http://ccs.sagepub.

com/
Clinical Case Studies
http://ccs.sagepub.com/content/9/1/28
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534650109349293
2010 9: 28 originally published online 14 October 2009 Clinical Case Studies
Raymond V. Burke, Brett R. Kuhn, Jane L. Peterson, Roger W. Peterson and Amy S. Badura Brack
Behavior Problems
''Don't Kick Me Out!'': Day Treatment for Two Preschool Children With Severe

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Clinical Case Studies Additional services and information for

http://ccs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ccs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://ccs.sagepub.com/content/9/1/28.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Oct 14, 2009 Proof

- Jan 14, 2010 Version of Record >>

by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Clinical Case Studies
9(1) 28 40
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1534650109349293
http://ccs.sagepub.com
Dont Kick Me Out!: Day
Treatment for Two Preschool
Children With Severe Behavior
Problems
Raymond V. Burke,
1,2
Brett R. Kuhn,
3
Jane L. Peterson,
1

Roger W. Peterson,
1
and Amy S. Badura Brack
4
Abstract
Parents of young children with severe emotional and behavior problems have few services from
which to choose if their child is expelled from preschool for aggressive and disruptive behavior.
Two case studies provide an overview of a multicomponent, intensive, day-treatment program
for children with moderate to severe behavior disorders. Proximal and distal program goals are
to eliminate presenting problem behaviors and increase social competencies and to reintegrate
children back to their school, preschool, or daycare, respectively. The cases presented in this
study provide preliminary evidence that day treatment can be a viable option for young children
with disruptive behavior disorders.
Keywords
behavior disorders, day treatment, young children, behavior therapy
1 Theoretical and Research Basis
Recent estimates suggest that 10% to 20% of preschool children exhibit severe behavior prob-
lems that place them at risk for social and academic difficulty throughout their school years
(National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2008; Powell, Fixsen, & Dunlap, 2003).
These rates are consistent with previous reports that between 16% and 22% of children and ado-
lescents have mental disorders and emotional and behavioral problems (Costello et al., 1996;
Roberts, Attkisson, & Rosenblatt, 1998). Early onset behavior problems have resulted in an
increasing number of young children being kicked out of preschools. Nationally, the preschool
expulsion rate is more than three times the rate found among K-12 students (Gilliam, 2005) with
some individual states reporting preschool expulsion rates that are more than 13 times K-12 rates
(Gilliam & Shahar, 2006).
Without intervention, childrens behavior problems remain fairly stable over time or escalate
and increase the likelihood that as older students, they will require alternative educational place-
ment, special education services, or drop out of school altogether (Koertering & Braziel, 1999;
1
Behaven, Omaha, NE
2
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
3
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE
4
Creighton University, Omaha, NE
Corresponding Author:
Raymond V. Burke, 8922 Cuming Street, Omaha, NE 68114
Email: rburke@behavenkids.com
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Burke et al. 29
Olsen & Hoza, 1993; Raver & Knitzer, 2002; Snyder, 2001). Children who receive special edu-
cation services, that is, identified as learning disabled or seriously emotionally disturbed, are
overrepresented among those expelled from school (Morrison & DIncau, 1997).
To reduce expulsions and dropouts, prevention and intervention efforts must effectively
address childrens social behavior and academic deficits. Despite a number of well-documented
studies of primary prevention school-based programs (see Berryhill & Prinz, 2003; Brock, Laza-
rus, & Jimerson, 2002), there are few published studies and no randomized controlled trials with
day treatment programs for young children with disruptive behavior disorders (Tse, 2006). How-
ever, a meta-analysis of published primary prevention programs for young children found that
behavioral and cognitive behavioral interventions were twice as effective as nonbehavioral inter-
ventions (Durlak & Wells, 1997).
Behavioral treatment program. Well-researched theories provide the basis for the program
described in this article. Traditional behavioral theories including operant conditioning (Skinner,
1953) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1969) are employed through the use of reinforcement
and a discipline hierarchy. The program focuses on building social competencies through a
combination of verbal reinforcement (Maag, 2001), modeling (Bandura & McDonald, 1963),
problem solving and social skill instruction (Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001), and a contin-
gency based point system (Axelrod, 1971; Christophersen, Arnold, Hill, & Quilitch, 1972; Wolf,
Giles, & Hall, 1968).
