359

Direct Behavioral Observation in School Settings: Bringing Science to Practice

Matthew K. Nock, Harvard University
Steven M. S. Kurtz, New York University Child Study Center

Schools provide a useful, controlled setting for evaluating child behavior problems, yet direct observational coding procedures evalu-
ated by child researchers have not been widely incorporated by practicing clinicians. This article provides a summary of procedures
useful to clinicians performing direct behavioral observation in school settings. We describe the need for and usefulness of comprehen-
sive school observations; provide a primer on the identification, definition, and assessment of target behaviors; and outline and dis-
cuss specific clinical procedures, including formulating primary referral questions, interviewing teachers, describing the classroom
context, and conducting the observation. We also provide practical advice for synthesizing the obtained information into a report
that guides clinical intervention. A sample of school observation coding forms and guidelines for report writing are also included to
facilitate the use of these techniques by clinicians and teachers involved with the child.

A pproximately 20% of school-aged children and ado-

lescents (9 to 17 years old) suffer from a current di-
agnosable mental disorder (Shaffer et al., 1996; U.S. De-
the performance of functional behavioral assessments in
school settings.
Although many of the aforementioned behavior prob-
partment of Health and Human Services, 1999). Rates of lems manifest in multiple contexts (e.g., home, commu-
specific disorders vary, and this overall figure includes a nity), the school setting provides a structured environ-
wide range of potential problems, including difficulties ment in which the clinician is able to evaluate the child’s
with attention and concentration, aggressive or opposi- behavior across multiple behavioral domains. For instance,
tional behavior, anxious or depressive behavior, substance the school setting provides a contained environment in
use, and learning and mental disabilities. Given that vir- which the clinician can observe and evaluate the ongo-
tually all children in the U.S. and other industrialized ing, bidirectional interactions between the child and the
countries are required to attend school on a consistent peers and adults present in the school setting. In addi-
basis, many of these behavior problems manifest in school tion, schools enable the clinician to assess the child’s ability
settings and have a significant, negative impact on child to engage in and master various academic and develop-
development and social and academic functioning (Bark- mental tasks. School settings also require the child to per-
ley, DuPaul, & McMurray, 1990; Cole, 1990; Kandel & form in both structured and unstructured contexts. Each
Davies, 1986; Lambert & Sandoval, 1980). Psychologists of these opportunities may exist to some degree in a clin-
and other mental health professionals are routinely ical or home-based assessment; however, schools are per-
asked to provide brief or, in some cases, ongoing consul- haps the most feasible and ecologically valid context in
tation in school settings for a wide range of child behav- which to collect these data.
ior problems. This often takes the form of a school or class- Despite the high prevalence of child behavior prob-
room observation, which refers to measurement procedures lems and the legal requirements necessitating the perfor-
in which child behaviors in the school or classroom are mance of school observations, standard procedures for
systematically monitored, described, classified, and ana- collecting such data do not exist. Although significant re-
lyzed, with particular attention typically given to the ante- search efforts have evaluated various formal assessment
cedent and consequent events involved in the perfor- procedures for such purposes, these methods have not
mance and maintenance of such behaviors. In fact, the been widely adopted by practicing clinicians. This is per-
recent reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabili- haps due to differences in training and resources be-
ties Education Act (2004) makes the performance of a tween research and clinical settings. For instance, Abikoff
school observation a required component of the initial and colleagues (1977, 1980) used observers trained for
evaluation and re-evaluation for students with behavior approximately 50 hours, who coded child behavior for an
problems, and includes additional recommendations for average of 96 minutes across six observation sessions in
order to obtain data to reliably differentiate hyperactive
from nonhyperactive children. This distinction would be
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 12, 359–370, 2005
1077-7229/05/359–370$1.00/0 even more difficult to make in nonresearch settings given
Copyright © 2005 by Association for Advancement of Behavior the lack of normative data on the behaviors associated
Therapy. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. with each diagnostic category. Moreover, in addition to
360 Nock & Kurtz

