Educ. Treat. Child.

[Link]

COMMENTARY

The Daily Report Card and Check‑in/Check‑out:

Accepted: 22 May 2024

Abstract Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) and the (3) stimulate conversation, innovative thinking, and
Daily Report Card intervention (DRC) are well- new research that serves to reduce rather than rein-
researched interventions designed to reduce chal- force the existing silos.
lenging student behavior and improve academic and
behavioral functioning. Yet each intervention has Keywords Positive behavioral interventions and
been studied within siloed literatures and their simi- supports (PBIS) · Check-in/check-out · Daily report
larities and differences are not well understood by card (DRC)
many educators. The goals of this commentary are to
(1) highlight the similarities and differences between
these interventions; (2) help educators and research- Given the high rates of social, emotional, and behav-
ers understand the value of both interventions; and ioral problems among school-aged youth (Daniel-
son et al., 2020), general education teachers face the
demanding task of educating students while working
J. S. Owens (*) · C. Dillon · S. W. Evans · H. G. Rew ·
to prevent and manage challenging student behavior.
C. Pickel
Psychology Department, Ohio University, Porter Hall 200, The Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports
Athens, OH 45701, USA (PBIS) framework offers guidelines for providing
e-mail: owensj@[Link] social, emotional, and behavioral supports matched to
C. Dillon student need (Sugai et al., 2000). In this framework,
e-mail: dillonc2@[Link] universal strategies are implemented with all students
S. W. Evans (e.g., teaching, monitoring, and reinforcing expec-
e-mail: evanss3@[Link] tations for prosocial behaviors; referred to as Tier 1
H. G. Rew level services), and targeted and individualized inter-
e-mail: hr747420@[Link] ventions are implemented with students who have
C. Pickel greater need (referred to as Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels
e-mail: ct050915@[Link] of service, respectively; Center on PBIS, 2023). To
implement targeted interventions, educators must
S. Margherio
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA select from wide array of options and consider not
e-mail: smargherio@[Link] only student needs, but also what is feasible given
available resources, the fit within the school-wide
C. Hustus
system of support, and the evidence for the effective-
McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA
e-mail: hustus.c@[Link] ness of the intervention for the targeted outcome. The

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

challenge of this task is exacerbated when there is they may select one intervention over another with-
overlap across similar intervention options, leaving out having accessed critical information that may
educators unsure which intervention to implement. best inform their intervention selection decision.
Two well-researched interventions aimed at In this commentary, we integrate the literatures of
improving student functioning are Check-In/Check- these two commonly used interventions for behavioral
Out (CICO; also called the Behavior Education concerns to highlight the similarities and differences
Program [BEP]; Hawken et al., 2020) and the Daily between them, help educators and researchers under-
Report Card intervention (DRC; also called the stand the value of both interventions, and develop a
Daily Behavior Report Card [DBRC]; see Owens future research agenda that builds upon strengths of
et al., 2020b, for review). Both involve identifica- these two historically disparate literatures. We begin
tion of goals for the student, provision of feedback by reviewing the similarities and differences across
to the student from a caring adult, and provision the two interventions. Next, we review the current
of positive reinforcement strategies at school and evidence bases for each intervention. Finally, we sum-
home to motivate the student (Hawken et al., 2020; marize how these siloed literature bases can be com-
Owens et al., 2012; Volpe & Fabiano, 2013). bined to inform next steps for practice and research.
Both interventions are extensions of the home-
school note (Dougherty & Dougherty, 1977),
designed to serve as efficient, targeted interventions Similarities
for students needing support beyond Tier 1 strate-
gies, and both have been shown to be acceptable to Guiding Theory and Mechanisms of Behavior
teachers (Girio-Herrera et al., 2021; Hawken et al., Change
2014). However, each intervention emerged from,
and exists within, siloed research literatures. CICO There is considerable overlap between the key fea-
was developed within the positive behavior support tures of CICO and DRC. In conceptual terms, both
framework and was designed as a Tier 2 interven- interventions are grounded in behavioral theory and
tion to target behaviors aligned with schoolwide rely on the principles of operant conditioning. Behav-
expectations (Hawken & Horner, 2003). The initial ior change is thought to occur through the mecha-
CICO handbook was published in 1995 (Warberg nisms of antecedent cues, precorrection, clear expec-
et al., 1995) and its earliest evaluations were pub- tations, contingent reinforcement, specific praise, and
lished in the special education literature (e.g., Fil- consistent and effective responding to rule violations
ter et al., 2007; Hawken & Horner, 2003) with later (Hawken et al., 2020; Owens et al., 2020a). In par-
publications in the school psychology literature ticular, when applying each, an educator reviews the
(e.g., Miller et al., 2015). In contrast, the DRC was student’s goal at the start of the day or period (clear
developed within the behavior therapy literature to expectation, antecedent cue, and precorrection).
address the challenging classroom behaviors dem- When the student demonstrates the desired target
onstrated by students with, or at risk for, attention- behavior, teachers offer contingent behavior specific
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The earliest praise, and when the student demonstrates an unde-
evaluations of DRC were published in the clinical sirable target behavior, the student receives corrective
psychology literature (e.g., Ayllon, et al., 1975; feedback (i.e., a tally or a lower score on their card).
Blechman et al., 1981; Lahey et al., 1977), with In short, a reward is either provided or withheld con-
later publications appearing in the school psychol- tingent upon their overall performance toward their
ogy literature (e.g., Fabiano et al., 2010; Holdaway daily goal. Finally, a supportive relationship with a
et al., 2020). It is interesting that in articles focused caring adult in the school is thought to facilitate moti-
on either intervention, authors have rarely acknowl- vation for behavior change and maximize the value
edged the other intervention, leaving the relative and saliency of the feedback provided (Hawken et al.,
nuances, advantages, and disadvantages of each 2020; Owens et al., 2020a). Both interventions use
intervention unspecified. Given that educators may goal-setting and operant procedures to reduce disrup-
focus on familiar sources of information in their tive behavior and/or to increase or maintain proso-
search for interventions (Farley-Ripple et al., 2018), cial behavior, both of which contribute to enhanced