Positive reinforcement includes the use of tokens paired with verbal praise and social rein-
forcement (e.g., signs of affection such as a hug or high-five). Verbal praise is provided contingent
on childrens demonstration of prosocial behaviors and when they practice social skills related to
individualized treatment plan (ITP) goals. Initially, staff members use a fixed continuous rein-
forcement schedule for childrens newly developing skills and behavior. After skill competency
is demonstrated, reinforcement is faded using an intermittent schedule to enhance resistance to
extinction. Staff provides children with tokens throughout the day. The frequency with which
this exchange occurs varies by child and is based on ITP goals, developmental level, and sched-
ule of reinforcement. Once a child earns the predetermined number of tokens, they can be
exchanged for activities (e.g., play with toys, a piggy back ride, special time with staff) and
prizes (e.g., stickers, Kazdin, 1977). Throughout the day, children also may exchange tokens to
purchase special trinkets (e.g., stickers, pencils, small toys, tops, hats).
Another theoretical foundation is social interactional theory (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion,
1992), emphasizing the influence of adult and peer interactions on childrens socialization and
establishing the basis for changing adults social interactions to influence childrens social
behavior. Social skill instruction for all children is a critical program component and begins with
skills of accepting negative and positive consequences and continues with teaching of adaptive
replacement skills. Additional skill instruction is based on skill deficits specified by the parent in
each childs ITP. For example, a child with problems spitting and screaming when frustrated may
be taught how to calm herself, ask adults for help, or walk away from the problem. A child who
is aggressive and frequently hits children and staff may be taught how to ask other children for
toys, how to wait patiently (e.g., for toys or staff attention), and how to find toys with which no
one else is playing.
Negative consequences target problem behaviors and are integrated into the contingent use of
a four-level disciplinary response hierarchy (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005) beginning with (a) a
verbal request to stop the inappropriate behavior, (b) use of a brief time-out (approximately 10
seconds where the child sits on floor and counts to 10), (c) use of a time-out chair at a distance
of 2 to 5 from the desired activity for approximately 10 seconds, and (d) use of a backup time-
out room with an open door for a maximum of 30 seconds (Peterson & Peterson, 2006). Time-out
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
30 Clinical Case Studies 9(1)
procedures involve restricting access to positive reinforcement to reduce the likelihood that the
target behavior will be strengthened (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988).
The purpose of this case study is to provide an overview of a multicomponent, intensive
day treatment program (Behaven Day Center; BDC) for two children with moderate to
severe behavior disorders. We present two childrens cases and describe components of the
program including staff training, treatment strategies, participant characteristics, parent
involvement, and outcome assessment. We chose a case study design because this report rep-
resents an initial evaluation of a previously untested intervention (Drotar, La Greca, Lemanek,
& Kazak, 1995).
2 Case Presentation
Liam (all names are pseudonyms). Liam is a 4-year-old Caucasian male who lived with his bio-
logical mother, an 8-year-old brother, a 6-year-old brother, and 15-month-old step-sister. Liams
biological father lives in another state; his involvement in Liams life is limited to sending a box
of clothes at unpredictable times once each year. Liams mother had a boyfriend who is father of
Liams step-sister. The boyfriend lived with the family until 2 months prior to Liams enrollment
in the day treatment program. The boyfriend was abusive to Liams mother on several occasions
before she decided to move the family back to her parents home.
Keisha. Keisha is a 4-year-old African American female who resided with her parents, new-
born sister, and grandmother. At admission, her father was unemployed and her mother was on
maternity leave. They had been living with the grandmother for approximately one year because
of financial strain.
3 Presenting complaints
Liam. Liam was described by his mother as aggressive, having language and developmental
delays, and unwilling to share with others. Liams mother reported that Liams 15-month-old
sister had language and compliance skills that surpassed Liams abilities. During the admission
interview Liams mother indicated that he kicked, hit, and bit his siblings on a daily basis and
aggressively spit food and drink all day. Liams mother unsuccessfully attempted to teach
Liam how to use sign language and the Picture Exchange Communication System (Bondy &
Frost, 2004) to communicate. Liam was not toilet trained prior to BDC enrollment.
Keisha. At admission, Keishas mother reported that Keisha consistently demonstrated
aggressive and hyperactive behavior such as hitting, biting, spitting, throwing objects, and
pinching her mother and peers in day care. The aggressive episodes occurred two to three times
daily at day care and 6 to 10 times per evening at home. In addition, Keisha had one to three
tantrums per evening during which she threw herself face first on the floor or onto toys, and
kicked, screamed, and banged her head on the floor.
