Using and Evaluating Daily Behavior Report Cards for Students With Challenging Behaviors

Teachers who work with students who display challenging behaviors need to implement interventions to support them in the classroom. A daily behavior report card (DBRC) is one intervention that research suggests can reduce challenging behaviors and replace them with more socially appropriate behaviors. With step-by-step instructions, this column describes how to implement and evaluate DBRCs to support students displaying challenging behaviors.

School-Home Notes and Daily Behavior Report Cards

School-Home Note (SHN) and Daily Behavior Report Card (DBRC) programs are a highly effective intervention approach to improving children and adolescents’ behavior at school. These terms, while not exactly synonymous, have both been used in the research literature to describe a similar approach to intervention. That is, SHN and DBRC programs can be thought of as a class of interventions that capitalize on three key elements: (1) providing frequent behavioral feedback, (2) utilizing contingency management procedures, and (3) increasing collaboration between home and school environments. The chapter describes strategies for development and implementation of SHNs and DBRCs, as well as highlighting the use of technology to increase the feasibility of these strategies.

The Effectiveness of Daily Behavior Report Cards for Children With ADHD: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: This meta-analysis examined group-design studies investigating the effectiveness of Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRC) as a school-based intervention to manage the classroom behavior of students with ADHD. Methods: A search of three article databases (PsycINFO, ERIC and Medline) identified seven group design evaluations of DBRC interventions. This meta-analysis included a total of 272 participants, with an average age of 7.9 years old. Three of the studies compared a control group to a treatment group with randomized group assignment, one study compared a control group to three treatment groups, two studies compared pre-and post-treatment scores in the same group, and one study compared pre-and post-treatment results of two intervention groups without random assignment. Dependent measures for these studies were teacher ratings (n = 5) and systematic direct observation of student academic and social behaviour (n = 2). Standardized mean differences ( Hedge’s g) were calculated to obtain a pooled effect size using fixed effects. Results: DBRCs were associated with reductions teacher-rated ADHD symptoms, with a Hedge’s g of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.12-0.60, z=2.93, p ≤ .005) with low heterogeneity (Q-value: 2.40, I2= 0.00). This result excluded two studies that used observational coding instead of standardized tests to evaluate the effects of the intervention. A moderator analysis indicated that the effect size for systematic direct observation was large ( Hedge’s G = 1.05[95% CI: 0.66-1.44, z=5.25, p ≤ .00]), with very high heterogeneity (Q-value: 46.34, I2: 93.53). A second moderator analysis found differences in the effects of DBRCs for comorbid externalizing symptoms with an overall effect size of 0.34 (95%CI: -0.04-0.72, z=1.76 p =0.08) with high heterogeneity (Q-value: 3.98, I2: 74.85). Conclusions: DBRCs effectively reduce the frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms in classroom settings. Additionally, they have a significant effect on co-occuring externalizing behaviors. It appears that systematic direct observation may be a more sensitive measure of treatment effects compared to teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms.