A Comparison of Teacher and Student Ratings in a - Self-Monitoring Intervention - Assessment for Effective Intervention 2021 - Vol. 46(4)

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Marglet

Self-monitoring interventions for students with challenging behavior are often teacher-managed rather than self-managed. Teachers guide implementation by completing parallel monitoring, providing feedback, and delivering contingent reinforcement when students monitor accurately. The study analyzes 249 fixed-interval behavior ratings from 19 student/teacher pairs to examine agreement within and across pairs. Results show a strong overall correlation (r = .91), with some within-pair variability and higher student ratings than teacher ratings. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Self-monitoring interventions overview

Study design and research questions

Teacher-student rating agreement results

Implications, limitations, and future directions

A Comparison of Teacher and Student Ratings in a Self-Monitoring Intervention Allison Bruhn, PhD 1, Sheila Barron, PhD 1, Bailey Copeland, MA2, Sara Estrapala, MA 1, Ashley Rila, MA 1, and Joseph Wehby, PhD2 Assessment for Effective Intervention 2021, Vol. 46(4) 316–321 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/1534508420944231](DOI: 10.1177/1534508420944231)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/1534508420944231)[aei.sagepub.com](aei.sagepub.com) Abstract Self-monitoring interventions for students with challenging behavior are often teacher-managed rather than self-managed. Teachers direct these interventions by completing parallel monitoring procedures, providing feedback, and delivering contingent reinforcement to students when they monitor accurately. However, within self-monitoring interventions, the degree to which teachers and students agree in their assessment of students’ behavior is unknown. In this study, a selfmonitoring intervention in which both teachers and students rated the students’ behavior, we analyzed 249 fixed interval ratings of behavior from 19 student/teacher pairs to determine the relationship between ratings within and across teacher/ student pairs. We found a strong correlation overall (r =.91), although variability existed within individual pairs and student ratings tended to be higher than teacher ratings. We discuss implications for practice, limitations, and future directions. Keywords interventions, technology, progress monitoring Self-monitoring (SM) is an antecedent-based strategy in which students are taught to recognize the occurrence of a specific behavior and record the extent to which that behavior occurs at predetermined times. Theoretically, SM is effective because it prompts students to be intentional about exercising control over their behavior (i.e., self-regulation; Bandura, 1991) . Research indicates SM has been successful in improving students’ academic and behavioral outcomes (Bruhn et al., 2015) . One argument for SM interventions is that if they are truly student-managed, students will become more self-reliant and independent while also reducing the cost and burden associated with teacher-managed interventions (Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009). A meta-analysis of SM interventions for students with autism found greater student involvement resulted in stronger effects (Davis et al., 2016) . In contrast, reviews of SM studies have revealed SM interventions are often reliant on the teacher to manage external contingencies such as delivering feedback and reinforcement (Briesch & Chafouleas, 2009) . On one hand, this maybe viewed as a limitation of the extent to which SM is really self-managed by the student. Conversely, teacher involvement has been used as one way to improve the accuracy of students’ SM, while also promoting generalization across settings (Peterson et al., 2006) . In a review of 41 peer-reviewed articles on SM for students with problem behavior, Bruhn and colleagues (2015) reported 13 studies including contingent reinforcement for students’SM accuracy (i.e., student ratings [SR] matched teacher ratings [TR] either exactly or within a range during the same time period) . SM with reinforcement for matching accuracy has resulted in decreases in off-task and disruptive behaviors (e.g., Freeman & Dexter-Mazza, 2004) . Relatedly, researchers have found that once students were deemed accurate with SM and accuracy checking and reinforcement were removed, on-task behavior continued to improve (Peterson et al., 2006) . Conversely, Ardoin and Martens (2004) found accuracy matching decreased disruptive behavior, but when matching was removed, behavior worsened. Regardless of the effects of accuracy matching and its unique contribution to SM interventions, across these studies, the teacher’s rating is the presumed standard for accuracy (e.

FAQs

What is the core purpose of comparing teacher and student ratings in the study?

The report examines how strongly teacher and student ratings are related when both complete ratings as part of a self-monitoring intervention, including agreement within and across pairs.

How many ratings and pairs were analyzed?

The analysis used 249 fixed-interval ratings from 19 student/teacher pairs.

What did the study find about the relationship between teacher and student ratings?

Overall, teacher and student ratings were strongly correlated (r = .91), but variability occurred within individual pairs, and student ratings tended to be higher than teacher ratings.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Marglet