Goal-Setting Interventions for Students with

Behavior Problems: A Systematic Review

Allison L. Bruhn
University of Iowa

Sara C. McDaniel
The University of Alabama

Josephine Fernando and Leonard Troughton

University of Iowa

ABSTRACT: Students with persistent behavior problems, including those with or at risk for emotional
or behavioral disorders, often struggle to be self-regulated learners. To improve self-regulation skills,
numerous strategies have been suggested, including goal setting. Whereas goal setting has focused
mostly on academic and life skills, behavioral goal setting has received less attention, particularly in
terms of determining best practices for effective goal setting in school-based interventions. Thus,
the purpose of this review was to examine the existing literature on interventions using behavioral
goal setting alone and behavioral goal setting as part of a multicomponent intervention for students
with persistent behavior problems. Findings from 40 studies are discussed in terms of participants,
setting, design, measures, intervention components, and outcomes with a specific focus on
directions for future research and implications for practice.

▪ The term “self-determination” has been
used to describe a multitude of behaviors
and beliefs that help people live independent,
self-directed lives (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007).
Carter, Lane, Crnobori, Bruhn, and Oakes
(2011) reviewed the literature on self-determi-
nation interventions aimed at improving this
broad group of metacognitive skills for stu-
dents with and at risk for emotional or behav‐
ioral disorders (EBD). Interventions in their
review focused on a range of skills, including
making choices and decisions, problem-solving
activities, goal setting, promoting self-advocacy
skills, self-awareness, self-knowledge, self-assess-
ment, and self-regulation. The most commonly
studied self-determination strategy, according to
their review, was self-regulation.
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation, one element of the broad
domain of self-determination, is often used inter‐
changeably with the term “self-management.” It
is a metacognitive process that allows people to
control, manage, or regulate their own behavior
by thinking about behaviors and planning
proximal or distal courses of action (Bandura,
1991). For students with EBD, self-regulation is
difficult, and thus, many students need targeted
or intensive supports aimed at improving self-
regulation skills necessary for learning. The
ability to self-regulate learning involves cogni-
tive, metacognitive, and motivational components,
making it a complex process (Arslan, 2014). Speci-
fically, self-regulated learners (a) establish a
goal, (b) determine learning strategies that sup-
port progress toward that goal, (c) apply useful
strategies, and (d) monitor progress toward the
predetermined goal criteria (Arslan, 2014).
Generally, this process is learned over time
with most students developing self-regulation
skills and applying them in various learning
environments without being taught explicitly.
However, some students, such as those with or
at risk for EBD, require instruction and interven-
tion on all process elements to acquire or
improve self-regulated learning skills (Arslan,
2014).
In the review by Carter et al. (2011), they
found multicomponent self-management or
self-regulation interventions often contained
a goal-setting component. This makes sense
given setting and working toward goals is part
of becoming a self-regulated learner (Arslan,
2014). Other studies focused on goal setting

Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121 February 2016 / 107

alone (Carter et al., 2011). Because the purpose
of their review was to report on the self-determi-
nation literature base as a whole to identify
critical gaps and make recommendations for
future research, the authors did not examine
specifically the goal-setting studies. For instance,
there was no discussion about the goal-setting
process or effective components of goal-setting
interventions. Rather, Carter and colleagues re-
commended a more detailed review of individual
self-determination domains (e.g., goal setting, self-
advocacy, self-management/regulation) to address
these important intervention issues. Reviews of
self-management/regulation interventions, such
as self-monitoring and its varying components,
exist (Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009; Bruhn, McDa-
niel, & Kreigh, 2015; Joseph & Eveleigh, 2011);
this is not true of behavioral goal setting.
Goal Setting
Within the goal-setting literature, much of the
focus has been on academic goal setting and spec‐
ific to learning versus performance goals (Cov-
ington, 2000). Less is known about interventions
aimed at developing goal-setting and attainment
skills for prosocial or behavioral improvement.
As Covington (2000) pointed out, prosocial
and behavioral skills are critical to general per-
sonal development, positive peer relationships,
and academic achievement. Setting prosocial
or behavioral goals is important because meet-
ing these goals can lead to both improved aca-
demic and behavioral outcomes (Covington,
2000). Given the link between goal setting and
student outcomes, it is important to examine
best practices in goal setting, particularly as it
relates to behavior as this area has been under-
studied in comparison to academic skills.
Moreover, much of the literature on
goal-setting interventions related to improving
behavior focuses on improving life skills or
risk-related behavior, such as proper nutrition,
decreasing drug usage and sexual activity, and
improving physical activity. Although research-
ers in organizational management and psychol-
ogy have described monitoring progress toward
goals and receiving feedback about progress
as critical to goal attainment (Locke, 1996;
Locke & Latham, 2002), less is known about
the role of these components in goal-setting
interventions for improving classroom behav‐
ior. There appears to be no established set
of best practices for goal-setting procedures or
components related to behavioral or prosocial
outcomes, such as decreasing disruptive behav‐
ior, increasing time on task, improving
108 / February 2016
prosocial interactions with peers and adults,
and decreasing defiant or disrespectful beha-
vior in schools. For instance, understanding
how behavioral goals are set and monitored
may be important for accurate implementation
and, in turn, school-based outcomes. Further,
because goal setting may occur as a stand-alone
intervention or as part of a multicomponent
intervention, it is necessary to understand how
goal-setting procedures and components vary
by intervention.
Purpose
To better understand behavioral goal set-
ting for K–12 students with persistent behavior
problems, we sought to systematically review
the literature in this area. Our goal was to
examine the characteristics of participants and
settings in behavioral goal-setting studies, the
methodology used to examine the effectiveness
of behavioral goal setting, and the specific
components and procedures of behavioral
goal setting and their associated outcomes.
The following research questions were used
to guide this systematic review:
1. What are the characteristics of the students
with persistent behavior problems who
have participated in behavioral goal-setting
studies (e.g., gender, grade, disability, iden-
tification for participation, locale of school)?
2. In terms of design and measures, what types
of experimental designs were used, to what
extent were treatment fidelity and social
validity reported, and were generalization
and maintenance data collected?
3. To what extent do stand-alone goal-setting
interventions and multicomponent interven-
tions that include goal setting incorporate
the following components: student input
toward goals; goals based on current levels
of performance; and data used to (a) moni-
tor progress of goals, (b) provide feedback
about progress, and (c) graph progress pro-
viding reinforcement for meeting goals? Do
results indicate the unique contribution of
any of these components for improving the
effectiveness of goal setting?
Method
Article Search and Selection Procedures
We began with two systematic, electronic
searches to obtain recent literature on behav‐
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
ioral goal-setting interventions in school set-
tings. Then, we conducted two hand searches
of three literature reviews. Collectively, we
based the electronic and hand searches on
our knowledge of the existing literature base
as well as experience with specific interven-
tions that often include a goal-setting compo-
nent (e.g., Check-in/Check-out [CICO]).
In the first search, which was completed
during the summer of 2014, psychology and
educational databases PsycInfo and EBSCO
were used with search terms including goal set-
ting, behavior, intervention, student, and school.
The results of this search yielded 308 peer-
reviewed treatment–outcome studies occurring
in K–12 settings.
The second search also involved PsycInfo
and EBSCO and was completed during the
summer of 2014. However, additional search
terms included Check-In/Check-Out (CICO);
Behavior Education Program; Check and Con-
nect; and Check, Connect, and Expect. These
search terms were added because the first search
yielded several articles on these school-based
behavioral interventions that involve a goal-
setting component. However, given the authors’
knowledge of this literature base, it was clear
the first electronic search did not capture all or
even most of the studies of these interventions.
The second electronic search yielded 39
articles.
The third search, completed in November
2014, involved reviewing the reference lists
from the systematic literature review on self-
determination interventions for students with
or at risk for EBD by Carter and colleagues
(2011). Because that review included interven-
tion studies with goal-setting components, we
retrieved electronically all 81 articles reviewed
by Carter et al.
Finally, currently published reviews on
Tier 2 interventions (Bruhn, Lane, & Hirsch,
2014) and CICO (Hawken, Bundock, Kladis,
O’Keeffe, & Barrett, 2014) were examined for
additional articles that were not found in the first
three searches. Tier 2 reviews were selected
over Tier 3 given (a) their overlap in content
found in the electronic searches, and (b) goal
setting has been recommended for use as
a low-intensity, resource-efficient, Tier 2 inter-
vention (Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, & Crnobori,
2011; McDaniel, Bruhn, & Mitchell, 2015).
These reviews yielded 14 additional articles,
which we retrieved in December 2014.
Between the four searches, 442 articles
were retrieved and underwent a gating
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
procedure to determine inclusion or exclusion
(Carter et al., 2011; Bruhn, McDaniel, & Kreigh,
2015). First, titles and abstracts of all retrieved
articles were read to determine if the content
of the article should be read in entirety for inclu-
sion. That is, if the title or abstract contained
information indicating it may meet inclusion
criteria, then it was selected to be read. Based
on this, we read 210 articles published prior to
December 2014 to determine if they merited
inclusion in this review.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
All articles selected to be read in entirety
were coded on four questions: (a) Is the article
an intervention study reporting student behav‐
ioral outcomes? (b) Does the study take place
in a K–12 school setting? (c) Does the indepen-
dent variable include a behavioral goal-setting
component for students? (d) Do the participants
have documented behavioral problems? If the
answer to all four questions was “yes,” then arti-
cles were included. First, articles in which an
intervention study was described as experimen-
tal, quasi-experimental, pre-post, or single-sub-
ject were included as long as student outcomes
were reported in relation to the intervention.
Systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses,
unpublished dissertations, program evaluations,
and case illustrations were excluded.
Second, studies had to take place in a K–12
school setting. Settings included general and
special education classrooms, alternative schools,
and residential facilities as long as school-based
academic instruction was occurring at the set-
ting. Studies of participants in preschool, post-
secondary schools, and home settings were
excluded.
Third, the independent variable had to
include behavioral goal setting either as a
stand-alone intervention or as part of a multi-
component intervention. Authors had to state
explicitly that behavioral goals were set as
part of the intervention. Examples of behavioral
goals included students aiming to (a) earn a cer-
tain number of points for meeting classroom
behavioral expectations (e.g., be respectful
and responsible) and (b) demonstrate a specific
behavior, such as increased positive interac-
tions with peers and adults, increased work
completion, and decreased disruptive behavior
in class or other school setting. Because our
focus was on students with persistent behavior
problems and our research questions were
about behavioral goal setting, goal-setting
February 2016 / 109
 TABLE 1
Coding Components
Coding
Components Coding Details
Participants and setting • Describe the gender, age, disability status, educational setting, school level, and geographic setting
Design and measures • Describe the dependent variable(s), experimental design, treatment integrity, social validity, and
maintenance and generalization probes
Intervention components • What behaviors were the participants setting goals for, and what was the specific goal?
• Did the students provide any input about the goal?
• Is there any evidence the goal was individualized or customized based on the student’s present level
of performance or need?
• What (if any) data were used by participants to measure progress toward the goal?
• Did anyone discuss with the student progress toward the goal and, if so, who?
• Did the student receive reinforcement for meeting the goal? Was progress toward the goal graphed?
• Were there other intervention components besides goal setting, and if so, what were they?
• Was there any maintenance or generalization programming?
Intervention outcomes • Describe participant outcomes
• If this was a single-subject design, did authors discuss a functional relation?
• If yes, was there a functional relation present?
• If this was a group design, was a significant effect found, and if so, what was it? Was an effect size
reported, and if yes, what was it?