diagnostic information, clinicians also need to identify more likely to introduce criterion error variance, com-
the functional determinants of the problem behaviors, as pared with the use of direct observation methods that allow
well as the varying characteristics of the child, teachers, for a more precise evaluation of the target behaviors.
peers, and classroom environment that may be useful for Second, observational data have greater external or
designing and modifying interventions aimed at remedi- ecological validity than behavior rating scales, as they
ation of the problem behaviors. Procedures for perform- provide a measurement of the behavior as it is actually oc-
ing these tasks are not neatly encapsulated in any existing curring in the school context. Third, while behavior rating
research protocol available to practicing clinicians. scales provide information about the frequency and se-
In an effort to help fill this science-practice gap, the verity of behavior problems, observational data also pro-
purpose of this article is to provide a summary of proce- vide information about the functions of such behaviors
dures useful to clinicians performing behavioral observa- (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Kazdin, 2001; Milten-
tions with school-aged children. Rather than presenting a berger, 1997).
detailed description of any one coding system currently That is, behavioral observation can provide informa-
used by researchers in this area, we describe general guide- tion about the purpose or cause of a given behavior by
lines and procedures for the implementation of a com- evaluating the antecedent and consequent events that
prehensive, idiographic school observation. In doing so maintain the target behaviors. Although rating scales de-
we draw directly from our work developing and testing signed to gather information about antecedent and conse-
methods for conducting behavioral observations in schools. quent influences on behavior have been developed (Du-
After discussing the advantages and disadvantages of direct rand & Crimmins, 1988; Nock & Prinstein, 2004), a true
observation procedures, we provide a primer on the iden- functional behavioral assessment generally is not possible
tification, definition, and assessment of child behaviors without directly observing the child’s behavior. The abil-
to increase the relevance of this information for those who ity to observe child behavior in a real, structured setting
may be unfamiliar with behavior observation techniques. represents an important advantage of school observation
Next, we outline and discuss specific clinical procedures, over other assessment methods.
including formulating primary referral questions, inter- Despite the advantages of using direct observation
viewing the teachers, describing the classroom context, methods, several disadvantages of this approach should
and conducting the observation. Finally, we provide prac- be noted. First, the performance of a school observation
tical advice for synthesizing the obtained information is more costly in terms of time, money, and resources than
into a report that facilitates clinical intervention by clini- other measurement methods such as parent-, teacher-, or
cians, teachers, and parents involved with the child. child behavior rating scales. School observations typically
require at least 1 hour of direct observation in addition to
time and expenses for travel, preparation, and report
Advantages and Disadvantages of
writing, compared to the relatively little time required to
Direct Observation Procedures
complete behavior rating scales. Clinicians should con-
School observations offer several advantages over other sider offering a behavioral observation in the school set-
assessment methods, and these advantages can greatly en- ting as part of initial or ongoing assessment services or
hance the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical interven- as part of a larger psychological evaluation. Moreover,
tions. First, school observations provide a means of objec- school observations require training and utilization of
tive measurement of a wide range of behaviors as they mental health professionals, while most rating scales can
occur in the natural environment. Indeed, observational be administered and scored by nonclinical personnel. Sec-
data are free from most sources of bias associated with be- ond, the identification and evaluation of a specific behavior
havior rating scales such as social desirability, mood of the during a discrete time period may provide limited data
rater, rater attributions about culture or socioeconomic about a child’s behavior in the classroom or in other set-
status, and halo effects (e.g., Abikoff, Courtney, Pelham, tings. That is, although data from teacher ratings tend to
& Koplewicz, 1993; Cohen & Kasen, 1999; Edelbrock, be more vague and global than data from direct observa-
1988) and have been shown to better predict future ad- tions, the former provide information about a wide range
justment than parent or teacher reports of child behavior of behaviors from the entire school day. In contrast, di-
(e.g., Patterson & Forgatch, 1995). In addition, the use of rect observation techniques provide a narrower sample
direct observation allows for the description and evalua- of specific behaviors. Third, there are potential method-
tion of specific behaviors. Even the most comprehensive ological problems with the use of direct observation, such
behavior rating scales do not contain items representing as child or teacher reactivity to the presence of the ob-
the full range of possible behavior problems exhibited in server, observer drift, and perceptual biases of the observer
the school/classroom context. Also, behavioral descrip- (Kazdin, 1978; Skinner, Dittmer, & Howell, 2000).
tions presented in rating scales typically are vague and These advantages and disadvantages should be weighed
 Behavioral Observation in Schools 361

when deciding whether a school observation is appropri- has no detectable observer effect on child behavior
ate for a specific child. To be sure, all children referred (Abikoff et al., 1977, 1980). The application of this coding
for clinical services will not require a school observation. system has extended beyond mainstream classrooms, and
Although school observations could always provide po- its interobserver reliability and concurrent and discrimi-
tentially useful clinical information, given the time and native validity have also been supported in classroom set-
resources required and the potential limitations of this tings within psychiatric hospitals (Horn, Conners, Wells,
approach, they should generally be reserved for cases in & Shaw, 1986). Among the limitations of these findings,
which the form and/or function of a behavior problem however, the reliability and validity estimates generated
present in the school is unclear. We recommend a stepped were based on an average of 11.6 days of observations for
model of assessment, in which the intensive evaluation of each child (Horn et al., 1986), and this system has limited
specific behavior problems should be implemented only generality beyond hyperactive behaviors in children.
after other more global and less intensive assessment Another direct observation coding system that has re-
methods have been exhausted. This approach differs from ceived considerable empirical support is the School Ob-
stepped care models of psychotherapy (e.g., Haaga, 2000), servation Coding System (SOCS; McNeil et al., 1991) and
given its focus on assessment rather than intervention, the subsequent Revised Edition of the School Observa-
and differs from multiple gating screening techniques tion Coding System (REDSOCS; Jacobs et al., 2000).1 The
(e.g., Loeber, 1990; van Lier, Verhulst, & Crijnen, 2003), SOCS and REDSOCS both use a modified time sampling
given its focus on an individual child rather than a mass procedure and classify behaviors on three behavioral do-
screening approach. For instance, a child with self-, parent-, mains: (1) appropriate versus inappropriate behaviors,
and teacher-reported symptoms of obsessive-compulsive (2) compliant versus noncompliant behavior, and (3) on-
disorder occurring consistently across multiple contexts task versus off-task behavior. The behavioral categories
will not require a school observation because such an as- are broader than those used in the COC, and the devel-
sessment is not likely to add unique information. Alterna- opers of the SOCS and REDSOCS report less training
tively, in a case of a child referred for aggressive and non- time required for the observer to reach performance cri-
compliant behavior with some teachers but not others, a terion. Similar to the COC, the SOCS and REDSOCS
school observation may be warranted as it could provide have been used primarily with children with disruptive
objective, ecologically valid information about the form behavior disorders, and studies using these measures
and function of the target behaviors that may not other- have supported the interobserver reliability and the con-
wise be accurately evaluated. current and discriminative validity of these measures
( Jacobs et al., 2000; McNeil et al., 1991). Although the
structured nature of the REDSOCS is among its strengths,
Structured School Observation Coding Systems
this system too is limited in its ability to assess idiosyn-
A number of structured systems for coding direct ob- cratic child behaviors that may occur in school settings.
servation data collected in school settings have been de- Several direct observation coding systems are also of-
veloped and evaluated over the past several decades and fered as adjunctive components of widely used, multi-
may be of interest to the clinician conducting a school rater assessment packages. For example, the Child Behav-
observation. These systems can be used by the clinician ior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1986) includes a Direct
when they match the problem behavior and setting in Observation Form (DOF) to accompany teacher-, parent-,
question. Alternatively, in situations where there is not a and self-report forms. Similarly, the Behavior Assessment
direct match between the system and the identified prob- System for Children (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998)
lem, these systems may serve more generally as a method- includes a Student Observation System (SOS) to accom-
ological guide for structuring or implementing a more pany teacher-, parent-, and self-report forms. Both of these
individualized school observation. One of the earliest and coding systems are easy to learn and implement, requir-
most thoroughly evaluated systems, the Classroom Obser- ing minimal training, are readily available as part of widely
vation Code (COC; Abikoff & Gittelman, 1985), uses a used assessment packages, and sample a wide range of be-
time sampling procedure to classify child behaviors ac- havior problems (96 on the DOF and 65 on the SOS) and
cording to 14 observational categories. As suggested by adaptive behaviors in a short time period (10 to 15 min-
the different behavioral categories (e.g., interference, utes of direct observation for each administration). How-
solicitation, off-task, physical and threats of aggression, ever, the use of a list of predetermined behavior prob-
noncompliance, motor movement, extended verbaliza- lems, a small time sampling period, and minimal observer
tion, daydreaming), the COC has been used primarily with 1 It is our belief that a more appropriate name for this measure is
hyperactive, inattentive, and disruptive children. The the Youth Assessment of Needs for Kids Exhibiting Emotional prob-
COC has adequate interobserver reliability, discriminates lems in School (YANKEES). However, we acknowledge a potential
between hyperactive and nonhyperactive children, and bias, as both authors are from the New York metropolitan area.
362 Nock & Kurtz

