of experience teaching first grade, other teachers were first time teachers at their current grade level.

All parents of the targeted-children voluntarily agreed to be participants of the study. All parents were Native American. Their ages ranged from 28 to 43. They all had high school degrees. The number of children in their households ranged from 2 to 7. Except Parents 3 who was at middle income level, others indicated that they were at low income levels.

Independent Variable

The independent variable of the study was the First Step to Success (FSS) Early Intervention program. The FSS program is designed for at-risk preschoolers through second grade students who show signs of developing antisocial behaviors. The FSS involves three major social agents (parents, teachers, and peers) of at-risk child in the implementation of the program (Walker, Stiller, Golly, Kavanagh, Severson, & Feil, 1997). The FSS program is comprised of three interrelated modules. These are (1) First Step Screening, (2) First Step School Intervention Program: CLASS (Contingencies for Learning Academic and Social Skills), and (3) First Step Home

Intervention Program: Home Base.

Measures

Modified Parten's Social Play Scale (Parten, 1932). In order to examine the effectiveness of the FSS program on children's social play behaviors, direct observations of play behaviors were conducted. Parten's Social Play Scale is a well-respected scale and has been used in the field of play research for years. Parten's social play categories involve Solitary play, Parallel play, Associative play, and Cooperative play. For the purpose of this study, the original categories were modified by adding new categories. The scale for the current study was divided in two main categories: (1) Social Play Behaviors and (2) Nonsocial Play Behaviors. Social play behaviors included Cooperative, Associative, Parallel Aware, and Parallel Play Behaviors whereas nonsocial play behaviors consisted of Solitary Play, Onlooker, Unoccupied, Transition, Aggression, and Other Nonsocial play behaviors.

Revised Behavior Problem Checklist-RBPC (Quay & Peterson, 1996). In order to examine the effectiveness of the FSS program on targeted students' problem behaviors, the RBPC was completed by both targeted students' teachers and parent(s). The RBPC is a well-researched, widely used, and highly respected problem behavior rating scale that can be completed by teachers and parents. It is designed to be used with children and adolescents from age 5 to 16. The RBPC has 6 subscales (Conduct Disorder, Socialized Aggression, Attention problems, Anxiety-Withdrawal, Psychotic Behavior, and Motor Excess) including total 89 problem behavior items.

Teacher Ratings of Behavior (Perkins-Rowe, 2001). Teacher ratings were used to examine the effectiveness of the program on the class-wide student behaviors and teacher behaviors. The teacher rating survey includes two sub-scales regarding class-wide student behaviors (appropriate and inappropriate behavior, cooperation skills, peer relations, etc.) and teacher behaviors (time spent focusing on inappropriate behavior, transitions, positive / negative interactions, etc.). The subscale regarding class-wide student behaviors includes 15 items whereas the subscale regarding teacher behaviors consists of 5 items. The items of the scales are rated according to a 5-point Likert-type scale including "Never, Seldom, Occasionally, Usually, and Always."

Interviews. In order to evaluate perceptions of participant teachers and parents regarding the use and effectiveness (Social Validity) of, and cultural barriers to, the FSS program, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participant teachers and parents after completion of the program. The interviews took between 15 to 25 minutes.

Experimental Design and Procedures

A multiple-baseline across groups design (Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, & Richards, 1999; Tawney & Gast, 1984) was used in the study to answer the first question. All participant students participated in a screening, a baseline, and intervention, and a post-intervention / follow up phase.

Screening Phase

All students in the classrooms of participant teachers were screened by the teachers using the Student Risk Screening Scale-SRSS (Drummond et al., 1994). Four students, two kindergarten and two first grade students, met the criteria of the screening procedures and participated in the study.

Baseline Phase

Participant students were put into two groups. Group 1 (G1) included the two kindergarten students and Group 2 (G2) included the two first-grade students. Participant students' social play behaviors were observed for five minutes each school day on the playground. In order to demonstrate experimental control, gathering of baseline data began at the same time and was collected simultaneously across both participant student groups; G1 and G2. When baseline data across all participant student groups exhibited acceptable stability in level and trend on nonsocial play behaviors, the intervention was applied to G1 while G2 remained in baseline. On the sixth day of the intervention with G1, the intervention phase for G2 was started.

Intervention Phase

The intervention phase involved implementation of the entire FSS program. The CLASS component of the FSS program was implemented within the participant students' classrooms.

Post-intervention/Follow-up Phase

Post-intervention involved the collection of follow-up data approximately 2_months after the FSS program ended. As follow-up data, daily observations on target students' play behaviors with peers on the playground were gathered for a total of 15 minutes (5 minutes for each school day) for three school days in a week. At this phase, in addition to daily observations of play behaviors, the ratings of participant teachers on the play behaviors of participant students and ratings by both participant teachers and parent(s) of behavior problems of participant students were gathered.