interventions focused exclusively on academic
skills, life skills, career goals, nutrition, physical
fitness, diet, health, sports, drugs, alcohol, and
sexual activity were excluded.
Finally, participants had to have documented
behavioral problems. We included only articles
indicating participants (a) had a clinical
diagnosis typical of EBD per the DSM-IV (Amer-
ican Psychiatric Association, 1994) or DSM-V
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013)
(e.g., ADHD, conduct disorder), (b) were re‐
ceiving special education services for a
high-incidence disability characterized or
accompanied by behavior problems (e.g.,
EBD, learning disability, speech impairment),
or (c) were screened in (via validated assess-
ment tool) or nominated by their teachers due
to persistent internalizing or externalizing pro-
blems. To narrow the focus of the review and
follow a process similar to the review by Carter
et al. (2011), studies of participants with severe
intellectual or developmental disabilities (e.g.,
autism) were excluded. Of the 210 articles
read for inclusion, 39 articles met all four cri-
teria and thus were included in the review.
One of these 39 articles contained two studies
that both met inclusion criteria (Fairbanks,
Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007), leading to
the review of 40 total studies.
Coding and Training Procedures
We coded each study on multiple com‐
ponents associated with participants, setting,
experimental design, measures, intervention,
and outcomes. Coding questions are provided
in Table 1. Items were selected for coding based
on the information necessary to answer the
research questions. With regards to the inter-
vention components, we included questions
about progress monitoring, feedback, student
input, and reinforcement because goal theorists
and researchers have cited these as components
that may be included in goal setting with some
suggesting components such as feedback and
monitoring progress enhance the effectiveness
of goal setting (Bandura & Cervone, 1983;
Locke, 1996; Locke & Latham, 2002). Addition-
ally, in terms of reporting the presence or
absence of a functional relation, we relied
upon author reports rather than our own inter-
pretation. This was done for several reasons.
First, as noted by Kratochwill et al. (2013) in an
article describing the What Works Clearinghouse
standards for establishing evidence-based prac-
tices using single-subject methodology, there is
(a) no gold standard for the number of replica-
tions required to demonstrate a functional rela-
tion, (b) no agreement about how many data
points are required in each phase, and (c) often
a lack of agreement between readers using
visual analysis (e.g., Barlow, Nock, & Hersen,
2009; Kazdin, 2011; Johnston & Pennypacker,
2009). Thus, because the purpose of this review
was not to apply research standards in an effort
to establish an evidence-based practice but
rather to describe the practice and methodology
used to evaluate the intervention, we relied
on the authors’ reporting of results, which
had undergone the scrutiny of the peer-review
process.