training, as well as a failure to consider functional deter- tion, internalizing problems such as depressed mood,
minants of observed behaviors, limit the information de- anxiety, and somatic complaints are reported more fre-
rived from the use of these measures. quently by children than by their parents (Ivens & Rehm,
Clinicians should consider what type of behavioral in- 1988; Kashani, Orvaschel, Burk, & Reid, 1985). Neverthe-
formation is desired from the observation and what re- less, both parent- and child-report of child behavior
sources are available when deciding what type of direct problems have been shown to be significantly related to
observation coding system to utilize in any given case. In measures of external validation (i.e., service utilization,
instances where one of these systems is not appropriate evidence of behavioral impairment, etc.; see Jensen et al.,
(e.g., target behavior is not assessed sufficiently by the 1996). Taken together, these findings suggest that despite
system), the clinician should conduct an assessment low levels of agreement across informants, multiple infor-
grounded in the principles of behavioral assessment (see mants should be used in child assessment given the
Kazdin, 2001; Miltenberger, 1997; Shapiro & Kratochwill, unique information each provides about child behavior
2000). We have written previously about adapting struc- in different contexts and from different perspectives.
tured, evidence-based psychosocial treatments for idio- Multiple methods. Self-report procedures are typically
graphic clinical use guided by psychological science and characterized by higher sensitivity for detecting con-
behavioral assessment (Nock, Goldman, Wang, & Albano, structs of interest (e.g., Prinstein, Nock, Spirito, & Grap-
2004), and offer here a similar approach focused more entine, 2001), perhaps due to willingness of children and
directly on conducting school observations. We first offer adolescents to endorse items on self-report they might be
a primer on behavioral assessment as it applies to chil- hesitant to discuss in interview-based assessment. In con-
dren in school settings for those unfamiliar with such trast, interview-based approaches generally allow for greater
methods and their application with this population and specificity through follow-up questions. Given differential
in this setting. responding for various measurement methods, clinicians
should employ multiple assessment methods whenever pos-
sible in order to ensure accurate identification and diag-
A Primer on Identifying, Defining, and
nosis of clinical behavior problems.
Assessing Child Behavior
Identify the Problem Behaviors Define the Target Behaviors
Via a Thorough Clinical Interview Once a problem area has been identified, the target
The valid assessment of child behavior problems re- behaviors must be defined in a manner that is observable,
quires the collection of information that spans multiple measurable, and specific. The criterion of being observable
domains of functioning, informants, measurement meth- refers to the definition of the target behaviors in terms
ods, and environmental contexts (Campbell & Fiske, that are readily apparent to more than one individual.
1959; Shapiro & Kratochwill, 2000). For instance, “the number of times Johnnie kicks a class-
Multiple domains. Families often present for assessment mate” satisfies the observable criterion, while “the num-
with one identified “chief complaint”; however, this is ber of times Johnnie gets angry” does not, given that
not necessarily the only area requiring intervention or “anger” refers to an affective state that is not reliably ap-
the most ideal primary treatment target. Rather than pro- parent between independent observers. If a behavior is
ceeding immediately with intervention, it is important to conceptualized in a way that makes it observable, a measure-
assess multiple domains of functioning in order to iden- ment strategy can be devised to quantify its occurrence.
tify all potential areas of maladaptive and adaptive func- Specificity refers to the precision of the defined target be-
tioning and to collect information about the structure haviors, such that boundary rules are established to indi-
and function of each identified behavior. cate when a behavior has or has not occurred. Consider
Multiple informants and contexts. Decades of research this definition: “Kicking a classmate refers to making
have demonstrated that interinformant agreement on physical contact between Johnnie’s foot and any part of
the presence and severity of child behavior problems is another student but does not include instances in which
quite poor across various domains of functioning (e.g., Johnnie stops his foot before contact is made.” This spe-
Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). There are cific definition precisely indicates when the target behav-
many factors contributing to this variability, including sit- iors have occurred and when they have not.
uational specificity of behavior, informant bias, method Although undesirable or maladaptive behaviors are
variance, and type of behavior problem. For example, often the focus of assessment, as in the examples noted
agreement across all informants (child, peer, teacher, and previously, the goals of clinical intervention should center
parent) is generally better for externalizing compared to on developing replacement or alternative behaviors (Blader,
internalizing problems (Edelbrock et al., 1986; Leding- Nissen, Fleiss, & Kurtz, 2000). Replacement behaviors refer
ham, Younger, Schwartzman, & Bergeron, 1982). In addi- to the ultimately desired, adaptive behaviors that are
 Behavioral Observation in Schools 363