4 History
Liam. Prior to enrollment in BDC, Liam attended a local public schools preschool for children
with developmental disabilities. His mother withdrew Liam from the preschool program after 6
months, citing a lack of improvement in behavior and vocabulary. Liams limited communica-
tion strategies included nonverbal (primarily waving and pointing) and verbal (one-word
utterances) attempts to get his needs met by those in his environment. When faced with unwanted
requests or correction, Liam intensely resisted complying by shouting and shaking his head no,
crossing his arms, stamping his feet, hitting, kicking, and biting those in his vicinity.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Burke et al. 31
Keisha. Keisha had been expelled from five daycares for aggressive behavior toward class-
mates and staff prior to coming to the day treatment program. At home, Keishas mother reported
that Keisha yelled at her, refused to sit still, and hit other children in the neighborhood. During a
recent tantrum at home, Keisha broke the kitchen table by jumping from the kitchen counter onto
the table. Shortly after that tantrum, Keishas mother saw a television news report about the BDC
program, contacted BDC, and enrolled Keisha in the program.
5 Assessment
Measurement of Progress
Data from parent-completed measures and staff observations of target behaviors are used to
evaluate interventions and monitor childrens progress on ITPs. BDC staff and parents also par-
ticipate in monthly reviews of childrens ITP goals, progress at home and at BDC, and the need
for additional target areas when specific ITP goals are met.
Parent-completed measures. Parents complete the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achen-
bach, 1991a) prior to admission and at departure from BDC. The CBCL, the most widely used
measure of children and adolescents behavior problems, is available for children 1.5 to 5 years
(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Two broadband scales related to internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems are included in an overall Total Problem score. T-scores of 60 to 63 for Inter-
nalizing, Externalizing, and Total Problem scales place a child in the borderline clinical range
while T-scores greater than 63 place the child in the clinical range (Achenbach, 1991a). The
CBCL has strong psychometric properties that have been well-established during more than 20
years of use in published studies (Achenbach, 1991b).
Staff observations. Children attending BDC work to improve one or two target behaviors at a
time. Baseline data are collected during the first day at BDC. Target behaviors and goals are
operationally defined, for example, when given an instruction, Edward will say Okay and
perform the task within 5 seconds 80% of the time. A primary staff person is assigned to each
child at enrollment. Once each week, each childs primary staff records the estimated percentage
of time that the target behavior occurred based on the overall number of opportunities for occur-
rence of the target behavior during that week. The clinical therapist and supervisor meet weekly
to review the childs progress.
Individualized treatment plan reviews. A review of childrens behavior and related goals occurs
during monthly 1-hour ITP meetings with a BDC therapist, a BDC supervisor, and a childs
parent(s) or legal guardian. Participants discuss whether goals are met at home and at BDC, are
in need of revision, or require more time for treatment effects to occur.
6 Case Conceptualization
The individualized treatment plan. Within the first week after BDC enrollment, the BDC thera-
pist and parents meet to develop an ITP for each child. During the ITP meeting, the parent
identifies approximately five target areas for the child. Current behavior patterns related to each
target area are discussed, interventions for each target area are proposed, goal behaviors are
specified, and individuals responsible for implementing each intervention are identified. Center-
based interventions are implemented with one or two target behaviors at a time. Once the ITP is
established, BDC staff work with the parent(s) to develop competency with home-based inter-
vention strategies.
Liam. Liams speech and language patterns were consistent with those of a 16-month-old.
Liams admission mental status exam indicated a diagnosis of Mild Mental Retardation and
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
32 Clinical Case Studies 9(1)
Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder and an Axis I diagnosis of Oppositional Defi-
ant Disorder. His T-scores on the CBCL placed him in the borderline clinical range for the Total
and Internalizing broadband scales, as well as on the Withdrawn and Attention Problem sub-
scales. His CBCL T-score of 70 placed him in the clinical range on the Pervasive Developmental
Problems subscale (Table 1).
On the preadmission questionnaire, Liams mother identified his strengths as fine motor
skills and likes to draw. Liams weakness was speech and her target behavioral issues were
compliance, spiting [sic]. During the initial ITP meeting, the BDC team, including Liams
mother, identified compliance with adult instructions and successfully completing time-outs as
primary target areas for Liam. Four additional target areas were identified at that meeting: not
asking to go into the kitchen, temper tantrums, spitting food and drink, and taking things
from his sister. While the focus was on encouraging prosocial behaviors, staff used the time-out
continuum to address misbehaviors related to the additional target areas.
Reinforcement of positive replacement behaviors included use of verbal praise, tokens, stars,
and high-fives for socially appropriate behaviors. Redirection included the use of brief time-outs
and full time-outs in an identified chair at BDC and in an identified time-out room at home. In
addition, BDC staff used positive practice to give Liam multiple opportunities to complete brief
and full time-outs. During practice, staff used sign language paired with verbal instructions to
indicate that they were going to practice how to complete time-outs. Then, staff verbally reminded
Liam to sit quietly on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands in his lap for 3 seconds. Verbal
praise and stars were provided when Liam completed the practice to criteria. Additional practice
followed unsuccessful attempts.
Keisha. Keisha came to treatment with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disor-
der (ADHD) for which she was prescribed Adderall. CBCL broadband scores for Internalizing,
Externalizing, and Total Problems were all in the clinical range at admission despite medication.
Aggressive Behavior, Attention Problems, Emotionally Reactive, and Anxious/Depressed syn-
drome scales on the CBCL also were in the clinical range at admission (Table 1).
Keishas services included 4 months of day treatment, 1 hour of family therapy per week, and
15 hours of parent education per month. Keishas mother and BDC staff initially identified three
ITP target areas of (a) listening (e.g., compliance with adult instructions), (b) attending the day
treatment center without complaining on the way, and (c) playing without hitting other children.
Table 1. Significant Changes in Child Behavior Checklist T-Scores
Liam Keisha
Pre Post Pre Post
Internalizing 63
a
37 66
b
45
Emotionally reactive 67
a
51
Anxious/depressed 69
a
51
Withdrawn 67
a
51
Externalizing 59 40 82
b
52
Attention problems 67
a
50 73
b
57
Aggressive behavior 84
b
51
Total 60
a
41 77
b
47
Pervasive developmental problems 70
b
51
a. Borderline clinical range.
b. Clinical range.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Burke et al. 33
As Keisha made improvements in her initial target areas, her mother added two additional ITP
target areas (following directions in public places and staying in bed all night).
The mother was encouraged to use the time-out hierarchy for misbehavior related to the target
areas (i.e., a verbal request to stop the behavior, a brief 10-second time-out, a brief 10-second
time-out in a chair, and time-out in a chair up to a maximum of 30 seconds). BDC staff encour-
aged the mother to use brief, one- to four-word corrective responses (up to one word per year of
life; Peterson & Peterson, 2006) when Keisha misbehaved to avoid lecturing and inadvertent
reinforcement of inappropriate behavior.
Day treatment center staff primarily focused on teaching Keisha to follow instructions. Base-
line data indicated that Keisha said Okay following an instruction on 10% of the occasions
while compliance with the instruction occurred 50% of the time. The treatment goal was for
Keisha to say Okay and follow the instruction 80% of the time. Contingent verbal praise, high
fives, and stars that could be exchanged for desired activities and tangible rewards were used to
reinforce Keisha when she complied with instructions. Stars were provided for each behavior
rehearsal that Keisha completed, with up to 15 opportunities to practice each day. When instruc-
tions were not followed, staff used the continuum of time-out responses followed by the
opportunity to respond appropriately to the original instruction.
7 Course of Treatment and Assessment of Progress
Liam. During the 3 months that Liam was enrolled at BDC, he improved substantially in his two
primary target areas. During the first 4 weeks post-baseline, Liam completed time-outs and fol-
lowed adult instructions, on average, 74% and 59% of the time, respectively. The average
percentage of completed time-outs and instructions increased to 100% and 74% during the final
4 weeks of his stay at BDC (Figure 1).
At program graduation, Liams Internalizing and Total Problem T-scores were in the normal
range as was his T-score for the Pervasive Developmental Problems (Table 1). His vocabulary
score had increased 34 points. At the conclusion of Liams treatment, his mother reported that he
was toilet trained, had only infrequent temper tantrums that were developmentally appropriate,
was eating and drinking without spitting, and played for extended periods without aggressive
behavior toward his siblings. Liams mother reported that he had increased his vocabulary and
his spontaneous use of sign language at home.
Keisha. Keishas mother indicated that Keisha met her goals for the target areas of not attend-
ing without complaining and playing without hitting peers by the end of the first month in the
BDC program. Compliance with instructions remained a target area while a target area of
0
25
50
75
100
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Week
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Completes T. O.
Follows instructions
Figure 1. Liam: Weekly progress with two target areas
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
34 Clinical Case Studies 9(1)
following directions in public places was added during the 1-month ITP meeting. After 2
months of attending the day treatment center, Keisha had met the following directions in public
places goal; compliance with instructions remained a target area; and the goal of staying in bed
all night was added. While noting improvements with compliance during the third month of
treatment, this target area remained on the list during Keishas ITP review. Her mother indicated
that Keisha met the goal of staying in bed all night during that third month. No additional target
area was identified. By the end of the fourth month of treatment, Keishas mother indicated that
Keisha had reached all home ITP goals.
Keisha steadily improved on her primary treatment goal of following instructions. By the end
of the second month of treatment, Keisha was verbally responding with Okay and completion
of the instruction on 80% of the occasions at BDC. She maintained or exceeded that level
throughout the remaining 5 weeks for all but 1 week, when compliance dipped to 70% (Figure
2). During the second month at BDC, Keishas parents, with approval of the physician, decided
to discontinue the Adderall. She continued her BDC placement medication-free until program
graduation.
Keishas post-CBCL T-scores on subscales and syndrome scales were in the normal range
(Table 1). At the start of the school year, Keisha was enrolled in a general education kindergarten
class at a neighborhood school.
8 Complicating Factors
In many communities, parents of young children with severe emotional and behavior problems
have few services from which to choose once their child is expelled from preschool for aggres-
sive and disruptive behavior (Powell et al., 2003). It is estimated that only one-third to one-half
of children identified with emotional and behavior disorders receive services (Kazdin, 1990;
U.S. Public Health Service, 2000) and those who do, receive low rates of service or only part of
their recommended level of service (Powell et al., 2003). Lack of services can result in a loss of
parent employment and increased financial stress, social and emotional isolation for parents and
children, and an increased risk for child physical abuse and neglect (Taylor-Richardson,
Heflinger, & Brown, 2006). Interventions are needed that help behaviorally challenged children
improve their social and academic skills in preparation for a successful transition to elementary
school (Eckert, McGoey, & DuPaul, 1996).
During the 2-years surrounding Liam and Keishas treatment, Behavens central city pro-
gram served 174 children, ages 2 to 7 years, 73% of whom had a mental health diagnosis.
Thirty-four percent of referred children had prenatal exposure to alcohol, tobacco, or drugs; 76%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Week
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Comply 2 sec
Say "Okay"
Figure 2. Keisha: Weekly progress with two target areas
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Burke et al. 35
of parents reported a family history of substance abuse. Thirty-five percent of children had a his-
tory of one or more types of maltreatment. Prior to BDC referral, more than half of the children
had participated in treatment with a psychiatrist (25%) or therapist (26%), 12% had multiple
home placements, and 9% had been prescribed psychotropic medication.
Despite complicating factors for Liam (i.e., unsuccessful history of interventions for com-
munication and other developmental delays) and Keisha (i.e., inconsistency in living and school
arrangements, financial stress within the family, consistent history of previously uncontrolled
aggressive behaviors), their cases strongly suggest that day treatment is beneficial for young
children with disruptive behavior disorders.
9 Managed Care Considerations
Funding for BDC is provided by federal, state, local, and private sources. Seventy-seven percent
of referred children are funded from Medicaid (45%) or some combination of Medicaid and
Child Welfare (30%) or Medicaid and public school (2%) sources. The remaining children are
funded from sole sources such as a private payee (16%), Child Welfare (6%), and schools (1%).
Although treatment is costly, especially for private payees, there are several factors that con-
tribute to the assessment of program costs and benefits including reduced costs for the treatment
of children in the educational or juvenile justice systems, reduced costs for social and mental
health services for the child and family, and increased parent earnings due, for example, to
improved workplace attendance (Small, Reynolds, OConnor, & Cooney, 2005). Assessment of
long term benefits for the BDC program is difficult because we lack multiple years of follow-up
data on BDC participants. However, the large percentage of children whose parents reported reli-
able, meaningful improvements after placement and the follow-up reports from parents in the
two case studies suggest that immediate and long-term benefits may be expected. For the pur-
poses of this brief cost-benefits analysis, we compared program costs with locally available
alternative placements for children who have been expelled from preschool, school, and child
care programs.
The BDC day treatment and family therapy programs cost US$112.00 per child per day. The
majority of parents considering BDC enrollment has exhausted typical community resources for child
care and preschool. If their children were not enrolled in BDC, they would likely be placed with a
one-to-one para-educator in a preschool or elementary school classroom (an estimated US$143.00
per day) or enrolled in one of the local alternative schools (US$130.00 to US$230.00 per day).