110 / February 2016 Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121

 To ensure reliable coding, the first two TABLE 2
authors developed a coding form and discussed Participants and Setting
operational definitions. Then, they indepen-
Number of
dently coded eight studies. They discussed Category Participants
each study by comparing answers on the
Gender
coding forms, resolving any discrepancies, and
Male 800
clarifying any ambiguities. Next, the first author
Female 199
met with the last two authors to explain the
Not reported 360
coding form. These three authors coded four
Number of students with reported
studies independently and then compared cod- disabilities or disorders
ing responses. Once 100% agreement was Emotional/behavioral disorder 83
reached on the four studies, the remaining studies Learning disability 19
were divided evenly among all four authors Other health impairment 36
and coded independently by a combination of Developmentally delayed 1
two of the four authors. Pairs of authors met Speech/language impairment 10
either in person or over the phone to discuss Attention deficit hyperactivity 4
each study. Originally, there were 29 disagree- disorder
ments out of a possible 1,440 independently Multiple disabilities 1
coded items (agreement 5 98%). Authors dis-
cussed all items, including initial disagreements, Category Number of Studies
until 100% agreement was met for every item Most frequent method of identifying
on the coding form. In sum, two authors inde- participants
pendently coded all 40 studies and Office discipline referral 5
authors reached 100% agreement on all coded Teacher nomination 16
items. Screening tool 10
Locale
Urban 10
Results Suburban 9
Rural 6
Results are aggregated across all 40 studies Not reported 15
(from 39 articles) for participants, setting, Level
design, and measures. Then, information about Elementary 22
various intervention components is reported in Middle 5
terms of the type of independent variable eval- High 2
uated in each study (e.g., focused goal setting, All 4
self-management, CICO variations, social prob‐ Not reported 7
lem solving) and associated outcomes. Also, it
should be noted that some studies were coded
in multiple categories and thus, category totals need. For example, McIntosh, Campbell, Car-
may exceed 40 (e.g., treatment integrity ter, and Dickey (2009) stated participants were
reported for some components and mentioned nominated by their classroom teachers based
as a limitation for others). on “their levels of problem behavior and per-
ceived need for support beyond universal
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (lack
Participants and Setting
of response to tier one intervention)” (p. 85).
Detailed results on participants and setting Regardless of how students were recruited for
are presented in Table 2. Across studies, there participation, they all exhibited persistent behav‐
were 1,359 participants with the vast majority ior problems (see Inclusion Criteria). Locale
(n 5 800) reported as being male. Of these was not reported in 15 studies, but of those
participants, only 146 were reported as having reporting locale, 10 studies occurred in urban
disabilities. The most frequently occurring dis- settings, nine in suburban studies, and six in
ability was EBD (n 5 83). Although some stud‐ rural settings. Twenty-two studies occurred
ies did not include information about how stu- in elementary schools whereas only five
dents were identified for participation, the occurred in middle schools and two in
most frequent method of identification was high schools. Four studies occurred across
teacher nomination (n 5 16 studies). Teacher multiple levels. School level was not
nomination was often described as an observed reported in seven studies.

Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121 February 2016 / 111

 TABLE 3 Design and Measures antisocial behavior (0.60), social competence
(0.83), spelling (0.88), reading (1.40), writing
Category Number of Studies
(1.71), and math (1.00; Caldarella, Adams,
Treatment integrity
Valentine, & Young, 2009) and 0.01 for anger
Reported 23
control problems, 0.32 for depression, 0.43 for
Mentioned but not reported 4
suicide risk behaviors, 0.15 for self-esteem, 0.45
Mentioned as a limitation 5
for personal control, 0.22 for problem-solving
Not mentioned or reported 10
coping, 0.16 for family distress, 0.67 for family
Social validity
goals met, and 0.59 for family support (Randell,
Reported 27
Eggert, & Pike, 2001).
Not reported 13
The other 22 studies used single-
Maintenance probes
subject methodology with all studies reporting
Yes 13
No 27
improved behavior for participants. In seven of
Generalization probes
these studies, authors explicitly discussed the
Yes 4
presence or absence of a functional relation
No 36
between the intervention and at least one
Group design 18
dependent variable, with six studies demon-
Significant effects reported 17 strating the presence of a functional relation
Effect size reported 6 for at least one participant. Across these six
Single-subject design 22 studies, a functional relation was noted as
Functional relation 7 present for 17 of 19 participants.
discussed by authors A quantitative index (e.g., mean, range) of
Functional relation present 6 treatment integrity (i.e., the extent to which
the intervention was implemented as intended)
Design and Measures was reported in 23 studies. In four studies, treat-
ment integrity was mentioned, but a quantita-
Eighteen studies utilized group-design method‐ tive index was not reported. For example,
ology (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, Randell et al. (2001) described the process for
pre-post) with significant, positive effects reported how intervention and control condition ses-
in 17 of these and effect sizes reported in six (see sions were videotaped and assessed for fidelity;
Table 3 for a summary of findings related to however, no fidelity results were reported. In
designs and measures). For example, four stu- another five studies, the lack of treatment integ-
dies of CICO reported effect sizes favoring the rity measurement was described as a limitation
intervention (i.e., in the desirable direction) of the study. Ten studies did not mention nor
across a wide range of dependent variables: report treatment integrity.
direct observation of classroom behaviors, Social validity, which is the perception of the
such as off-task behavior (-0.90; Simonsen, goals, procedures, and outcomes associated with
Myers, & Briere, 2011) and classroom rule the intervention, was reported in 27 studies. Tea-
violations (0.20; Fabiano et al., 2010); cher and student perceptions were assessed via
teacher-completed rating scales on their questionnaires (e.g., Barbrack & Maher, 1984),
perceptions of prosocial behavior (0.42 [partici- peer comparisons (e.g., Mazzotti, Test, & Wood,
pants with escape-maintained behavior] to 2013), and rating scales (e.g., Mong, Johnson, &
0.99 [participants with attention-maintained Mong, 2011). Although the majority of studies
behavior]; McIntosh et al., 2009), problem including a social validity assessment indicated
behavior (0.05 [escape maintained] to 1.04 positive findings, the social validity of CICO
[attention maintained]; McIntosh et al., 2009), varied with some studies indicating low-
academic success (0.37; Fabiano et al., 2010), to-moderate social validity despite significant
academic productivity (0.55; Fabiano et al., improvements in participant behavior (e.g.,
2010), IEP goal improvement (0.69; Fabiano Simonsen et al., 2011) and other studies indicat-
et al., 2010); office discipline referrals (0.19 ing generally favorable perceptions of CICO
[escape maintained] to 0.78 [attention main- (e.g., Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008).
tained]; McIntosh et al., 2009); and daily Further, in two studies, students indicated greater
progress reports (0.39; Cheney, Flower, & satisfaction with intervention when they were
Templeton, 2008). In two studies of social involved directly in setting goals rather than
problem-solving interventions, effect sizes for having the goals dictated to them by an adult
significant results included teacher ratings of (i.e., Barbrack & Maher, 1984; Maher, 1981).