incompatible with the problem behavior. For instance, if reinforcement. For instance, time of day, exhaustion, and
the problem behavior is “punching a teacher in response hunger are all establishing operations that might influ-
to a difficult task demand,” a replacement behavior might ence child behavior (e.g., children may be more likely to
be “complying with difficult task demands while keeping perform behaviors reinforced with access to a stimulating
hands and feet to self.” toy when other toys are unavailable rather than abun-
Given it is typically not expected that a child will dant). Discriminative stimuli refer to events that indicate a
change directly from a problem behavior to an adaptive, particular behavior is likely to be reinforced. For example,
incompatible behavior, it often is helpful to first develop some behaviors may only be reinforced or punished in
alternative behaviors, which refer to acceptable behaviors the presence of a specific teacher or staff member but not
whose performance decreases the probability the problem others. Prompts refer to events that directly guide or facil-
behavior will occur. Alternative behaviors are not neces- itate task performance, such as instructions, commands,
sarily incompatible with the problem behavior, and may or reminders from a teacher.
be approximations of the desired behavior. If the alterna- The observation should also consider different types
tive behavior is functionally equivalent with the problem of consequent events, including information about the
behavior, this may increase the probability of mainte- presentation or removal of different events that follow
nance of the alternative behavior. However, functional the target behaviors. The target behaviors may be fol-
equivalence is also not a necessary criterion for the devel- lowed by the presentation of a desired event (i.e., positive
opment of alternative behaviors. For instance, in the exam- reinforcement), such as attention from the teacher or laugh-
ple above an alternative behavior might be “requesting a ter by peers; the removal of an aversive event (i.e., negative
pass to go to the guidance office in response to difficult reinforcement), such as the removal of the teacher’s demands
task demands.” If the function of the child’s problem be- to go to the principal’s office; or by the lack of any event,
havior is determined to be avoidance of the task demand, such as being ignored by the child’s teacher and peers.
and this alternative behavior also functions to avoid the Information about such antecedent and consequent
task demand, then the two are considered functionally events is critical in understanding the determinants of the
equivalent. Although not the ultimately desired outcome, target behaviors and is useful in treatment planning. With-
leaving the room is a more acceptable behavior and con- out such data one is left without the ability to see behavioral
sidered a step closer to the desired outcome. Another al- patterns and inevitably will either make no objective cause-
ternative behavior might be “keeping hands to self in re- and-effect hypotheses or make ones that are (a) without an
sponse to a difficult task demand.” In this case, the child empirical basis, (b) likely to be less accurate and less parsi-
should be rewarded if he does not hit the teacher in re- monious, and (c)lead to less efficient interventions.
sponse to a difficult task demand, even if he performs
some other undesirable behavior such as yelling at her. Assessment Strategies
Although yelling at the teacher is of course not the ulti- Once the target behaviors have been adequately de-
mately desired behavior, and “keeping hands to self” is fined, the observer must monitor the child to record the
not functionally equivalent with avoiding the task de- occurrence of the behaviors, as well as the presence of an-
mand, it is considered a closer approximation of the de- tecedent and consequent events. This is in contrast to be-
sired behavior than is the problem behavior and thus is havior rating scales, in which child, peer, teacher, or par-
considered a favorable alternative behavior. ent retrospective report is used to describe the prior
occurrence of the target behaviors. There are several dif-
Define Events Related to the Target Behaviors ferent methods for recording the occurrence of the tar-
Given that myriad factors in a child’s environment, in- get behaviors in school observations. These methods can
ternal and external, influence the occurrence of given be used alone, in sequence, or in combination.
behaviors, school observations will be most effective when Descriptive method. One way the observer can record
contextual influences are identified and measured in a the occurrence of the target behaviors is simply by pro-
systematic manner. As a general rule, in addition to defin- viding a specific description of the behavior as it is per-
ing and measuring the target behaviors, the observer formed. In doing so, the observer should provide an ob-
should also provide a description of antecedent and con- jective account of the mechanics of the behavior, the
sequent events associated with each target behavior. amount of time the behavior is performed, and the inten-
The observation should consider different types of an- sity of the movements. As mentioned, the observer should
tecedent influences, including information about poten- also describe the antecedent and consequent events sur-
tial establishing operations or setting events, discriminative stim- rounding each performance of the target behavior.
uli, and prompts. Establishing operations and setting events This descriptive method typically should last at least 10
refer to factors that alter the value of reinforcers and the to 15 minutes, depending on the frequency of the target
likelihood of engaging in specific behaviors to obtain behaviors, and is often most useful when the specific char-
364 Nock & Kurtz