The average length of treatment at BDC is slightly less than 57 days for an average cost of
US$6,384.00. The school-based alternatives to BDC involve services for the entire school year
with costs that range from US$23,400.00 (US$130.00 per day 180 school days) to US$41,400.00
(US$230.00 per day 180 school days). The BDC program represents a potential annual savings
of US$17,016.00 to US$35,016 per child per school year or a return on every US$1.00 invested
of US$3.67 to US$6.48 per child (Small et al., 2005). While we do not have long-term results for
program graduates, if the current results are maintained over time, then the savings and return on
investment have the potential of increasing for each year that the child continues in school with-
out the need for additional services. This return on investment is conservative and does not
include a host of other possible benefits such as reductions in the need for social and mental
health services, juvenile justice services, and other remedial educational services.
10 Follow-Up
Liam. Two years post departure, Liam was attending second grade in a general education public
school and, according to his mother, continued to make impressive gains in his ability to speak.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
36 Clinical Case Studies 9(1)
He reportedly was using full sentences, asking questions, and playing well with his peers and
siblings.
Keisha. After 4.5 months at BDC, Keisha graduated and returned to a community day care
near her home. At one-year post-graduation, Keisha remained medication-free. Keishas mother
described her as a typical child and indicated that she was doing well in public school. She
attended a general education classroom with no student support services in the classroom.
11 Treatment Implications of the Case
Students are expelled from school due to repeated or serious verbally or physically aggressive
behavior (Gilliam, 2005). These behavior problems are evident early in childrens lives. Without
effective intervention, these children are likely to experience academic deficits throughout their
school years (Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004) and are at risk for developing
antisocial patterns that persist into adulthood (Patterson et al., 1992). However, in most commu-
nities, there is limited access to and availability of these services (Powell et al., 2003). The BDC
program holds promise for addressing this shortage of community-based services.
The Behaven Day Center is an independently owned, for-profit, multicomponent day treat-
ment program designed to reduce childhood behavior problems and improve mental health and
academic success. The Behaven Day Center is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation
of Rehabilitative FacilitiesDay Treatment: Family Services (Children and Adolescents) and is
a state-licensed child care program for children, ages 2 to 13 years; however, services are pro-
vided for children ages 2 to 7 years. The BDC service components include family therapy and a
day treatment center with emphasis on three key program components: (a) behaviorally focused
interventions, (b) staff training and data driven implementation of the intervention, and (c) direct
training of parents in the intervention with the opportunity to practice learned skills in the child
care setting. Proximal and distal program goals are to eliminate presenting problem behaviors
and increase social competencies, and to reintegrate children back to their school, preschool, or
daycare, respectively.
Liams and Keishas cases, representative of typical improvements seen at BDC, suggest that
these goals are being met. An examination of program-wide results on the (CBCL; Achenbach,
1991a, 1991b) support results from the two case studies. Pre-post CBCL scores were available
for 105 of the 174 (60%) children enrolled in the BDC program during the 2 year period sur-
rounding Liam and Keishas time in treatment. BDC population mean scores at admission
indicated that enrolled children had T-scores in the borderline clinical range for Internalizing,
and in the clinical range for Externalizing and Total Problem scales (Table 2). Mean T-scores at
departure from the BDC program were in the normal range (p <. 01; Table 2). We used the Reli-
able Change Index (RCI; Jacobson & Truax, 1991) as an indicator of clinically significant change
within the population. A change of 8 T-score points on the CBCL was used to indicate a meaning-
ful, reliable change on the CBCL (Thompson, Ruma, Brewster, Besetsney, & Burke, 1997) from
BDC program enrollment to departure. Approximately two-thirds of children had reliable change
on CBCL Internalizing (62%), Externalizing (70%), and Total Problem (69%) scales during their
stay at BDC (Table 2). This compares favorably with other studies that have used the RCI to
assess improvements. For example, 19% to 31% of parents who completed a parent training
program reported reliable improvements in child behavior and parents potential for child physi-
cal abuse (Thompson et al., 1997). Consistent with the majority of children completing BDC,
Liam and Keisha demonstrated reliable change on all CBCL broadband and subscale scores
(Table 1).
A limitation of the current BDC assessments is that no BDC assessors of intervention out-
come (e.g., staff and parents) are blind to the intervention. Findings would be stronger if some
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Burke et al. 37
outcome measures were completed by an informant not aware of treatment status, or greater
attention were paid to the reliability and training of staff observers of the childs behavior while
at BDC, school, or home. In addition, results should be interpreted with caution given limited
long-term follow-up data.