Intervention Procedures

The principal researcher, who had previously received training at the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior at the University of Oregon in implementing the FSS program, was the First Step Coach of the program for participant groups (G1 and G2).

Before implementing the FSS program, a two-hour training on the FSS program using the First Step 20-minute videotape was provided by the principal researcher to the participant teachers who would implement the program in their classrooms. In addition, an informative booklet that explained program implementation issues was prepared and given to participant teachers. In addition, parent(s) of participant students were contacted to provide them information on the program and on their responsibilities, and to decide home-rewards for their children.

After the screening and gathering stable-baseline data for G1, the coach met with the target students to review expected behaviors and rewards for these behaviors. The coach then conducted the CLASS component for G1 in the first five days of the program by following the implementation guide. On day 6, the teachers took over management and operation of school program for G1 while baseline data were still gathered for G2. Following day 11 of the program, the First Step coach (the principal researcher) started the HomeBase component with the parent(s) of G1. The CLASS component with G2 started after finishing the coaching baseline with G1, the sixth day of the program with G1. On the sixth program day for G2, the teachers took over management and operation of school program for G2 while the CLASS and HomeBase components were running for G1. HomeBase component with G2 was also started on the 11th day of the program with G2.

During the CLASS component of the program, the coach met with the teachers daily after class or early the morning of the next day to review the program, its management, and the child's performance. Any questions or concerns the teachers had regarding how to operate the program were discussed in detail and suggestions and supports were provided to teachers.

Observation and Coding Procedures

After obtaining consents from parent(s), the principal, and teachers, a video-camera was used to record play behaviors of participant students. Observations took place on the playgrounds during baseline, intervention, and post intervention / follow up phases of the study. Three baseline observations were conducted for both participant Students 1 and 2. For Student 3, a total of five, and for Student 4, seven observations were conducted during baseline. Twenty-six observations for both Student 1 and Student 2, 22 observations for Student 3, and 14 observations for Student 4 were conducted during the intervention phase. At the follow-up phase, three observations took place for all participant students.

Recorded observations were coded by the principal researcher using an Interval Recording Procedure (Tawney & Gast, 1984). Each five minute play observation period was divided into 15-second intervals (a total of 20 intervals for a five minute session) using the Modified Social Play Behavior Scale (Parten, 1932).

Interrater reliability

A trained graduate student coded 30% of the observational data for each participant student for reliability. An interval-by-interval (or point-by-point) method (Tawney & Gast, 1984) was used for calculating interval observer agreement. In this method, each interval in which there was agreement that a behavior occurred was counted as 1. The sum of this count, divided by the total of agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100 yielded a percent of agreement measure which increased confidence that the two coders recorded the same behavior at the same time. An interrater reliability coefficient of .80 was required between coders. Percentage scores for reliability of play observations for Student 1 ranged from 85 to 100 with a mean of 91.2; for Student 2 reliability ranged from 80 to 100 with a mean of 89.5; for Student 3 it ranged from 85 to 100 with a mean of 91.1; and for Student 4 it ranged from 80 to 95 with a mean of 86.9.

Treatment Integrity

A two-hour teacher training on the FSS program using the First Step 20-minute videotape was provided by the principal researcher to participant teachers who implemented the program in their classrooms. Also, a booklet was given to teachers that included information on key features of the FSS program, the responsibilities of the participants, samples of the RED/GREEN cards, and a CD copy of the First Step 20-minute video that illustrated the correct application of key program tasks.

In addition to the training provided to teachers, the fidelity of implementation of the FSS' CLASS intervention was monitored by using the FSS Monitoring Form to obtain a measure of treatment integrity. Before beginning each program session, treatment conditions were checked by the coach of the program as to whether the conditions were administered as intended by evaluating completeness and accuracy of the program using the Monitoring Form and the returned GREEN/RED cards from home.

The number of program days in which conditions were administered as intended were divided by total of program days, and then multiplied by 100 to find the percentage of treatment integrity for each teacher. The percentage of treatment integrity was 100 for Teacher 1; 83.3 for Teacher 2; 96.6 for Teacher 3; and 86.6 for Teacher 4.

Results

I. The effectiveness of the FSS program on participant students' social play behaviors

Changes in Student 1's play behaviors. During baseline, Student 1's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 35 to 70 with a mean of 56.7; whereas his percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 30 to 65 with a mean of 43.3. Student 1's frequency of aggressive behaviors ranged from 2-2 during baseline with a mean of 2, he did not show any aggressive play behaviors during the intervention and follow-up phases.

As soon as the intervention was initiated, an immediate positive increase in Student 1's social play behaviors and a significant decrease in his nonsocial play behaviors were observed. During the intervention phase, Student 1's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 75 to 100 with a mean of 93.5, and percentage of nonsocial play behaviors was decreased ranging from 0 to 25 with a mean of 6.5. During the Follow-up phase, Student 1's social play behaviors remained very high, without any variability (Mean: 100, Range: 100-100), and he did not exhibit nonsocial play behaviors.