112 / February 2016 Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121

 TABLE 4 Number of Studies Including Specified Intervention Components
CICO
Social Problem Variations
Intervention Components Solving (n 5 7) (n 5 22)
Students provided input about
their goals 3 0
Goals were individualized based
on student performance 2 8
Students received reinforcement
for meeting goals 2 21
Data were used to monitor student
progress 0 22
Progress was discussed with
student 5 22
Data were graphed 0 2
In terms of collecting maintenance and gen-
eralization probes of behavior, these data were
uncommon. Thirteen studies included mainte-
nance data; only four studies included general-
ization data. One study that stood out involved
examining the effects of multimedia goal setting
on students’ knowledge of the goal-setting
process and their disruptive behavior. Using
a multiple-baseline across participants design,
Mazzotti et al. (2013) found all four participants
improved their knowledge and behavior during
intervention with (a) three of four participants
maintaining this knowledge and behavior and
(b) all participants demonstrating improved
behavior in a generalization setting.
Independent Variable and Outcomes
The components and procedures of the
independent variable were highly variable
across studies (see Table 4). Some interventions
focused solely on goal setting whereas others
included goal setting as one component of a
multicomponent intervention. Of the multicom-
ponent interventions, interventions appeared to
fit into one of three categories: self-management,
social problem solving, or some variation of
CICO. Explanations of these categories are
provided in the following sections.
Focused Goal Setting
In these four studies, the primary purpose
was to evaluate the effects of goal setting on
student outcomes (Barbrack & Maher, 1984; Hill
& Brown, 2013; Maher, 1981; Mazzotti et al.,
2013). In all four studies, some students had input
about their goal, and in two studies, some students
did not have input about their goal. Specifically, in
studies by Maher (1981) and Barbrack and Maher
(1984), students were assigned to goal-setting
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
Self-
Management Focused Goal Total
(n 5 7) Setting (n 5 4) (N 5 40)
5 4 12
7 3 20
5 0 28
7 3 32
6 2 35
2 1 5
interventions having different levels of adult sup-
port for setting goals. In the Maher study, students
either worked with a counselor to provide input
and set goals for themselves, or they were
assigned to a group in which the counselor set
goals for them. Goals were associated with pro-
blem behaviors, attendance, compliance, assign-
ment completion, and relationships with peers
and teachers. The group of students who were
directly involved in goal setting met significantly
more goals than the students who had the goals
dictated to them. Barbrack and Maher found simi-
lar results. In their study, students were assigned to
one of four counseling groups: (1) students worked
with counselors to set goals, (2) students were
informed of goals by the counselor but provided
no input, (3) students had goals set for them but
were not involved nor informed of the goals, or
(4) students had no goals. Groups 1 and 2 signifi-
cantly outperformed Groups 3 and 4 in goal
attainment with Group 1 having the highest goal
attainment scores as well as the most satisfaction
with the intervention (Barbrack & Maher, 1984).
For the most part, students set goals based on
their current level of performance. In only one
study was this not the case as it appeared stu-
dents set goals but there was no indication goals
were based on present levels of behavior (Maz-
zotti et al., 2013). Across all four studies, students
were not provided reinforcement for meeting
goals. Although data were used to track progress
toward goals in all four studies, only one study
included an additional component of self-
graphing progress (Mazzotti et al., 2013). In two
studies, it was stated explicitly that data were
used to track student progress and that an adult
discussed progress with the students (Barbrack
& Maher, 1984; Mazzotti et al., 2013). Across
studies, goal-setting interventions resulted in
functionally related increases in knowledge of
February 2016 / 113
goal-setting procedures and decreases in disrup-
tive behavior (Mazzotti et al., 2013), significant
increases in goal attainment for students with
direct input in goal setting (Barbrack & Maher,
1984; Maher 1981), and significant reductions
in office discipline referrals (Hill & Brown, 2013).
Self-Management
Studies of self-management interventions
contained multiple components with a specific
focus on self-monitoring and self-evaluation
(Crum, 2004; Gureasko-Moore, DuPaul, &
White, 2007; Marchant et al., 2007; Martin
et al., 2003; McGoey, Prodan, & Condit,
2007; Moore, Prebble, Robertson, Waetford,
& Anderson, 2001; Smith, Young, Nelson, &
West, 1992). Goal setting was included as an
additional self-management strategy in these
multicomponent interventions. Five of seven
studies reported students provided input about
setting behavioral goals (Crum, 2004; Martin
et al., 2003; McGoey et al., 2007; Moore et al.,
2001; Smith et al., 1992); in all seven, students’
goals were based on current performance levels.
Five studies included reinforcement for meeting
goals, and two did not report the use of reinforce‐
ment (Gureasko-Moore et al., 2007; Moore
et al., 2001). Across studies, students demon-
strated improvements in class preparation
(Gureasko-Moore et al., 2007), work comple-
tion (Gureasko-Moore et al., 2007; Martin et al.,
2003; Smith et al., 1992), on-task behavior
(Crum, 2004; Moore et al., 2001); decreases in
disruptive (McGoey et al., 2007) and off-task
behavior (Smith et al., 1992), but authors did
not indicate there was a functional relation.
Additionally, there were significant increases
on Woodcock-Johnson academic achievement
tests (Martin et al., 2003) and functionally
related increases in effective communication
and peer play (Marchant et al., 2007).
CICO Variations
In studies of CICO or some variation
of CICO (e.g., Fabiano et al., 2010; Hunter,
Chenier, & Gresham, 2014; Swoszowski,
McDaniel, Jolivette, & Melius, 2014), at a mini-
mum, students were involved in checking in
with a mentor at the beginning and end of the
day and receiving teacher ratings of behavior
on a daily report card. The daily report card
generally consisted of behavioral expectations
(e.g., Be Respectful, Be Responsible) with stu-
dents rated by their teachers on a scale (e.g.,
0 5 did not meet expectations, 1 5 partially
114 / February 2016
met expectations, 2 5 met expectations). Points
received on the daily report card were used as
the foundation for goal setting. That is, each
day, students had a goal of earning a certain
number of points or percentage of points on
the daily report card. In all 22 studies, the goals
for points (or percentage of points) were set by
the adult mentor or CICO coordinator and com-
municated to the students, but students did
not provide input about the behavioral goal.
In eight of these studies, authors indicated that
daily behavior goals were individualized based
on a student’s current performance level. For
example, Hunter et al. (2014) and Simonsen
et al. (2011) stated students’ daily goals were
established by averaging the previous 3 days
of students’ scores on the daily report card.
Lane, Capizzi, Fisher, and Ennis (2012) stated,
“the actual goals established [were] based
on the student’s initial performance levels”
(p. 63). In 21 studies, students received reinforce‐
ment, such as praise (e.g., Hawken & Horner,
2003) or tickets (e.g., Mong et al., 2011) when
they met their goals. In all 22 studies, data
from the daily report card were used to monitor
student progress toward goals, and that progress
was discussed with students. Students’ progress
was graphed in two studies (Lane et al., 2012;
Simonsen et al., 2011). In terms of outcomes,
a functional relation between CICO (or varia-
tions) and dependent variables was reported
by authors in 4 of 15 single-subject studies,
indicating increases in daily report card ratings
(Campbell & Anderson, 2008; Dart et al.,
2014; Lane et al., 2012) and academic en‐
gagement (Campbell, Rodriguez, Anderson, &
Barnes, 2013), and decreases in problem beha-
viors such as disruption (Campbell & Anderson,
2008; Campbell et al., 2013). In one single-
subject study, a functional relation was discussed
by authors who indicated one could
not be established due to the limitation of the
design (i.e., AB design; Swoszowski, Jolivette, &
Fredrick, 2013). Statistically significant effects
were reported for students’ classroom behavior
(e.g., Fabiano et al., 2010; Simonsen et al.,
2011); daily report cards (e.g., Cheney et al.,
2008; Cheney et al., 2009); scores on the Social
Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990;
e.g., Cheney et al., 2008; Cheney et al., 2009),
Teacher Rating Form (Achenbach, 2001; e.g.,
Cheney et al., 2009), and Behavior Assessment
Scale for Children 2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus,
2004; e.g., McIntosh et al., 2009); academic
productivity and success (e.g., Fabiano et al.,