12 Recommendations to Clinicians and Students
The current article summarizes two case studies and provides an initial description of a multi-
component, intensive day treatment program (Behaven Day Center) for children with moderate
to severe behavior disorders. The pieces of the BDC puzzle are comprised primarily of widely
disseminated, validated intervention components (Powell, Dunlap, & Fox, 2006). However, the
entire puzzle paints a unique picture of a novel day treatment center that serves at risk children
and families by infusing behaviorally focused interventions, staff training and a data-driven
approach to implementing those interventions, and parent training in the use of interventions so
that the child can be reintegrated back into the home, school, or community daycare. Preliminary
outcome data suggest that the treatment center has been successful and highly sought after by
parents and referring professionals in the community.
While follow-up reports from parents indicated that both Liam and Keisha were successfully
enrolled in public elementary school or a neighborhood child care center, more rigorous evalua-
tion of those outcomes is necessary to assess the durability of BDC effects with all children
enrolled at BDC. A recent review of early intervention programs for preschool children with
ADHD found few published studies with this population (McGoey, Eckert, & DuPaul, 2002),
most of which were conducted in clinical settings and lacked assessment of generalizability in
preschool or day treatment programs. Our experiences support Tses (2006) recommendations to
(a) increase utilization of evidence-based interventions in day treatment programs, (b) prevent
elementary school problems by improving access to services for young children with disruptive
behavior disorders, (c) emphasize social skills training to provide socialization opportunities that
many children are missing with their current experiences, and (d) engage parents and caretakers
when children enroll in day treatment programs so that treatment is optimized and benefits main-
tain at home and school over time.
The challenge for day treatment programs and similar services is to demonstrate program
fidelity and effectiveness within a service-oriented organization. Key aspects of the program
include behaviorally focused interventions offered through well-trained staff, data-driven imple-
mentation of interventions, and the direct training of parents in the interventions with an
opportunity to practice in the child care setting. A well-articulated program and close attention to
staff development and intervention implementation with parents and children appears to contrib-
ute to positive outcomes for children.
Table 2. Pre-post CBCL Subscale T-Scores and Percent Making Reliable Change
a
Enrollment Departure Percent w/ Reliable Change
Internalizing 59.64
b
50.40* 62%
Externalizing 70.94
c
57.40* 70%
Total problem 66.68
c
54.57* 69%
CBCL = child behavior checklist.
a. n = 105.
b. Borderline clinical range.
c. Clinical range.
*p<.01.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
38 Clinical Case Studies 9(1)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The first, third, and fourth authors are directly involved in the day treatment services described in this
manuscript. This could be perceived as a conflict of interest. The second and fifth authors are employed
full-time by universities not affiliated with the day treatment program.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Note
1. DSM-IV, 312.9 Disruptive Behavior Disorder-NOS, Disruptive Behavior Disorder NOS (not otherwise
specified) is utilized when there are conduct or oppositional-defiant behaviors that do not meet diag-
nostic criteria for conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder, but in which there is clinically sig-
nificant impairment. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p.103).
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). The child behavior checklist1991. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the child behavior checklist/ 4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). The child behavior checklist for ages 1 - 5. Burlington, VT:
ASEBA, University of Vermont.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,
text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Axelrod, S. (1971). Token reinforcement programs in special classes. Exceptional Child, 37, 371-379.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bandura, A., & McDonald, F. J. (1963). Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in
shaping childrens moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 274-281.
Berryhill, J. C., & Prinz, R. J. (2003). Environmental interventions to enhance student adjustment: Implica-
tions for prevention. Prevention Science, 4, 65-87.
Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2004). The picture exchange communication system. Behavior Modification, 25,
725-744.
Brock, S. E., Lazarus, P. J., & Jimerson, S. R. (2002). Best practices in school crisis prevention and inter-
vention. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Christophersen, E. R., Arnold, C. M., Hill, D. W., & Quilitch, H. R. (1972). The home point system: Token
reinforcement procedures for application by parents of children with behavior problems. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 485-497.
Costello, E. J., Angold, A., Burns, B. J., Erkanli, A., Stangl, D. K., & Tweed, D. L. (1996). Preventing
mental disorder in school-aged children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. Report
submitted to The Center for Mental Health Services(SAMHSA). Prevention Research Center, Pennsyl-
vania State University.
Drotar, D., La Greca, A. N., Lemanek, K., & Kazak, A. (1995). Case reports in pediatric psychology: Uses
and guidelines for authors and reviewers. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 20, 549-565.
Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adoles-
cents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115-152.
Eckert, T. L., McGoey, K. M., & DuPaul, G. J. (1996, November). Preschool-aged children at-risk for
ADHD: A needs assessment of parents, service providers and experts. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Burke et al. 39
Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Child Study Center.
Gilliam, W. S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predic-
tors in one state. Infants & Young Children, 19, 228-245.