acteristics and potential determinants of the target be- the multiple variations of antecedent-behavior-consequence
haviors are not yet known. An example of a coding sheet that are possible, which can be difficult to report retro-
following a descriptive format is presented in Figure 1. In spectively. The prespecified behaviors coded on check
many cases, it is advisable to follow the descriptive method lists can be general (e.g., physical aggression) or specific
with the use of a more structured, time-sampling tech- (e.g., kicks others, hits others, throws object, etc.). The
nique, such as one of those described below, to generate specificity of behavioral coding will depend on the needs
more systematic data once the potential contingencies and abilities of the observer and will likely vary across be-
have been operationalized during the initial observation haviors, settings, and children. The strength of this ap-
period. proach lies in the ability of the observer to generate data
Checklist method. Another method for recording the about the conditional probability of different target behav-
occurrence of the target behaviors is the use of checklists iors or consequences. Conditional probability refers to
in which the observer makes check marks to record vari- the likelihood of a behavior given specific settings or situ-
ous aspects of the target behavior. Behaviors typically are ations. Through the assessment the observer obtains in-
listed on one axis of a recording form and time periods formation about the probability of each target behavior
or classrooms are listed on the other axis. There are sev- in the presence of specific antecedents (e.g., presence of
eral different types of checklists commonly used for di- teacher, use of prompts, occurrence of different activi-
rect behavioral observation. ties) and consequences (e.g., positive vs. negative vs. ig-
Behavior checklists refer to simple forms in which the noring). For instance, Figure 4 depicts a sample coding
observer uses check marks to indicate which behaviors form used to record antecedent-behavior-consequence
from a long list of potential behaviors occurred during relations in a specific classroom period during 16 time
the observation period. For instance, the BASC-SOS sampling intervals (i.e., an 8-minute period with coding
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1998) contains a section with a every 30 seconds). The aggregation of data from this pe-
list of 14 behavioral categories from which the observer riod shows that in terms of consequences, physical ag-
indicates whether a behavior from each category occurred gression was followed by a positive response from peers,
during a 15-minute observation period. A variation on in this case attention and laughter, during 100% (8/8) of
the behavior checklist is frequency recording, in which the the intervals, and was followed by a negative consequence
observer indicates how often the behavior occurred using from the teacher only 12.5% (1/8) of the time. In contrast,
a check mark for each instance of the behavior. An ex- positive social interactions were followed by no observable
ample of a frequency recording checklist is presented in teacher (0%) or peer (0%) initiated consequences. These
Figure 2. data suggest that the child’s physical aggression may be
Interval recording refers to a technique in which the ob- maintained by the positive reactions it produces from
server indicates (again using check marks) whether the peers, and that there are no positive consequences for
target behaviors occur during a specific time interval. In- engaging in positive social interactions. These data can
terval length varies depending on the frequency of the be analyzed and interpreted according to antecedent, be-
behavior, the amount of time allowed for the observation, havior, or consequence based on the observer’s hypothe-
and the skill of the observer in monitoring and recording ses about what factors may be initiating or maintaining
child behavior. As an example, the BASC-SOS includes the target behaviors. It is critically important in the for-
an interval recording section with the following instruc- mulation of the hypotheses and the case conceptualiza-
tions: “At the end of each 30-second interval, observe tion to consider the conditions under which the target
the child’s behavior for approximately 3 seconds (for ex- behaviors do and do not occur. It is the rule, rather than
ample, when the stopwatch reads 0:30–0:33). Then place the exception, that we observe marked intersituational
a check mark in the time column next to each category of variability in disruptive behaviors.
behavior that occurred during that interval.” This proce-
dure is performed repeatedly across a 15-minute time pe-
Clinical Procedures
riod and provides a contemporaneous assessment of be-
havior as it occurs. The percentage of intervals during Formulating the Primary Referral Question
which a given behavior occurred can be calculated to After conducting a comprehensive initial evaluation
provide information about the frequency of adaptive and with the child and family, the clinician should formulate
maladaptive behaviors. An example of an interval record- the primary question to be answered by the school obser-
ing form is presented in Figure 3. vation. The specification of the primary referral question
As is the case with descriptive methods, checklists can is especially important given the range of observational
also be used to record information about antecedents and coding techniques available to the clinician. For in-
and consequences of target behaviors. This is performed stance, if the question relates to whether and in what
most accurately using interval recording techniques given classroom a specific behavior is being performed, the
 Behavioral Observation in Schools 365

Figure 1. Sample Descriptive Coding Form.

Figure 2. Sample Checklist for Coding Child Behavior.

Figure 3. Sample Interval Coding Form.

Figure 4. Sample Interval Coding Form With Antecedents, Behaviors, and Consequences.
366 Nock & Kurtz

observer may consider using a frequency recording tech- hypotheses and conducting the actual behavioral obser-
nique across several different classrooms. In contrast, if vation. The answers to these questions should be taken
the question is focused on determining the function of a into consideration when planning the observation. If the
given behavior with the goal of providing information for behavior occurs infrequently, or is a “low base-rate” be-
the treating clinician, an observational method that in- havior, the observer should plan to monitor the child’s
cludes information about the antecedents and conse- behavior only when the behavior is most likely to occur.
quences of the target behaviors is indicated. Included in For instance, if the child engages in physical aggression,
the primary referral question should be a clear statement but seems to do so only when engaged in outdoor physical
of the target behaviors, as well as a statement of the spe- activities, it would be advisable to plan the observation
cific goals of the assessment. session during a period that includes outdoor physical ac-
tivities. In cases when it is not possible to schedule the
Collaborating With School Psychologists and Teachers school observation during a situation that seems to influ-
School psychologists often spend a large amount of ence the occurrence of the target behaviors, the observer
time developing and implementing behavioral assess- may want to work with the teacher to architect the setting
ment and intervention programs in school settings. If events or situations that are likely to produce the target
there is a school psychologist at the target child’s school, behaviors in order to monitor the relations among ante-
he or she is likely to be the clinician conducting the behav- cedents, behaviors, and consequences (e.g., scheduling
ioral observation and working with the teacher(s) and/or an outdoor activity while the observer is present, rear-
outside clinician on reporting on the results of the assess- ranging classroom activities or interactions in order to
ment and developing a treatment plan. In instances where increase the probability of the target behaviors).
a school psychologist is not present or is unable to partic- Finally, the observer should inquire about what types
ipate in the behavioral assessment, the outside clinician of interventions are currently in place in the classroom. It
may need to visit the school him- or herself to conduct would also be helpful to know what interventions have
the assessment. In either case, every effort possible should been tried in the past and what has or has not worked in
be made to work openly and collaboratively with the men- modifying the target behaviors. In some cases it is advis-
tal health professionals and teachers involved with the able to ask the teacher to implement a current or past in-
child. tervention that has or has not been effective in order to
Prior to conducting the observation, the observer should understand which factors influence the child’s behavior
contact the classroom teachers to obtain permission to or which aspects of the intervention content or delivery
perform the observation and to begin to gather informa- might require modification. Specific parent consent is
tion about the target behaviors. Most of the necessary in- advised if choosing to precipitate the undesired behavior.
formation typically can be collected in a brief meeting or
telephone interview. There are several domains from Describing the School/Classroom Context
which the observer should attempt to gain information. Once in the child’s classroom, the first task is to make
First, the observer should inquire about the specific tar- contact with the teacher and have him or her identify the
get behaviors. Whether or not the teachers have already child to be observed and to select a location from which
provided information about specific behavior problems to observe the child’s behavior. It is best to do this in a
as part of the initial comprehensive evaluation, the ob- way that limits the probability of child reactivity to the ob-
server should obtain a clear and complete description of servation. The child should not know the observer is visit-
the target behaviors from the teachers’ perspective. This ing the classroom for the purpose of observing his or her
should include maladaptive behaviors as well as adaptive/ behavior, as doing so would compromise the validity of
desired behaviors. Second, the observer should inquire the observation. The position of the observer in the room
about the presence of any academic difficulties. should allow for an unobstructed view of the child while
Third, the observer should generate a list of potential limiting the probability of child reactivity to the observa-
contextual influences of the target behaviors. Questions tion (i.e., out of sight of the child). The back of the class-
for the teachers should include: When/where/with whom room usually is best for these purposes.
does this behavior most commonly occur? In addition: Next, the observer should spend a few minutes collect-
Have you noticed what is typically happening before this ing information about the contextual characteristics of
behavior occurs? And: What do you do, or what do the the classroom, with particular consideration to aspects
other children do, after this behavior occurs? Critically, of the classroom that may affect child behavior. For in-
one also must solicit the same types of information from stance: Is the classroom seating and furniture arranged in
the teacher about the situations in which the target be- a way that limits distracting stimuli, background noise,
haviors do not occur. This list of antecedent and conse- outside class interruptions? Are traffic patterns safe and
quent events provides useful information for generating well-defined? Is the placement of the child in the class-
 Behavioral Observation in Schools 367