As seen in Figure 1 and Table 1, there was a significant increase on Student 1's cooperative and associative play behaviors, and a notable decrease in his solitary, onlooker, transition, and other nonplay behaviors, in the intervention and follow-up phases.

Changes in Student 2's play behaviors. During baseline, Student 2's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 35 to 40 with a mean of 38.3; whereas his percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 60 to 65 with a mean of 61.7. As soon as the intervention was initiated, an immediate positive increase in Student 2's social play behaviors and a significant decrease in nonsocial play behaviors were observed. During the intervention phase, Student 2's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 60 to 100 with a mean of 90.8, and his percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 0 to 40 with a mean of 9.2. The percentage Student 2's social play behaviors during the follow-up phase remained high ranging from 65 to 95 with a mean of 81.7; whereas his percentage of non-social play behaviors stayed low ranging from 5 to 35 with a mean of 18.3. Although Student 2's frequency of aggressive behaviors ranged from 1-4 during baseline phase with a mean of 3, he did not show any aggressive play behaviors during the intervention and follow-up phases.

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, there was a significant increase in Student 2's cooperative play behavior, the highest type of social play behaviors, and a notable decrease in his solitary play behaviors at the intervention and follow-up phases.

Changes in Student 3's play behaviors. During baseline, Student 3's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 0 to 20 with a mean of 9.0; whereas his percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 80 to 100 with a mean of 91.0. As soon as the intervention was initiated, an immediate positive increase in Student 3's social play behaviors and a significant decrease in nonsocial play behaviors were observed. During the intervention phase, Student 3's percentage of social play behaviors remained very high ranging from 75 to 100 with a mean of 96.0, and his percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 0 to 25 with a mean of 4.0. Student 3's percentage of social play behaviors during the follow-up phase remained high, ranging from 85 to 95 with a mean of 90.0; whereas his percentage of non-social play behaviors stayed low ranging from 5 to 15 with a mean of 11.0.

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, there was a significant increase in Student 3's cooperative, associative, and parallel aware play behaviors, and a notable decrease in his solitary play, onlooker and transition behaviors during the intervention and follow-up phases.

Changes in Student 4's play behaviors. During baseline, Student 4's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 0 to 100 with a mean of 60.7; whereas her percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 0 to 100 with a mean of 39.3. As soon as the intervention was initiated, an immediate positive increase in Student 4's social play behaviors and a significant decrease on nonsocial play behaviors were observed. During the intervention phase, Student 4's percentage of social play behaviors ranged from 85 to 100 with a mean of 97.9, and her percentage of nonsocial play behaviors ranged from 0 to 40 with a mean of 2.1. During follow-up phase, Student 4's percentage of social play behaviors remained high ranging from 75 to 95 with a mean of 86.7; whereas her percentage of non-social play behaviors ranged from 5 to 25 with a mean of 13.3

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, there was a significant increase in Student 4's cooperative and associative play behaviors and a notable decrease in her solitary play behaviors at the intervention and follow-up phases.

II. The effectiveness of the FSS program on participant students' problem behaviors

a. The results of teachers' ratings of participant student's problem behaviors

The results of the teacher ratings on the RBPC show that Teacher 1 and Teacher 3 reported significance changes in the problem behaviors of Students 1 and 3. For example, for Student 1, Teacher 1 pointed out major decreases on the CD scale (from 14 points at pre-rating to 0 points at post-rating and to 1 on the follow-up rating) and the AP scale (from 10 points at pre-rating to 1 point at post-rating and 3 on the follow-up rating) of the RBPC. There were also decreases in other scales (SA, AW, and ME) of the RBPC for Student 1 as reported by Teacher 1.

For Student 3, Teacher 3's ratings revealed a considerable decrease on the CD scale (from 15 point at pre-rating to 3 points at post-rating and 1 on the follow-up rating) of the RBPC. Teacher 3's ratings stayed the same for the other scales except for the AP scale in which there is a small decrease (from 15 points at pre-rating to 13 points at post-rating and to 11 points on the follow-up rating).