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
2010); and office discipline referrals (e.g., Hawken,
O’Neill, & MacLeod, 2011; McIntosh et al., 2009).
Social Problem Solving
In these seven studies, students partici‐
pated in small-group interventions that were
generally led by adults, such as school counse-
lors, mentors, and teachers (Amish, Gesten,
Smith, Clark, & Stark, 1988; Caldarella et al.,
2009; Lochman, Burch, Curry, & Lampron,
1984; Lochman, Coie, Underwood, & Terry,
1993; Lochman, Lampron, Burch, & Curry, 1985;
Lochman, Lampron, Gemmer, Harris, & Wyckoff,
1989; Randell et al., 2001). All interventions
in this group of studies targeted multiple
self-determination and social skills but mostly
focused on students solving social problems
and setting goals to improve their behavior.
For instance, in a study by Lochman and col-
leagues (1993) 52 “Black, socially-rejected,
aggressive or non-aggressive students” (p. 1053)
were randomly assigned to a treatment or con-
trol group. In the treatment group, students
received seven, 30-min sessions of social rela-
tionship training during which they (a) talked
about goals for dealing with problem situations
involving relationships and communication,
and (b) set goals for classroom behaviors.
Results indicated intervention was not effective
for the whole treatment group, but rather, there
were significant reductions in aggression and
social rejection as well as improvement in pro-
social behavior for students identified as
aggressive and rejected. In three studies,
authors reported that students provided input
about their behavioral goals (Amish et al.,
1988; Lochman et al., 1989; Randell et al.,
2001). For example, in the study by Amish et al.
(1988), 25 students with severe emotional dis-
turbance participated in 15 40-min social prob‐
lem-solving lessons in which students dis-
cussed various social problems, set individual
goals for solving these problems, thought
about solutions, and attempted to implement
solutions through a variety of instructional
activities. Interestingly, in comparison to the
control group, the treatment group learned to
generate significantly more solutions to pro-
blems; however, these solutions were often
inappropriate or not meaningful. This demon-
strated that although these students acquired
the knowledge to set goals and solve problems,
their knowledge did not translate to better
skills. In only two studies did authors indicate
goals were individualized based on current
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
behavior (Lochman et al., 1993; Randell et al.,
2001). Similarly, in only two studies did stu-
dents receive reinforcement for meeting goals
(Amish et al., 1988; Lochman et al., 1989).
Finally, although progress toward meeting
goals was discussed with students in all seven
studies, it was not clear that data were used or
graphed to monitor student progress in any of
these studies. In addition to the outcomes
reported above, social problem solving with a
goal-setting component resulted in significant
improvements in teacher ratings of student
behavior and social competence (Caldarella
et al., 2009; Lochman et al., 1989), significant
decreases in suicide risk and related risk factors
(Randell et al., 2001), and significant decreases
in off-task behavior (Lochman, 1984; Lochman
et al., 1985, 1989). Like the majority of studies
included in this review, none of these studies
examined the unique effects of individual inter-
vention components on student outcomes.
Discussion
Students with persistent behavior problems,
including those with or at risk for EBD, often lack
the self-regulation skills to be successful learn‐
ers. Given their social and behavioral problems,
they may need to be taught explicit self-
regulation strategies such as goal setting.
Because much of the literature has focused on
students setting goals related to academic per-
formance or life skills (e.g., obtaining a job),
there was a need to address goal setting in the
behavioral domain. Thus, the purpose of this
review was to examine the literature base on
behavioral goal setting for K–12 students ex-
hibiting persistent behavior problems. We con-
ducted systematic electronic and ancestral
searches resulting in the inclusion of 40 studies
from 39 articles that were read and
coded according to (a) participant and setting
characteristics, (b) design and measures, and
(c) intervention components and outcomes.
In the following discussion, we report key find-
ings, limitations, recommendations for future
research, and implications for practice.
Before findings can be interpreted and
implications for future research and practice
can be discussed, it is important to acknowledge
the limitations of this review. First, although we
conducted two different electronic searches as
well as ancestral searches of three different lit-
erature reviews (Bruhn et al., 2014; Carter et al.,
2011; Hawken et al., 2014), we did not hand
search individual journals. Thus, it is possible
February 2016 / 115
we inadvertently missed articles that could
have been included in this review. Addition-
ally, we did not conduct a meta-analysis in
which studies were analyzed for their overall
effect via statistical methods because our main
goal was to better understand the extent to
which goal-setting interventions included var-
ious components (e.g., student input, graphing,
reinforcement) and how those components var-
ied by type of intervention (e.g., focused goal
setting, CICO). Finally, in terms of single-subject
studies, we did not interpret the presence or
absence of a functional relation, but rather, we
documented whether the authors discussed this
methodological point. Although we could have
provided our own interpretation of graphed
data, we felt it was important for findings to be
interpreted as the authors intended based on
their own reporting of results, as authors often
use different criteria for drawing these conclu-
sions. Thus, we reported only whether authors
discussed a functional relation and whether
they stated it was present. A future literature
review could involve evaluating all components
of a study according to specific research design
standards (e.g., Gersten et al., 2005; Horner et al.,
2005; Kratochwill et al., 2013).
Key Findings, Limitations, and
Recommendations for Future Research
Participants and Setting
Similar to previous reviews of other self-
regulation strategies (Briesch & Chafouleas,
2009; Bruhn, McDaniel, & Kreigh, 2015;
Mooney, Ryan, Uhing, Reid, & Epstein, 2005),
it was not surprising to find the majority of par-
ticipants were male and most studies took
place in elementary settings. However, the
male majority was not quite as pronounced as
other reviews (Bruhn, McDaniel, & Kreigh,
2015). Although this finding is consistent with
other research, researchers and practitioners
need to ensure that methods for identifying stu-
dents who need behavioral intervention do not
result in an under-identification of females who
could benefit from intervention. Specifically,
across studies, teacher nomination was the pri-
mary method for identifying participants. It is
possible teachers are more likely to nominate
boys for participation. Future research may
involve determining if there is any gender bias
within teacher nomination or other tools used
to identify participants, such as systematic
116 / February 2016
screening and discipline referrals, which also
rely on teacher perception.
Regarding the frequency of studies taking
place in elementary settings, these findings
may be due to the limiting inclusion criteria.
That is, studies were included only if they
involved behavioral goal setting. Goal-setting
studies at the secondary level, and in particular
high school, may be more focused on transi-
tion, career, and life goals given the age and
immediate future of these students (Carter et al.,
2011). Although these goals are important and
have the potential to impact student decisions
and outcomes, for secondary students who
have persistent behavior problems, more
research is needed to understand how setting
behavioral goals can improve classroom behav‐
ior and, in turn, academic outcomes.
Design and Measures
In terms of research design, the type of
methodology was almost evenly split between
group and single-subject design. Perhaps the
most problematic finding from both types of
designs was the lack of adequate reporting of
student outcomes. Specifically, Gersten et al.
(2005), who described the quality indicators
for establishing evidence-based practices using
group experimental and quasi-experimental
designs, indicated effect size calculations
should accompany inferential statistics. And
yet, this occurred in only 6 of 18 studies. Simi-
larly, in describing quality indicators for single-
subject research, Horner et al. (2005) and
Kratochwill et al. (2013) stressed the impor-
tance of using visual analysis to document the
presence of a functional relation between
the independent and dependent variables.
But in only seven studies did authors actually
discuss this, and in only six did it occur. To
improve the accuracy of interpreting results,
future researchers should include these indica-
tors of quality research, particularly because