room conducive to good attention and consequating by are organized, all important information must be contained
the teacher? How many students and teachers/aides are in the written report. A clinician can spend hours prepar-
in the classroom? Are the class rules and consequences, ing, observing, and analyzing data, but if the information
as well as the daily schedule of activities, posted in a vis- is not synthesized and presented in the written docu-
ible location? How large is the room, how many windows ment, it will not have an effect on the child’s school envi-
and doors are there and where are they located? Each ronment. An outline of suggested major areas and guid-
of these factors can affect child behavior and may be of ing questions for the school observation report is presented
interest to the clinician. in Table 1.

Observing the Child’s Behavior

Incorporating the Data
After the classroom environment has been described,
One of the key strengths of school observations is that
the full attention of the observer should shift to monitor-
they are based on direct, objective data. The clinician
ing and coding the child’s behavior. The first task of the
should capitalize on this strength when preparing the re-
observer is to select observation techniques from those
port. The data should be presented in the report so the
described above. This should be determined prior to the
reader (whether clinician, teacher, or parent) can see the
actual school observation, and the selection of a coding
evidence supporting the interpretations made by the ob-
method is contingent upon the goals of the observation.
server. For instance, when describing the determinants of
The actual school observation typically lasts 1 to 2 hours
a given behavior, the observer should indicate how often
during which the primary goal of the observer is to record
the behavior occurred, as well as how often different
data regarding the planned target behaviors. After an ini-
events preceded and followed the behavior, thus drawing
tial coding period, the observer should review the data
evidence-based conclusions about potential determinants
and decide to monitor and code any new behaviors noted
of the target behavior. Consider two different hypotheses
during observation period. At the conclusion of the ob-
about the factors maintaining a child’s behavior, one based
servation period, the observer should speak with the
on the clinician’s unmeasured beliefs about the nature of
teacher to determine the typicality of the child’s behavior
the child’s behavior:
during the observation period, noting the extent to which
these results represent an average day for the child. Alex often gets out of his seat and does not follow
Although studies of the reliability and validity of be- teacher commands. This is likely due to his lack of
havioral coding systems have compared ratings of groups respect of authority figures and his inability to fol-
of children referred for behavior problems with those of low instructions.
nonreferred children, we do not believe it is necessary to
record the behavior of a “comparison child” when con- and one based on the data collected in the school
ducting a school observation for an individual child. In- observation:
deed, the extra data collected will not allow the clinician
Despite remaining in his seat and maintaining
to draw valid inferences about any obtained differences
appropriate behavioral control during 77% of the
given potential problems with sampling error, selection
observed intervals, this behavior was not followed
bias, and natural variability in the children’s behavior. We
by a positive consequence on any occasion. In con-
believe it is more clinically useful to collect data on the
trast, Alex’s inappropriate movement was followed
conditional probability of the behavior of the target child.
by positive peer interactions 50% of the time (e.g.,
eye contact, smiles, and giggles from peers), non-
Preparing the Report specific teacher reprimand 10% of the time (e.g.,
“Alex!”), and was ignored 40% of the time. Taken
When composing a school observation report, it is im-
together, these results suggest Alex’s appropriate
portant to know your audience. Consider who will be
classroom movements are not being rewarded, and
reading the report and who will be using the specific rec-
that while his inappropriate movements are some-
ommendations generated. Regardless of whether the re-
times followed by teacher reprimands, they are more
port is ultimately intended for use by clinical or school
often ignored or rewarded by peer approval or pos-
staff, it will likely be read by the parents of the target child
itive interaction.
and thus should be written in a way that is easily under-
stood by the lay person. The data can be incorporated into the body of the report
(as in the preceding example) or described in tabular
Format of the Report form in an Appendix to the report. Regardless of how the
There are many ways to structure individual reports data are presented, their inclusion strengthens the valid-
from school observations. Regardless of how the sections ity of the conclusions drawn from the observation.
368 Nock & Kurtz