The Ratings of Teachers 2 and 4 revealed increases on most of the scales of the RBPC for Students 2 and 4 respectively. For example, Teacher 2 reported increases on the CD scale (from 29 points at pre-rating to 33 at post-rating and then returned to 29 points on the follow-up rating), on the SA scale (from 4 point at pre-rating to 10 points at post-rating and then to 6 points on the follow-up), on the AP scale (from 11 points at pre-rating to 12 points at post-rating and then to 19 points on the follow-up rating), and on the AW scale (from 5 points at pre-and-post rating to 7 points on the follow up rating); whereas the ratings stayed the same on the PB and ME scales of the RBPC for Student 2.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

For Student 4, ratings of Teacher 4 revealed that, except for the PB scale, there were increases on all other scales of the RBPC. For example, Student 4's problem behavior score on the CD scale stayed high and the same (24 points) at the pre-and-post rating phases; however, Teacher 4 pointed out an increase (from 24 points at pre-and-post ratings to 29 points at follow-up).

b. The results of the parent(s)' ratings of participant students' problem behaviors

The results of the parent ratings on the RBPC scales showed that almost all parents reported decreases on problem behaviors of their children. For instance, Parent(s) 1 pointed out decreases on all scales of the RBPC, especially differences on the CD scale (from 17 points at pre-rating to 5 points at post-rating, and 3 points at follow-up) and the AP scale (from 13 points at pre-rating to 1 point on the post- and follow-up ratings). For Student 2, Parent(s) 2 also reported decreases on the scales of the RBPC. For example, she reported decreases on the CD scale (from 9 points at pre-rating to 4 points on post-rating and 3 points at follow-up), on the AP scale (from 5 points at pre-rating to 1 point on post- and follow-up ratings). For Student 3, Parent(s) 3 reported no changes on the SA and PB scales of the RBPC whereas she pointed out decreases on all other scales of the RBPC. For example, Student 3's behavior score on the CD scale decreased from 5 points at pre-rating to 1 point at post-rating and to 0 at follow-up, according to Parent 3's ratings. Parent(s) 3 also reported decreases on the AP scale (from 7 points at pre-rating to 5 points at post-rating and 2 at follow-up), and on the AW scale (from 6 points at pre-rating to 3 points at post-rating, and 1 at follow-up).

For Student 4, the score on the CD scale stayed the same (10 at pre, post, and follow up ratings) according to Parent 4's rating. While there were some minor changes noted on the SA, AP, AW, and ME scales, no changes were reported on the PB scale by Parent(s) 4.

III. The effectiveness of the FSS program on class-wide student behaviors and teacher behaviors.

a. Class-wide student behaviors

Teachers' pre- and post-test scores on class-wide student behaviors of the Teacher Ratings of Behavior revealed that all teachers had high pre-test scores. Although teachers' scores stayed almost the same for most of the items after the intervention, there were some positive changes on teachers' post-test scores. There were slight differences, especially on Teacher 1 and 2, in a positive way on teachers' ratings of class-wide student behaviors.

b. Teacher behaviors

Teachers' pre- and post-test scores on the Teacher Ratings of Behavior revealed that there were significant changes on Teacher 1's pre- and post-test scores. Before the intervention Teacher 1 reported that she usually spent a lot of time focusing on the inappropriate behavior of just a few children and constantly had to reprimand children for their inappropriate behavior. However, Teacher 1 observed reported significant decreases on these items after the intervention. Results also showed that Teacher 2 had high pre-test scores on almost all teacher behaviors indicating that she had difficulty regarding her classroom management skills. However, after the intervention, significant changes observed on her post-test scores on some items regarding her classroom management skills.

IV. The reactions/opinions of participant teachers and parent(s) regarding the FSS program

Interviews focused on getting information on the use and effectiveness of the program (Social Validity) and any perceived cultural barriers of the program that teachers and parent(s) noted during the implementation of the FSS program.

a. The reactions/opinions of participant teachers regarding the FSS program

Interviews initially focused on getting teachers' reactions/opinions on whether the FSS program was successful with their participant students or not. Teachers 1 and 3 showed very high positive attitudes regarding the success of the program on all of their students including the participant students. They believed that the program was very successful with their participant students.

When asked whether the FSS program was successful with the target child in her classroom, Teacher 2 thought that the program was moderately successful or effective at some extend. Teacher 4 did not find the program successful with the target child in her classroom. When asked about whether the program was easy or hard to use, all teachers agreed that the program itself was easy to use. Regarding the support needed and received during the implementation of the FSS program, all teachers expressed that they had great support from the coach of the FSS program. All of the teachers stated that what they liked most about the program was the focus of positive attention on positive behaviors. The teachers also liked providing immediate reward and praise as part of the positive attention. When asked about what the teachers liked least about the program, all of the teachers did not have anything negative to say regarding the program. They stated some concerns regarding their tight daily school schedule and having lots of things to do during the day as a classroom teacher. When asked about whether they perceived any cultural barriers to the success of the program, all of the teachers except for Teacher 4 did not report any cultural barriers that negatively influenced the success of the FSS program. Teacher 4 mentioned that the cultural barrier was not the FSS program itself, but was related to parental views of education, or schooling. When asked whether teachers would recommend the FSS program to other teachers and use it with another child in their current classrooms or in the future, all of the teachers except Teacher 4 stated that they would recommend and use the program with another child.

b. The reactions/opinions of participant parent(s) regarding the FSS program

Interviews initially focused on getting reactions/opinions of parent(s) as to whether the FSS program was successful with their children or not. All of the parent(s) agreed that the FSS program was successful with their children and that they had seen positive changes in their child's behaviors at home.