this will help determine whether practices
should be established as evidence based.
Likewise, measuring treatment integrity is
an indicator of a high-quality, rigorous study
(Bruhn, Hirsch, & Lloyd, 2015; Gersten et al.,
2005; Horner et al., 2005). Improvement is
needed in documenting treatment integrity as
a quarter of the studies did not include a
quantitative measure of intervention integrity.
Again, this finding is similar to previous reviews
of other self-regulation strategies (e.g., Briesch
& Chafouleas, 2009; Bruhn, McDaniel, &
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
Kreigh, 2015). Given the growing emphasis on
reporting treatment integrity, we encourage
researchers, journal editors, and peer reviewers
to attend to this issue so that valid conclusions
about intervention effects may be drawn
(Bruhn, Hirsch, & Lloyd, 2015; Hagermoser-
Sanetti, Dobey, & Gritter, 2012).
Reporting social validity, on the other
hand, was more common. There is still room to
grow, however, as knowing how stakeholders
view an intervention’s utility, feasibility, and
outcomes has practical and scientific impor-
tance because these views may influence their
intervention use during a study and thereafter
(Gresham, MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger,
& Bocian, 2000). Perhaps the most interesting
findings on social validity were about (a) the
variability of perceptions of CICO and (b)
how student input about behavioral goals
impacted students’ satisfaction with goal-setting
interventions. Given the positive outcomes asso-
ciated with CICO, determining how to improve
teacher and student buy-in is important for sus-
tained implementation and improved behavior.
The answer may lie in allowing students to pro-
vide input about their daily behavior goals as
this has improved student perception in other
goal-setting interventions (e.g., Barbrack &
Maher, 1984; Maher, 1981). Additionally, con-
ducting focus groups or surveys with teachers
implementing CICO to determine how to
improve the intervention and, in turn, social
validity may be an important next step for
researchers.
A final measurement issue is the lack of
generalization and maintenance data as these
data were included in 4 and 13 studies, respec-
tively. Collecting generalization and mainte-
nance data may be difficult in applied settings,
such as schools, due to the nature of scheduling
and other logistical issues. And the costs asso-
ciated with collecting these measures may be
problematic, particularly when the measures
involve direct observation of student behavior,
which can be time- and resource-intensive.
Potential solutions include beginning research
studies earlier in the school year to allow for
maintenance data to be collected prior to the
school year ending and using generalization
measures other than direct observation (e.g.,
teacher-completed behavioral rating scales).
Independent Variable and Outcomes
In the Results section and in Table 4, we
report on the various goal-setting components
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
based on the type of intervention (i.e., focused
goal setting, self-management, CICO variations,
and social problem solving). Although all stud‐
ies reported positive outcomes, some outcomes
varied with intervention components.
Specifically, in studies of focused goal set-
ting, students were more likely to attain their
goals when they were involved directly in set-
ting those goals (Barbrack & Maher, 1984; Hill
& Brown, 2013; Maher, 1981). In these three
studies, students also reported strong buy-in to
the procedures, which indicates that not only
does allowing students to provide input about
their goals result in positive perceptions about
intervention, but also positive student out-
comes. Similar findings were reported in multi-
component studies of self-management in terms
of positive student perception and associated
outcomes (e.g., McGoey et al., 2007; Moore
et al., 2001). These findings are consistent
with goal-setting theory, which emphasizes
that when goals are self-set, people are more
likely to be committed to attaining those goals
(Locke & Latham, 2002). In CICO studies, on
the other hand, adults dictated goals to stu-
dents. To truly engage students in the metacog-
nitive process of thinking about a goal, setting
a goal, and trying to achieve that goal, future
researchers should examine whether and how
student input about daily behavioral goals
within CICO can improve buy-in and out-
comes. This would be a substantial difference
from current practice but could result in
more robust behavioral change. Further, this
examination could extend beyond CICO to
other multicomponent interventions, such as
self-management and social problem solving.
Another component we examined was
whether behavioral goals were individualized
based on students’ past or current performance
levels (e.g., setting a goal based on an average
of 3 days of baseline data). About half of the
studies included reported some level of individ‐
ualization. Allowing for goal individualization
based on student performance is a complex
issue. First, the type or level of individualiza-
tion may depend on the type of intervention.
For instance, in CICO, the daily point goal
may be based on an average of the prior week’s
performance, which are data regularly col-
lected as part of the intervention (e.g., Hunter
et al., 2014; Simonsen et al., 2011). This individ‐
ualization is important because it may not
make sense for all students receiving CICO to
start off at a standard goal of 80%, but rather,
some students may need to start lower than
February 2016 / 117
80% and gradually increase the goal over time
(e.g., Lane et al., 2012). However, given 15%
of a school’s population may require an inter-
vention such as CICO (Hawken, Vincent, &
Schumann, 2008), individualizing goals within
CICO may pose a practical issue when a large
number of students are participating. In other
interventions, such as social problem solving,
individualizing goals based on previous or cur-
rent performance may be more manageable.
That is, in these studies, students received inter-
vention in small group settings with interven-
tion often delivered by a counselor. Simply
due to the lower numbers of students receiving
small group intervention, individualization
may be more feasible. Future research is
needed to determine the best methods for indi-
vidualizing behavioral goals and the practical-
ity of doing so in school settings. Additionally,
because there were no studies comparing the
effects of individualized goals based on student
performance versus generalized goals for
groups of students, this is an avenue for further
exploration.
Once behavioral goals have been set, stu-
dent progress toward goal attainment may be
tracked. In over three fourths (n 5 32) of stud‐
ies, data were used to monitor student progress,
but data were graphed in only five studies.
Further, in 35 studies, progress was discussed
with students. These findings are important
because goal theorists and researchers have
indicated effective goal attainment requires
people receive feedback about their progress
(Locke & Latham, 2002). Data provide an
objective way to track progress and a touch-
stone for providing feedback to students.
Although some research in other areas (e.g.,
undergraduate student performance) has shown
goal setting plus feedback is more effective than
goal setting by itself (Bandura & Cervone, 1983;
Locke & Latham, 2002), further research in the
area of behavioral goal setting for K–12
students is needed to determine the unique
contribution of progress monitoring, graphing,
and feedback in improving student behavior
as no studies examined directly how these
individual components affected student
outcomes.
A final component included in 28
studies was reinforcement for meeting goals.
Interestingly, the majority of studies including
reinforcement were studies of CICO and
self-management, and none of the studies on
goal setting alone (i.e., focused goal setting)
and only two social problem-solving studies
118 / February 2016
included reinforcement. In the CICO and
self-management studies, the researchers and
practitioners likely viewed reinforcement as
an important intervention component (Bruhn,
McDaniel, & Kreigh, 2015). However, it is
unclear whether these interventions would
have been as effective without the reinforce-
ment component. Future research could
involve direct comparisons of goal-setting inter-
ventions with and without reinforcement as
well as identification of students for whom rein-
forcement is necessary.
Implications for Practice
Although the 40 studies included in
this review varied across participants, setting,
design, measures, and intervention components,
and review procedures were not without limita-
tions, there are still implications for practice to
consider. First, this review indicates most
research is taking place with boys and
in elementary settings. Although this does not
mean females and high schools are not being
assessed or receiving interventions, it is still
important to note that when schools are charged
with delivering supports to all students with
behavior problems, they need to ensure females