Gresham, F., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students
with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 331-344.
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful
change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12-19.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). The token economy: A review and evaluation. New York: Plenum.
Kazdin, A. E. (1990). Psychotherapy for children and adolescents. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 21-54.
Koertering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1999). School dropout from the perspective of former students: Implica-
tions for secondary special education programs. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 78-83.
Larzelere, R. E., & Kuhn, B. R. (2005). Enhancing behavioral parent training with an extended discipline
ladder. Behavior Therapist, 28, 105-108.
Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in
schools. Exceptional Children, 67, 173-186.
McGoey, K. E., Eckert, T. L., & DuPaul G. J. (2002). Early intervention for preschool-age children with
ADHD: A review of the literature. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 14-28.
Morrison, G., & DIncau, B. (1997). The web of zero-tolerance: Characteristics of students who are recom-
mended for expulsion from school. Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 316-335.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2008). Mental health problems in early childhood
can impair learning and behavior for life (Working paper No. 6.). Available from http://www.develop-
ingchild.net
Olsen, S. L., & Hoza, B. (1993). Preschool developmental antecedents of conduct problems in children
beginning school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 60-67.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing.
Peterson, J., & Peterson, R. (2006). Mini methods or madness. Omaha, NE: Behaven Kids Press.
Powell, D., Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (2006). Prevention and intervention for the challenging behaviors of tod-
dlers and preschoolers. Infants & Young Children, 19, 25-35.
Powell, D., Fixsen, D., & Dunlap, G. (2003). Pathways to service utilization: A synthesis of evidence
relevant to young children with challenging behavior. Tampa: University of South Florida, Center for
Evidence-Based Practice: Young Children with Challenging Behavior.
Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about strategies to
promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-olds. New York: National
Center for Children in Poverty.
Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). A meta-analysis of the academic
status of students with emotional/behavioral disturbance. Journal of Special Education, 38, 130-143.
Roberts, R. E., Attkisson, C. C., & Rosenblatt, A. (1998). Prevalence of psychopathology among children
and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 715-725.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.
Small, S. A., Reynolds, A. J., OConnor, C., & Cooney, S. M. (2005). What works Wisconsin: What science
tells us about cost-effective programs for juvenile delinquency prevention. Madison, WI: University of
WisconsinMadison.
Snyder, H. (2001). Child delinquents. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.). Risk factors and successful
interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Taylor-Richardson, K. D., Heflinger, C. A., & Brown, T. N. (2006). Experience of strain among types of
caregivers responsible for children with serious emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emo-
tional & Behavioral Disorders, 14, 157-168.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
40 Clinical Case Studies 9(1)
Thompson, R. W., Ruma, P. R., Brewster, A. L., Besetsney, L. K., & Burke, R. V. (1997). Evaluation of an
air force child physical abuse prevention project using the reliable change index. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 6, 421-434.
Tse, J. (2006). Research on day treatment programs for preschoolers with disruptive behavior disorders.
Psychiatric Services, 57, 477-486.
U.S. Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the surgeon generals conference on childrens mental health:
A national action agenda. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied
behavior analysis with exceptional children. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wolf, M. M., Giles, D. K., & Hall, R. V. (1968). Experiments with token reinforcement in a remedial class-
room. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6, 51-64.
Bios
Ray Burke, Ph.D., is Director of Community Services and Program Evaluation for Behave'n (a day treat-
ment and mental health clinic for young children with behavior disorders) and an adjunct faculty member
in the Department of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln with research
interests in behavior disorders, treatment fidelity, and resistance to behavior change.
Brett R. Kuhn, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of
Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). He has served as the Supervising Practitioner at Behave'n Day Center
since its inception. His clinical and research interests fall in the areas of children's behavioral health prob-
lems including sleep disorders, elimination problems, and challenging behavior.
Jane L. Peterson, Nebraska Licensed Mental Health Practitioner, is co-founder of Behave'n and has co-
authored children's books and books on parenting and family therapy. Her clinical interests include
replication of programs for young children with mental health disorders.
Roger W. Peterson, is co-founder of Behave'n, a Licensed Mental Health Practitioner, co-author of chil-
dren's and parenting books, and has worked with children and families for over 30 years. He is actively
involved in legislation and practices to improve access to mental health services for Nebraska's children and
families.
Amy Badura Brack, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psychology at Creighton University with clinical
research interests in stress reactions and behavioral disorders.
by Andreea Nicoleta Nicolae on October 12, 2011 ccs.sagepub.com Downloaded from