When asked about whether the program (HomeBase) was easy or hard to use, all parent(s) agreed that the program was easy to use. All parent(s) were happy with the support they had received during the implementation of the program. All parents mentioned that they actually liked the entire program because the program itself worked very well and made significant changes in the child's behaviors. They believed that the FSS program helped them to spend more time with their children and make positive behavioral changes in their children. When asked about what the parent(s) liked least about the program, Parent 2 found that some activities were hard to understand whereas Parent 4 had a hard time finding time everyday to do the program activities. Parents 1 and 3 did not have anything that they did not like or had difficulty with during the program implementation. All of the parents were happy with the outcomes and agree to recommend the program to other parents.

Discussion

The effectiveness of the First Step to Success (FSS) program on targeted students' play behaviors was examined through direct observation of play behaviors. The results of direct observations of targeted students' play behaviors on the playground revealed that the FSS program had a significant positive affect on all participant students' social play behaviors. As soon as the intervention started, all participant students' social play behaviors significantly increased and their nonsocial behaviors decreased. All participant students showed higher levels of social play behaviors as soon as the intervention was initiated. Their engagement in associative and cooperative play behaviors, which are the highest levels of social play behaviors, significantly increased through the intervention, and remained high at the follow-up phase. These results were consistent with the results of previous studies conducted by Walker and his colleagues (1998). In their study, although they did not include the variable of playground social play behavior in their study as a dependent measure, Walker and his associates found that the FSS program produced substantial positive changes in participant students' level of nonsocial (negative/alone) playground behaviors. As soon as the FSS program was initiated, substantial decreases in the level of nonsocial playground behaviors were observed (Walker et al., 1998).

The effectiveness of the FSS program on targeted students' problem behaviors were examined through both teacher and parent ratings of targeted students' problem behaviors. Teacher ratings indicated that Teachers 1 and 3 pointed out significant decreases in CD (Conduct Disorder) behaviors and AP (Attention Problems) behaviors of Students 1 and 3 respectively. In addition, the results of the parent ratings on the RBPC scales showed that, except for Mother 4, parents reported significant decreases in child's problem behaviors. These results were consistent with the results of the studies conducted on the effectiveness of the FSS program (Golly, Sprague, Walker, Beard, & Gorham, 2000; Golly, Stiller, & Walker, 1998; Overton, McKenzie, King, and Osborne, 2002; Perkins-Rowe, 2001; Walker, Kavanagh, Stiller, Golly, Severson, & Feil, 1998). In these studies, significant decreases in problem behaviors were observed as soon as the FSS program was initiated.

Although Teachers 1 and 3 and three participant parents pointed out significant decreases in problem behaviors of participant students, Teachers 2 and 4 and Mother 4 did not report significant decreases in problem behaviors for Students 2 and 4 as they did not note positive changes in play behaviors. When asked why, they agreed that the FSS program itself was not the reason why they did not notice positive behavioral changes. Teacher 2 stated that, although she saw some changes, she blamed the student's home environment for limited behavioral change. Teacher 2 believed that there was inconsistent behavioral treatment in Student 2's home. On the other hand, Student 2's mother (Mother 2) expressed her concerns regarding Teacher 2. Student 2's mother highlighted Teacher 2's lack of classroom management skills. Teacher 2 indicated she had some other students with challenging behaviors in her classroom and had difficulty dealing with them too. These concerns were also observed by other teachers and school staff (e.g., the school psychologist) and noted by the program coach. Having an overwhelming classroom environment with several children with challenging behaviors, the teacher's lack of classroom management skills, and her difficulty dealing with challenging behaviors might have had a negative impact on the teacher's effectiveness in implementing the FSS program.

Teacher 4 also did not report significant positive changes on Student 4's play behaviors and problem behaviors. In her interview, Teacher 4 specifically drew attention to Student 4's serious emotional problems and the behaviors that Student 4 "couldn't control". In addition to a perceived lack of support from Student 4's family, Teacher 4 highlighted Student 4's chaotic family/home environment. She pointed out Mother 4's problems with alcohol-use and Student 4's troubled siblings (gang members) 4 in the home. Teacher 4 had already referred Student 4 for extensive evaluation due to her emotional problems.

Student 4's mother also reported no changes in her child's problem behaviors. She especially rated Student 4's problem behaviors high on the Conduct Disorder sub-scale of RPBC. In her interview, she believed that Student 4's problem behaviors changed positively to some degree at home; she also believed that Student 4 needed extensive help. As she indicated in the interview, Student 4's father had been in prison for almost three years. She continued that Student 4 had not shown any aggressive behaviors until her father was sent in prison. As a single parent with eight children, Mother 4 was struggling with various problems at home.