and high-schoolers do not go unserved. Second,
selecting interventions should also involve an
analysis of social validity. This review has high-
lighted a few studies that showed allowing
students to engage fully in the goal-setting pro-
cess by letting them provide input about the
goal may increase social validity while simulta-
neously improving behavior. Thus, teachers
implementing goal-setting interventions should
consider student input. Finally, the vast majority
of studies reported that data were collected
to monitor progress and provide feedback to
students, which are critical components for
goal attainment (Locke & Latham, 2002). We
recommend that teachers use data to not only
individualize goals, but also to monitor student
progress and provide feedback to students
about that progress so that, ultimately, they
achieve their behavioral goals.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. A. (2001). Achenbach’s empirical be‐
havioral assessment manual for Teacher Report
Form. Burlington, VT: AEBSA.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders - Fourth
edition. American Psychiatric Association,
Washington, DC.
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders - Fifth
edition. American Psychiatric Association,
Washington, DC.
*Amish, P. L., Gesten, E. L., Smith, J. K., Clark, H. B.,
& Stark, C. (1988). Social problem-solving train-
ing for severely emotionally and behaviorally
disturbed children. Behavioral Disorders, 13,
175–186.
Arslan, S. (2014). An investigation of the relationships
between metacognition and self-regulation with
structural equation. International Online Journal
of Educational Sciences, 6, 603–611. doi:10.15345/
iojes.2014.03.009
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-
regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 248–281.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative
and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the
motivational effects of goal systems. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
1017–1028. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017
*Barbrack, C. R., & Maher, C. A. (1984). Effects
of involving conduct problem adolescents in
the setting of counseling goals. Child & Family
Behavior Therapy, 6(2), 33–43. doi:10.1300/
J019v06n02_03
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Sin-
gle-case experimental designs: Strategies for study-
ing behavior change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009).
Review and analysis of literature on self-manage-
ment interventions to promote appropriate class-
room behaviors (1988–2008). School Psychology
Quarterly, 24, 106–118. doi:10.1037/a0016159
Bruhn, A. L., Hirsch, S. E., & Lloyd, J. (2015).
Treatment integrity in school-wide programs:
A review of the literature (1993–2012). Journal
of Primary Prevention. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0400-9
Bruhn, A. L., Lane, K. L., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014).
A review of tier 2 interventions conducted within
multi-tiered models of prevention evidencing
a primary behavioral plan. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 22, 171–189. doi:10.
1177/1063426613476092
Bruhn, A. L., McDaniel, S., & Kreigh, C. (2015).
Self-monitoring interventions for students with
behavior problems: A review of current research.
Behavioral Disorders, 40(2), 102–121.
*Caldarella, P., Adams, M. B., Valentine, S. B., &
Young, K. R. (2009). Evaluation of a mentoring
program for elementary school students at
risk for emotional and behavioral disorders.
New Horizons in Education, 57(1), 1–16.
*Campbell, A., & Anderson, C. M. (2008). Enhancing
effects of check-in/check-out with function-
based support. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 233–245.
*Campbell, A. & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Check-in/
check-out: A systematic evaluation of component
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44,
315–326. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-315
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
*Campbell, A., Rodriguez, B. J., Anderson, C., & Barnes,
A. (2013). Effects of a tier 2 intervention on class-
room disruptive behavior and academic engage-
ment. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(1),
32–54. doi:10.3776/joci2013.v7n1p32-54
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Crnobori, M. E., Bruhn, A. L.,
& Oakes, W. P. (2011). Self-determination inter-
ventions for students with or at risk for emotional
and behavioral disorders: Mapping the knowledge
base. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 100–116.
*Cheney, D., Flower, A., & Templeton, T. (2008).
Applying response to intervention metrics in the
social domain for students at risk of developing
emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of
Special Education, 42, 108–126. doi:10.1177/
0022466907313349
*Cheney, D., Stage, S., Hawken, L., Lynass, L.,
Mielenz, C., & Waugh, M. (2009). A two-year
outcome study of the check, connect, and expect
intervention for students at-risk of severe behav‐
ior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behav‐
ioral Disorders, 17, 226–243. doi:10.1177/1063
426609339186
*Crum, C. F. (2004). Using a cognitive-behavioral
medication strategy to increase on-task behavior
of a student with a behavior disorder. Interven-
tion in School & Clinic, 39, 305–309. doi:10.1177/
10534512040390050801
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation,
and school achievement: An integrative review.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171
*Dart, E. H., Furlow, C. M., Collins, T. A., Brewer, E.,
Gresham, F. M., & Chenier, K. H. (2014). Peer-
mediated check-in/check-out for students at-risk
for internalizing disorders. School Psychology
Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.
1037/spq0000092
*Ennis, R. P., Jolivette, K., Swoszowski, N. C., & John-
son, M. L. (2012). Secondary prevention efforts at
a residential facility for students with emotional
and behavioral disorders: Function-based check-
in, check-out. Residential Treatment for Children
& Youth, 29(2), 79–102. doi:10.10890/0886
571X.2012.669250
*Fabiano, G. A., Vujnovic, R. K., Pelham, W. E.,
Waschbusch, D. A., Massetti, G. M., Pariseau,
M. E., … Volker, M. (2010). Enhancing the
effectiveness of special education programming
for children with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder using a daily report card. School Psy-
chology Review, 39, 219–239.
**Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop,
M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining
classroom behavior support in second grade.
Exceptional Children, 73, 288–310. doi:10.1177/
001440290707300302
*Filter, K., McKenna, M., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H.,
Todd, A. W., & Watson, J. (2007). Check in/check
out: A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, Tier 2-
level targeted intervention for reducing problem
February 2016 / 119
 behaviors in schools. Education and Treatment of
Children, 30, 69–84. doi:10.1353/etc.2007.0000
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M.,
Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005).
Quality indicators for group experimental and
quasi-experimental research in special educa-
tion. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
doi:10.1177/001440290507100202
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills
Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-
Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M. (2000).
Treatment integrity in learning disabilities inter-
vention research: Do we really know how treat-
ments are implemented? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 15(4), 198–205. doi:10.1207/
SLDRP1504_4
*Gureasko-Moore, S., DuPaul, G. J., & White, G. P.
(2007). Self-management of classroom prepared-
ness and homework: Effects on school function-
ing of adolescents with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review,
36, 647–664. doi:10.1177/0145445503259387
Hagermoser-Sanetti, L. M., Dobey, L. M., & Gritter,
K. L. (2012). Treatment integrity of interventions
with children in the Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions from 1999 to 2009. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(1), 29–46. doi:
10.1177/1098300711405853
Hawken, L. S., Bundock, K., Kladis, K., O’Keeffe, B.,
& Barrett, C. A. (2014). Systematic review of the
check-in, check-out intervention for students at
risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Edu-
cation and Treatment of Children, 37, 635–658.
doi:10.1353/etc.2014.0030
*Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a
targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of
behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education,
12, 225–240. doi:10.1023/A:1025512411930
*Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, K. S., & Rawlings, L.
(2007). Effects of the Behavior Education Plan
(BEP) on office discipline referrals of elementary
school students. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 8, 94–101. doi:10.1177/10983007
070090020601
*Hawken, L. S., O’Neill, R. E., & MacLeod, K. S.
(2011). An investigation of the impact of function
of problem behavior on effectiveness of the
behavior education program (BEP). Education
and Treatment of Children, 34, 551–574. doi:10.
1353/etc.2011.0031
Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J.
(2008). Response to intervention for social
behavior: Challenges and opportunities. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16,
213–225. doi:10.1177/1063426608316018
*Hill, D., & Brown, D. (2013). Supporting inclusion
of at risk students in secondary school through
positive behaviour support. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 17, 868–881. doi:10.
1080/13603116.2011.602525
120 / February 2016
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom,
S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject
research to identify evidence-based practice in spe-
cial education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
*Hunter, K. K., Chenier, J. S., & Gresham, F. M. (2014).
Evaluation of check in/check out for students with
internalizing behavior problems. Journal of Emo-
tional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(3), 135–148.
doi:10.1177/1063426613476091
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (2009). Strate-
gies and tactics of behavioral research (3rd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Joseph, L. M., & Eveleigh, E. L. (2011). A review of
the effects of self-monitoring on reading perfor-
mance of students with disabilities. The Journal
of Special Education, 45, 43–53. doi:
10.1177/022466909349145
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs:
Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H.,
Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., &
Shadish, W. R. (2013). Single-case intervention
research design standards. Remedial and
Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. doi:10.1177/
0741932512452794
*Lane, K. L., Capizzi, A. M., Fisher, M. H., & Ennis,
R. P. (2012). Secondary prevention efforts at
the middle school level: An application of the
behavior education program. Education and
Treatment of Children, 35, 51–90. doi:10.1353/
etc.2012.0002
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H., Bruhn, A. L., & Crnobori, M.
(2011). Managing challenging behaviors in
schools: Research-based strategies that work.
New York: Guilford Press.
*Lochman, J. E., Burch, P. R., Curry, J. F., & Lampron,
L. B. (1984). Treatment and generalization
effects of cognitive-behavioral and goal-setting
interventions with aggressive boys. Journal
of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 52,
915–916. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.52.5.915
*Lochman, J. E., Coie, J. D., Underwood, M. K.,
& Terry, R. (1993). Effectiveness of a social rela-
tions intervention program for aggressive and
nonaggressive, rejected children. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 1053–1058.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.6.1053
*Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Burch, P. R., &
Curry, J. F. (1985). Client characteristics asso-
ciated with behavior change for treated and
untreated aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 13, 527–538.
*Lochman, J. E., Lampron, L. B., Gemmer, T. C.,
Harris, S. R., & Wyckoff, G. M. (1989). Teacher
consultation and cognitive-behavioral interven-
tions with aggressive boys. Psychology in the
Schools, 26, 179–188. doi:10.1007/BF00923139
Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious
goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology,
4, 117–124. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80005-9
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a
practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psy-
chologist, 57, 705–717. doi:/10.1037/0003-
066X.57.9.705
*Maher, C. (1981). Effects of involving conduct prob‐
lem adolescents in goal setting: An exploratory
investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 18,
471–474. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(198110)18:4
,471::AID-PITS2310180418.3.0.CO;2-2
*Marchant, M. R., Solano, B. R., Fisher, A. K.,
Caldarella, P., Young, K. R., & Renshaw, T. L.
(2007). Modifying socially withdrawn behavior:
A playground intervention for students with inter-
nalizing behaviors. Psychology in the Schools,
44, 779–794. doi:10.1002/pits
*Martin, J. E., Mithaug, D. E., Cox, P., Peterson,
L. Y., Van Dycke, J. L., & Cash, M. E. (2003).
Increasing self-determination: Teaching students
to plan, work, evaluate, and adjust. Exceptional
Children, 69, 431–447. doi:10.1177/0014402
90306900403
*Mazzotti, V. L., Test, D. W., & Wood, C. L (2013).
Effects of multimedia goal-setting instruction on
students’ knowledge of the self-determined learn-
ing model of instruction and disruptive behavior.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(2),
90–102. doi:10.1177/1098300712440452
McDaniel, S., Bruhn, A. L., & Mitchell, B. (2015).
Tier 2: A framework for identification and inter-
vention. Beyond Behavior, 24(1), 10–17.
*McGoey, K. E., Prodan, T., & Condit, N. (2007). Exam-
ining the effects of teacher and self-evaluation of
disruptive behavior via school-home notes for
two young children in kindergarten. Journal of
Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 4,
365–376. doi:10.1037/h0100349
*McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Dickey,
C. R. (2009). Differential effects of a tier two beha-
vior intervention based on function of problem
behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
11, 82–93. doi:10.1177/1098300708319127
*Mong, M. D., Johnson, K. N., & Mong, K. W. (2011).
Effects of check-in/checkout on behavioral
indices and mathematics generalization. Behav‐
ioral Disorders, 36, 225–240.
Mooney, P., Ryan, J. B., Uhing, B. M., Reid, R., &
Epstein, M. H. (2005). A review of self-manage-
ment interventions targeting academic outcomes
for students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14,
203–331. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-6298-1
*Moore, D. W., Prebble, S., Robertson, J., Waetford,
R., & Anderson, A. (2001). Self recording with
goal setting: A self-management programme
for the classroom. Educational Psychology, 21,
255–265. doi:10.1080/01443410120065469
*Randell, B. P., Eggert, L. L., & Pike, K. C. (2001).
Immediate post intervention effects of two brief
youth suicide prevention intervention. Suicide
and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31, 41–61.
doi:10.1521/suli.31.1.41.21308
Behavioral Disorders, 41 (2), 107–121
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior
Assessment System for Children (BASC-2)
(2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.
*Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Briere, D. E. (2011).
Comparing a behavioral check-in/check-out
(CICO) intervention to standard practice in an
urban middle school setting using an experimen-
tal group design. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 13, 31–48. doi:10.1177/1098300
709359026
*Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., Nelson, J. R., & West, R. P.
(1992). The effect of a self-management proce-
dure on the classroom and academic behavior
of students with mild handicaps. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 21, 59–72.
*Swoszowski, N. C., Jolivette, K., & Fredrick, L. D.
(2013). Addressing the social and academic
behavior of a student with emotional and behavi‐
oral disorders in an alternative setting. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 47(2), 28–36.
*Swoszowski, N. C., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., &
Heflin, L. J. (2012). Check in/check out: Effects on
students with emotional and behavioral disorders
with attention- or escape-maintained behavior in a
residential facility. Exceptionality, 20, 163–178.
*Swoszowski, N. C., McDaniel, S. C., Jolivette, K., &
Melius, P. (2013). The effects of tier II check-in/
check-out including adaptation for non-respon-
ders on the off-task behavior of elementary stu-
dents in a residential setting. Education and
Treatment of Children, 36, 63–79. doi:10.1353/
etc.2013.0024
*Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., &
Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted inter-
vention to reduce problem behaviors: Elementary
school implementation of check in-check out.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10,
46–55. doi:10.1177/1098300707311369
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Field, S. (2007). Instructional
and assessment strategies to promote the
self-determination of students with disabilities.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
*Articles included in the review
**Article contained two studies
AUTHORS’ NOTE
The authors received financial support through
the Iowa Measurement Research Foundation.
Address correspondence to Allison L. Bruhn,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242;
E-mail: abruhn@iowa.uiowa.edu.
MANUSCRIPT
Initial Acceptance: 12/24/2015
Final Acceptance: 01/08/2016
February 2016 / 121
Copyright of Behavioral Disorders is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral
Disorders and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.