125 Evaluating the Efficacy of Asynchronous and Synchronous Problem-Solving Teleconsultation with Teachers who Serve Rural Students with Disabilities

IntroductionIn schools, the prevalence of students endorsing mental and behavioral health concerns continues to increase (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2020). Students with disabilities such as Autism, Intellectual Disability, and Developmental Disability need individualized support. Special education services allow teachers to focus on the individual needs of each of their students, with more nuance and fewer distractions for the student. Despite these educational efforts, some students engage in disruptive behavior (e.g., property destruction, elopement, physical aggression) and require advanced behavior assessment and treatment services to maximize student social emotional, behavioral, and learning outcomes. In these instances, a school-based consultant will often help teachers to develop and implement these advanced strategies with their students while providing ongoing supervision and collaboration.

A better service would be a form of teleconsultation. Teleconsultation is defined as synchronous or asynchronous consultation using communication technology to remove geographical distances (Deldar et al, 2016). Asynchronous communication can happen over a period without an immediate response. No studies have tested the limits of teleconsultation to see which aspects could be conducted solely asynchronously. With more services (e.g., observations, intervention, planning, and coaching) conducted at the convenience of the consultation team, each member can engage when it works in their schedule while remaining responsive. A study comparing teacher’s relationship between time management skills and their classroom performance has shown a positive trend (Khan, 2016). The research team will give guidance and feedback to educators of students with disabilities using problem-solving teleconsultation procedures but in a completely asynchronous fashion.

MethodsA survey was given to the student’s educator to create a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to determine any targeted behaviors, antecedents, and consequences. The educator will video record the student during an activity and document the student’s behaviors every time it was displayed for a baseline measurement. Once this data was collected, the consultant will then record themselves providing a summary of operational definitions and their collections of baseline measurement. Then a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) will be decided for the student.

The next phase includes implementing the agreed-upon BIP and providing training for the educator through performance feedback. BIP components include antecedent interventions and consequence-based interventions. BIP will be implemented every day with the student but only recorded during a ratified time and activity that usually stimulates a response. After recordings are evaluated, the consultant reviews them and the data collected with the educator. This allows for any changes to the BIP. These recordings will happen for about 2 months.

The consultant will begin a follow-up observation four weeks after the end of the asynchronous teleconsultation. The student will be recorded with the educator 2-3 times per week for a total of two weeks without the educator’s implementation. The consultant will measure the overall improved student behaviors.

 

DataOverall Problem Behaviors-Figure 1

Teacher Report on Self-Stimulus Behaviors-Figure 2

 

Social validity measurements-Figure 3

Teacher Perception Through Goal Attainment Scale-Figure 4

Discussion

The participant is a 15-year-old, white male. He was referred to the study by his classroom teacher for a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and a behavior intervention plan (BIP) for his behavioral concerns. The setting took place in a special education classroom. The student’s targeted behaviors are non-compliance, inappropriate communication, and self- stimulation. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the student’s overall problem behavior of the baseline measurement to his follow-up measurement. This graph shows a declining trend. A similar graph of the frequency of self-stimulation before and after shows a trend that was increasing to a now flat trend. The social validity in figure 3 shows how the educator perceived teleconsultation. It was measured in technology acceptability (FF-TAM), intervention acceptability (BIRS), and how acceptable the process is as a whole (CEF). These numbers indicate a high social validity for all measurements. Figure 4 describes the educator’s perceptibility of the student’s progress based on functional communication, compliance, and socially appropriate behaviors. This data infers the educator’s perception of the student’s targeted behavior increased compared to the baseline measurement.

 

ConclusionIn conclusion, teleconsultation slightly reduced the student’s targeted behavior. His overall problem behavior and self-stimulation behaviors both show declining trends. The educator feels as if teleconsultation was technologically acceptable, the intervention was achievable, and the consultation process for educators was also attainable. The educator’s perception of the student’s improvement of target behaviors increased since the baseline measurement. More data and participants would be needed to provide a general inference.