As mentioned, Student 4 came from a very chaotic and stressful home environment. Regarding this situation, Walker and his colleagues discussed some lessons learned from their studies of the FSS program and its implementation (Walker et al., 1998). They drew attention to the potential negative impact of a student's chaotic home environment on the success of the FSS program. They stated that "The First Step to Success program doesn't seem to work well with students who come from homes that are in chaos and require massive supports and intervention just to function at a basic survival level" (p. 267). Considering this, Student 4's serious emotional problems and chaotic home environment might have had a negative influence on the effectiveness of the FSS program on her behavior.

With regard to class-wide student behaviors, teachers' ratings revealed that all teachers had high pre-intervention test scores, reflecting a low level of stress in their classroom environments. Although teachers' high pre-intervention test scores stayed almost the same for most of the items after the intervention, there were some positive changes in teachers' post-intervention test scores, especially in the scores of Teachers 1 and 2. These positive changes were also seen in other studies which examined the effectiveness of the FSS program. For example, Perkins-Rowe (2001) found that the FSS produced a positive change in the classroom environment of participant teachers based on teacher ratings.

Teachers' pre- and post-intervention test scores on teacher behaviors revealed that there were significant changes specifically on Teacher 1 and 2's pre- and post-intervention test scores (Golly et al., 2000; Overton et al., 2002; Perkins-Rowe, 2001; Walker et al., 1998). These studies reported that the FSS program produced substantial positive changes on teacher behaviors, specifically on interactions with target children and their peers in the classroom, developing more positive teaching approaches, and increasing patience and decreasing frustration of participant teachers.

The results of the interviews were consistent with the findings of the previous studies conducted on the effectiveness of the FSS program. For example, it was reported that most participants generally show high levels of satisfaction with the program (Walker et al., 1998). Golly and her associates (1998) found that participants reported the FSS was effective in teaching appropriate behavior, had a positive effect on the target child's peer relations, and was relatively easy to use and manage as part of general teaching duties. Moreover, the majority of participants agreed to implement the program again in the future. In another study (Overton et al., 2002), most participant teachers found the FSS program effective whereas some found it somewhat effective in improving target child's behavior. As in the current study, they found that teachers believed the FSS helped them to develop a more positive teaching approach and use more positive interactions with all students in the class. In Perkins-Rowe (2002) study, she found that although a few teachers had some concerns regarding ease of use, amount of time involved running the intervention, and interference with other teaching activities or responsibilities, overall the teachers rated the intervention as effective and moderately easy to use.

Through participant teacher and parent interviews, an attempt was made to identify potential cultural barriers to the success of the FSS program. Except for one teacher, the others did not report any cultural barriers to the success of the program. Teacher 4, who did not find the program successful, believed that parental views of education or schooling of Native-Americans might be a cultural barrier although she did not identify this barrier as a reason that the FSS was not successful with her student. She believed that this cultural view negatively influences the academic success of Native American students and the relationships between home and school. However, when participant parents were asked about their perceptions on this issue, participant parents did not indicate any concerns. Moreover, the participation of parents and their interactions with the coach and the other teachers during the study were highly positive. It is believed that cultural factors per se did not influence the success of the FSS program with Student 4 but that a very chaotic home environment may have been the reason for her lack of success. As the program's developers indicated the success of the FSS program might rely on the targeted student's home environment.

Limitations

Only judgment-based assessment procedures (parent and teacher ratings) were used. to examine the effectiveness of the FSS program on targeted students' problem behaviors, class-wide student behaviors, and teacher behaviors. As indicated in the literature, judgment-based instruments are generally retrospective and highly subjective (Bondurant-Utz, 2002). Therefore, in addition to judgment-based instruments, direct observations of these dependent variables would provide greater confidence in the changes in these variables.

In order to examine the effects of the FSS program on participant students' play behaviors, even though a multiple baseline design was used, the results regarding this variable were evaluated based only on the CLASS component of the program. As described in the FSS program, the program has two inter-related components; the CLASS (School intervention component) and HomeBase (Home intervention component), and each participant received both interventions. Therefore, it is difficult to determine which component influenced the changes in participant students' play behaviors after HomeBase was initiated.

The FSS has two components: CLASS and HomeBase. However, the FSS program only provides a form to assess treatment fidelity of the CLASS, the school intervention component. Therefore, only CLASS treatment fidelity was evaluated on the program monitoring form provided by the FSS program. The treatment fidelity of the HomeBase was not evaluated. Evaluation of treatment fidelity of HomeBase and direct observations of the CLASS program's implementation in the classroom in addition to the program monitoring form would provide more confidence in treatment fidelity outcomes regarding the correct implementation of the CLASS and HomeBase components.

Directions for future research

First, FSS program effectiveness on participant students' social play behaviors' should be examined with larger samples of students from various cultural groups. Both indoor and playground free play behaviors should be examined for longer and different time periods during the day by using various data collection techniques beside judgment-based assessment methods.