Table 1 tions, to the observed data, to the main conclusions, to

Major Questions Guiding the School Observation Report the recommendations. The recommendations typically
Descriptive information
should not deviate from the primary referral questions
What is the child’s name, date of birth, parents’ names, and contact and should not go beyond the data collected. For in-
information? stance, consider the following recommendations, one
Who is the referring clinician? not supported by data and thus making nonspecific
What is the location, date and time of the actual observation? recommendations:
What is the name of the teacher or any other staff involved with the child?
Reason for observation Regarding Alex’s classroom behavior, it is recom-
Who requested the observation? mended that his teacher or therapist work with him
What are the goals of the observation?
to help modify his current behavior problems.
What are the primary referral questions?
What are the specific target behaviors (both adaptive and maladaptive)?
and one based on the obtained data and making specific
Were any previous observations performed? What were the results?
recommendations:
Teacher interview
What problem behaviors are reported by teacher? Given Alex’s out-of-seat behavior appears to be
What academic difficulties are reported by teacher?
In what settings do the problem behaviors most frequently occur?
maintained by a lack of positive consequences for
What are the suspected triggers of the problem behaviors? in-seat behavior, by the presence of positive peer
What are the current consequences of the problem behaviors? interactions while out of his seat, and by the lack of
What past or current interventions were implemented by the teacher or negative consequences for being out of his seat, it is
other professionals? How effective were they? recommended that: (1) Alex’s teacher use specific,
Classroom environment labeled praise and, if needed, a contingency manage-
What is the number of students and staff in the classroom?
ment program for increasing in-seat behavior, (2)
What is the size and shape of the classroom?
What is the location of furniture/equipment, seating arrangements and specific commands and, if needed, time-out proce-
placement of the child? dures for noncompliance, and (3) the teacher
Are there distracting stimuli, background noises, or outside class consider the use of a classroom-wide contingency
interruptions? program or consequence-sharing program to encour-
Are the traffic patterns well-defined and safe?
age in-seat behavior and discourage positive feed-
Are there established routines for toileting, drinks, snack time, etc.?
Are the class rules and consequences posted in a visible location? Are back for out-of-seat behavior.
the rules reinforced?
Of course, more detail would be provided in the actual
Child observation
What classes, lessons, or tasks occurred during the observation period?
recommendations for each example. However, it is clear
What evaluation procedures were used and are they described? that congruence between the data and the recommenda-
What were the results of the observation? tions offered and the incorporation of evidence-based
Describe the severity, frequency, and duration of the target behaviors techniques enhance the utility of the school observation
Describe the antecedents and consequences of the observed behaviors and resulting report.
Support all statements with data from the observation
Are the results of the observation reliable and valid?
Was the child’s behavior during the observation representative of this Follow-Up Observations
child’s behavior in this context more generally? After the initial school observations, follow-up obser-
Recommendations vations may be warranted for the purposes of providing
Based on the results, what should the teachers and school personnel do
an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of any inter-
to effectively modify the child’s behavior?
Based on the results, what can the parents do to effectively modify the vention efforts and for identifying any additional behavior
child’s behavior? problems that may be present. Using a new observer will
What implications do the results have for the therapist treating the child? decrease the risk of reactivity and will increase the objec-
Is a follow-up school observation warranted? If so, when? tivity of the ratings by controlling for biases associated
with the initial observer. However, using a new observer
may introduce additional variance to the observation
Using the Data to Make Recommendations procedure, thus decreasing the reliability of ratings. That
The primary purpose of the school observation is to is, it could be that a given target behavior did not change
provide data that will be useful to clinicians, teachers, in frequency from an initial observation to a follow-up ob-
and parents in understanding and modifying child be- servation; however, it appears to have changed due to dif-
haviors. The mechanism through which data from the ferences in the accuracy of two different observers. Never-
observation are put to actual use is the recommendations theless, the use of follow-up observations often is warranted
that appear at the end of the written report. There should and is a useful tool for providing ongoing intervention to
be a natural progression from the primary referral ques- the child.
 Behavioral Observation in Schools 369

Conclusion Abikoff, H., Gittelman-Klein, R., & Klein, D. F. (1977). Validation of a