Second, the program monitoring form does not seem sufficient to assess the treatment of fidelity of the CLASS program. Various methods to assess the treatment of fidelity of both the CLASS and HomeBase components should be developed and examined extensively in the future studies.

Third, the effectiveness of the FSS program can be directly or indirectly influenced by the factors or conditions regarding the program's participants and their environments. Therefore, we need to identify external factors or conditions that may influence the effectiveness of the FSS program. For example, factors or conditions related to targeted student's home environment, such as poverty, parental stress, parental abuse, etc., should be examined in the future research studies. In addition, factors regarding the school and classroom environment, such as teachers' classroom management skills, class size, the number of students with challenging behaviors in the classroom, support from the school management, etc., should be examined.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Text Revision. Washington, DC: Author.

Golly, A. M., Sprague, J., Walker, H. M., Beard, K., & Gorham, G. (2000). The First Step to Success program: An analysis of outcomes with identical twins across multiple baselines. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 170-182.

Golly, A. M., Stiller, B., & Walker, H. M. (1998). First Step to Success: Replication and social validation of an early intervention program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 243-250.

Gruber, E., Anderson, M., & DiClemente, R. (1994). Alcohol-specific problem behavior among Native American, Black, and White adolescents in a midwestern state. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 59.

Gruber, E., DiClemente, R., & Anderson, M. (1994). Differences in risk taking behavior among Native American, Black and White adolescents in a midwestern state. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 59.

Johnson, K., Anderson, N., Bastida, E., Kramer, J., Williams, D., & Wong, M. (1995). Panel II: Macrosocial and environmental influences on minority health. Health Psychology, 14, 601-612.

Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. (2003). Comprehensive, evidence-based social emotional curricula for young children. In G. Dunlap, M. Conroy, L. Kern, G. DePaul, J. VanBrakle, P. Strain, M. L. Hemmeter, M. Ostrosky, & G. E. Joseph (Eds.) Research synthesis on effective intervention procedures: Executive summary. Retrieved from University of South Florida, Center for Evidence-Based Practice: Young Children with Challenging Behavior Web Site: http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/

Kashani, J. H., Jones, M. R., Bumby, K. M., & Thomas, L. A. (1999). Youth violence: Psychosocial risk factors, treatment, prevention, and recommendations. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 200-210.

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., Manz, P. H., Costigan, T. E., & Nabors, L. A. (2001). School-based aggression prevention programs for young children: Current status and implications for violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 30, 344-362.

Newcomb, M., Fahy, B., & Skager, R. (1990). Reasons to avoid drug use among teenagers: Associations with actual drug use and implications for prevention among different demographic groups. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 36, 53-81.

Overton, S., McKenzie, L., King, K., & Osborne, J. (2002). Replication of the First Step to Success Model: A multiple-case study of implementation effectiveness. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 40-56.

Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243-369.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: Vol 4. A social interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., & Roberts, W. L. (1998). Observations of aggressive and nonaggressive children on the school playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 55-76.

Perkins-Rowe, K. A. (2001). Direct and collateral effects of the First Step to Success program: Replication and extension of findings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene.

Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: applications in educational and clinical settings. San Diego, CA: Singular.

Shafer, M. (1995). Transition and Native American youth: A follow-up study of school leavers on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 61, 60-65.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Walker, H. M. (1998). First steps to prevent antisocial behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 16-19.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1998). First Step to Success: an early intervention approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 66-80.

Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Strategies and best practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., Feil, E. G., Stiller, B., & Golly, A. M. (1998). First Step to Success: Intervening at the point of school entry to prevent antisocial behavior patterns. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 259-269.

Walker, H. M., Shinn, M., O'Neill, R., & Ramsey, E. (1987). A longitudinal assessment of the development of antisocial behavior in boys: Rationale, methodology, and first year results. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 7-16.

Walker, H. M., Stiller, B., & Golly, A. M. (1998). First Step to Success: A collaborative home-school intervention for preventing antisocial behavior at the point of school entry. Young Exceptional Children, 1, 2-6.

Walker, H. M., Stiller, B., Golly, A. M., Kavanagh, K., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1997). First Step to Success: Helping young children overcome antisocial behavior. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Yung, B. R., & Hammond, W. R. (1997). Antisocial behavior in minority groups: Epidemiological and cultural perspectives. In D. M Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 474-496). New York: Wiley.

Author note: Ibrahim H. Diken is Assistant Professor of Special Education at Department of Special Education at Anadolu University in Turkey. Robert B. Rutherford is Professor of Special Education and Director of Graduate Programs and Research in the Division of Curriculum and Instruction at Arizona State University. This study is a summary of Dr. Diken's unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Ibrahim H. Diken

Anadolu University

and

Robert B. Rutherford

Arizona State University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Asst. Prof. Ibrahim H. Diken, Department of Special Education, Anadolu University, Yunus Emre Campus, 26470, Turkey.

Table 1 Mean and Range of Percentage Scores of Student 1 and 2's Social
and Nonsocial Play Behaviors across All Phases

                             Student 1
                 Baseline     Intervention  Follow-up
                 M     R      M     R       M      R

Social Play Categories
Cooperative      12.5   0-25  59.0  30-100   42.5   25-60
Play
Associative      33.3  30-40  53.3   5-100   66.7   40-40
Play
Parallel         25.0  10-40  17.0   5-40    15.0   15-15
Aware Play
Parallel Play     0     0-0    0     0-0      0      0-0
SPB (Total)      56.7  35-75  93.5  75-100  100    100-100

Non-Social Play Categories
Solitary Play    21.7   5-40  11.7   5-20     0      0-0
Onlooker          7.5   0-15   6.3   5-10     0      0-0
Unoccupied        0     0-0    0     0-0      0
Transition       10.0   5-15   6.8   5-15     0      0-0
Other             7.5   5-10   0     0-0      0      0-0
Nonplay
Behaviors
Aggression*       2     2-2    0     0-0      0      0-0
NSPB (Total)     43.3  30-65   6.5   0-25     0      0-0

                             Student 2
                 Baseline     Intervention  Follow-up
                 M     R      M     R       M     R

Social Play Categories
Cooperative       0     0-0   43.2  10-100  35.0  15-55
Play
Associative      40.0  40-40  51.8   5-100  55.0  30-95
Play
Parallel         17.5   5-30  21.2   5-55   10.0  10-10
Aware Play
Parallel Play    20.0   5-35   5.0   5-5     0     0-0
SPB (Total)      38.3  35-40  90.8  60-100  81.7  65-95

Non-Social Play Categories
Solitary Play    42.5  40-45  13.3   5-20   10.0  10-10
Onlooker          7.5   5-10   5.0   5-5    10.0  10-10
Unoccupied        0     0-0    0     0-0     0     0-0
Transition       10.0  10-10   7.3   5-10   11.7   5-15
Other             0    10-20  20.0  20-20    0     0-0
Nonplay
Behaviors
Aggression*       3     1-4    0     0-0     0     0-0
NSPB (Total)     61.7  60-65   9.2   0-40   18.3   5-35

Note: * In Frequency
M: Mean, R: Range, SPB: Social Play Behaviors, NSPB: Nonsocial Play
Behaviors

Table 2 Mean and Range of Percentage Scores of Student 3 and 4's Social
and Nonsocial Play Behaviors across All Phases

                             Student 3
                 Baseline      Intervention   Follow-up
                 M     R       M      R       M     R

Social Play Categories
Cooperative       0     0-0    34.1    0-100   0     0-0
Play
Associative       5.0   0-20   49.0    0-100  88.3  85-95
Play
Parallel          0     0-0    11.7    0-100   1.7   0-5
Aware Play
Parallel Play     0     0-0     1.7    0-35    0     0-0
SPB (Total)       9.0   0-20   96.1   75-100  90.0  85-95

Non-Social Play Categories
Solitary Play    47.0  30-85     .95   0-15    0     0-0
Onlooker         33.0   0-60    0      0-0     5.0   0-10
Unoccupied        0     0-0     0      0-0     0     0-0
Transition       11.0   5-30    2.6    0-20    5.0   0-10
Other             4.0   0-15    0      0-0     0     0-0
Nonplay
Behaviors
Aggression*       0     0-0     0      0-0     0     0-0
NSPB (Total)     91.0  80-100   3.9    0-25   10.0   5-15

                             Student 4
                 Baseline      Intervention   Follow-up
                 M      R      M      R       M     R

Social Play Categories
Cooperative       0     0-0    20.0    0-100   0     0-0
Play
Associative      37.9   0-100  76.8    0-100  50.0   0.95
Play
Parallel         13.6   0-55     .71   0-10   36.7   0-90
Aware Play
Parallel Play    10.0   0-65    0      0-0     0     0-0
SPB (Total)      60.7   0-100  97.9   85-100  86.7  75-95

Non-Social Play Categories
Solitary Play    35.0   0-100   1.07   0-15    8.3   0-25
Onlooker          2.9   0-20    1.07   0-10    3.3   0-10
Unoccupied        0     0-0     0      0-0     0     0-0
Transition        0     0-0      .36   0-5     1.7   0-5
Other              .71  0-5     0      0-0     0     0-0
Nonplay
Behaviors
Aggression*       0     0-0     0      0-0     0     0-0
NSPB (Total)     39.3   0-100   2.1    0-15   13.3   5-25

Note: * In Frequency
M: Mean, R: Range, SPB: Social Play Behaviors, NSPB: Nonsocial Play
Behaviors