classroom observation code for hyperactive children. Journal of
The school setting provides a naturally structured and Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 772–783.
Abikoff, H., Gittelman, R., & Klein, D. F. (1980). Classroom observa-
contained environment with opportunities to assess chil-
tion code for hyperactive children: A replication of validity. Jour-
dren in multiple domains of functioning. Despite the nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 555–565.
prevalence of child behavior problems and the potential Achenbach, T. M. (1986). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 &
1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University
usefulness of conducting school observations, few practi- of Vermont.
tioners have received training, or are proficient, in the Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/
use of these techniques. The purpose of this paper is to adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of
cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychologi-
provide clinicians with an understanding of the theoreti- cal Bulletin, 101, 213–232.
cal rationale and a guide to assist in the practical imple- Barkley, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., & McMurray, M. B. (1990). A comprehen-
mentation of school observations. sive evaluation of attention deficit disorder with and without
hyperactivity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 775–
Several coding systems for the direct observation and 789.
assessment of school behavior have been developed and Blader, J., Nissen, S., Fleiss, K., & Kurtz, S. M. S. (2000). Functional
evaluated. Although of great importance for research behavioral assessments and intervention plans: Program handbook. New
York: New York University Child Study Center.
and clinical efforts, these systems share several clinical Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant
limitations. Perhaps most importantly, they do not allow validation by the multi-trait multi-method matrix. Psychological
for the flexibility often needed in clinical settings. This Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Cohen, P., & Kasen, S. (1999). The context of assessment: Culture,
article describes methods for conducting an idiographic race, and socioeconomic status as influences on the assessment of
direct observation of school behavior that is useful to cli- children. In D. Shaffer, C. P. Lucas, & J. E. Richters (Eds.), Diag-
nicians conducting the observations, as well as to those nostic assessment in child and adolescent psychopathology. New York:
The Guilford Press.
who work with children or families with problems in the Cole, D. A. (1990). The relation of social and academic competence to
school setting. There is a trade-off inherent in the at- depressive symptoms in childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
tempt to use an idiographic, tailored approach over one 99, 422–429.
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables
that is more uniform, in that it is much more difficult to maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Develop-
assess the use of the former in a controlled manner (e.g., mental Disorders, 18, 99–117.
Abikoff, 2001). Thus, while the methods outlined in this Edelbrock, C. S. (1988). Informant reports. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R.
Kratchwell (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools: Conceptual foun-
article will be useful to practitioners working with chil- dations and practical applications (pp. 351–383). New York: The
dren and families, we acknowledge their inferiority to ex- Guilford Press.
isting coding systems regarding the presence of research Edelbrock, C. S., Costello, A. J., Dulcan, M. K., Conover, N. C., & Kalas,
R. (1986). Parent-child agreement on child psychiatric symptoms
evidence on their behalf. On balance, the methods out- assessed via structured interview. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
lined above are all based on techniques and procedures chiatry, 27, 181–190.
with decades of support in the behavior therapy litera- Haaga, D. A. F. (2000). Introduction to the special section on stepped
care models in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
ture (e.g., functional assessment, direct observation of Psychology, 68, 547–548.
classroom behavior). Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis
This paper is intended to fill a gap in the clinical liter- of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
36, 147–185.
ature between the highly structured, research-based pro- Horn, W. F., Conners, C. K., Wells, K. C., & Shaw, D. (1986). Use of the
cedures commonly used to evaluate classroom behavior Abikoff Classroom Observation Coding System on a children’s
and the less structured, more subjective techniques often inpatient psychiatric unit. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 8, 9–23.
used to assess child behavior in such settings. We hope this Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.
paper provides clinicians with the tools necessary to per- L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. (2004).
form scientifically informed, reliable, and valid evalua- Ivens, C., & Rehm, L. P. (1988). Assessment of childhood depression:
Correspondence between reports by child, mother, and father.
tions of child behavior in school settings, and inspires ad- Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27,
dition clinical and research efforts in this important area. 738–741.
Jacobs, J. R., Boggs, S. R., Eyberg, S. M., Edwards, D., Durning, P.,
Querido, J. G., McNeil, C. B., & Funderburk, B. W. (2000). Psycho-
metric properties and reference point data for the Revised Edi-
References tion of the School Observation Coding System. Behavior Therapy,
31, 695–712.
Abikoff, H. (2001). Tailored psychosocial treatments for ADHD: The Jensen, P. S., Watanabe, H. K., Richters, J. E., Roper, M., Hibbs, E. D.,
search for a good fit. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 122– Salzberg, A. D., & Liu, S. (1996). Scales, diagnoses, and child psycho-
125. pathology: II. Comparing the CBCL and the DISC against external
Abikoff, H., Courtney, M., Pelham, W. E., & Koplewicz, H. S. (1993). validators. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 151–168.
Teachers’ ratings of disruptive behaviors: The influence of halo Kandel, D. B., & Davies, M. (1986). Adult sequelae of adolescent
effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 519–533. depressive symptoms. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 255–262.
Abikoff, H., & Gittelman, R. (1985). Classroom observation code: A Kashani, J. H., Orvaschel, H., Burk, J. A., & Reid, J. C. (1985). Infor-
modification of the Stony Brook code. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, mant variance: The issue of parent-child disagreement. Journal of
21, 901–909. the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 437–441.
370 Nock & Kurtz

Kazdin, A. E. (1978). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Dulcan, M. K., Davies, M., Piacentini, J., Schwab-
ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141–150. Stone, M. E., Lahey, B. B., Bourdon, K., Jensen, P. S., Bird, H. R.,
Kazdin, A. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings (6th edi- Canino, G., & Regier, D. A. (1996). The NIMH Diagnostic Inter-
tion). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth. view Schedule for Children Version 2.3 (DISC-2.3): Description,
Lambert, N. M., & Sandoval, J. (1980). The prevalence of learning dis- acceptability, prevalence rates, and performance in the MECA
abilities in a sample of children considered hyperactive. Journal of Study. Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent
Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 33–50. Mental Disorders Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Ledingham, J. E., Younger, A., Schwartzman, A., & Bergeron, G. Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 865–877.
(1982). Agreement among teacher, peer, and self-ratings of chil- Shapiro, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (Eds.). (2000). Behavioral assessment
dren’s aggression, withdrawal, and likeability. Journal of Abnormal in schools: Theory, research, and clinical foundations (2nd ed.). New
Child Psychology, 10, 363–372. York: The Guilford Press.
Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial Skinner, C. H., Dittmer, K. I., & Howell, L. A. (2000). Direct observa-
behavior and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1–41. tion in school settings: Theoretical issues. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R.
McNeil, C. B., Eyberg, S. M., Eisenstadt, T. H., Newcomb, K., & Funder- Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory, research,
burk, B. (1991). Parent-child interaction therapy with behavior and clinical foundations (2nd ed.; pp. 19–46). New York: The Guil-
problem children: Generalization of treatment effects to the ford Press.
school setting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 140–151. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health:
Miltenberger, R. G. (1997). Behavior modification: Principles and proce- A report of the Surgeon General — Executive summary. Rockville, MD:
dures. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance
Nock, M. K., Goldman, J. L., Wang, Y., & Albano, A. M. (2004). From Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for
science to practice: The flexible use of evidence-based treatment Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National
procedures in clinical settings. Journal of the American Academy of Institute of Mental Health.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 777–780. van Lier, P. A., Verhulst, F. C., & Crijnen, A. A. (2003). Screening for
Nock, M. K., & Prinstein, M. J. (2004). A functional approach to the disruptive behavior syndromes in children: The application of
assessment of self-mutilative behavior. Journal of Consulting and latent class analyses and implications for prevention programs.
Clinical Psychology, 72, 885–890. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 353–363.
Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (1995). Predicting future clinical
adjustment from treatment outcome and process variables. Psy-
chological Assessment, 7, 275–285. Address correspondence to Matthew K. Nock, Ph.D., Department of
Prinstein, M. J., Nock, M. K., Spirito, A., & Grapentine, W. L. (2001). Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street 1280, Cambridge,
Multi-method assessment of suicidality in adolescent psychiatric MA 02138; e-mail: [email protected].
inpatients: Preliminary results. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1053–1061.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1998). Behavior Assessment System for Received: February 24, 2005
Children: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Accepted: March 17, 2005