Vol:. (1234567890)
Educ. Treat. Child.

academic outcomes (Horner et al., 2010). Student involve increasing adult supervision of the student
progress toward their goals is tracked throughout but can be feasibly implemented by general education
the day and online resources can be used to aid in teachers over several months (e.g., Holdaway et al.,
data tracking (CICO: www.​pbisa​pps.​org/​produ​cts/​ 2020; Karhu et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2012). Fur-
cico-​swis; DRC: www.​daily​repor​tcard​online.​com). ther, both the DRC and CICO can be developed using
Each intervention emphasizes the need for a morning a brief baseline assessment of child behavior and both
check-in, feedback throughout the day, an afternoon involve simple home–school communication rather
check-out, home–school communication, and data- than formal wrap-around services or services pro-
based decision making (Filter et al., 2022; Owens vided by a multidisciplinary team.
et al., 2020a).
Targeted Behaviors
Fit within the School‑Wide Systems of Support
A primary goal within a multitiered system of sup-
The definition of Tier 2 services is variable across port is matching an intervention to the student’s spe-
school districts and can include a broad range of inter- cific needs. Both CICO and the DRC target behaviors
ventions. Within PBIS, Tier 2 practices are defined as that align with school-wide expectations (e.g., being
“targeted support for students who are not successful responsible, respectful, on task) and that match stu-
with Tier 1 supports alone. The focus is on supporting dent needs. Within the psychology literature, the
students who are at risk for developing serious behav- DRC has been primarily studied with students with or
ior problems before they start. In essence, the support at risk for ADHD (Pyle & Fabiano, 2017) and/or with
at this level is more focused than Tier 1 and less inten- externalizing problems (Vannest et al., 2010; Wasch-
sive than Tier 3 (Center on PBIS, 2023). Tier 2 level busch et al., 2016). Common target behaviors include
services align closely with school-wide expectations, staying on task, staying in the assigned area, raising
are continuously available, require low effort by teach- hand before speaking, following instructions, working
ers, are flexible to match individual student needs, and quietly, and work completion or accuracy. Within the
are based on assessment procedures. In addition, the positive behavioral support and school psychology
PBIS website recommends that Tier 2 level services literature, CICO has typically been studied with stu-
include one or more of the following: increased prac- dents with externalizing problems broadly (Hawken
tice with self-regulation or social skills, increased et al., 2014; McIntosh et al., 2009). Given the connec-
adult supervision, increased precorrectin, increased tion of CICO to PBIS school wide expectations, target
opportunity for positive reinforcement, and increased behaviors in some studies are broad, such as be safe,
focus on the possible function of the behavior prob- be respectful, be responsible (Eklund et al., 2019),
lem. In contrast, Tier 3 level interventions are more whereas others are more specific to the student (e.g.,
individualized and intensive than Tier 2, are often blurting out, talking back, out of seat, threatening
implemented by multidiscinplinary teams, developed gestures, not following teacher directions, throwing
based on a comprehensive understanding of the stu- objects; Dart et al., 2015). An expert panel claimed
dent’s history, and often involve wrap-around services that CICO can be especially helpful in targeting
(OSEP Technical Assistance Center on PBIS, 2020). “attention-maintained behavior and performance defi-
Although the DRC was developed within the clini- cits” (Filter et al., 2022, p. 8). Determining an appro-
cal psychology literature and may be thought of by priate Tier 2 intervention for a student should ulti-
some as a Tier 3 level of service, we argue that both mately be informed by the ability of the intervention
the CICO and DRC can be implemented in a man- to disrupt the factors that are maintaining problematic
ner consistent with Tier 2 levels of support. Namely, behaviors, rather than prescribing interventions based
they both build directly from Tier 1 classroom man- on descriptive or diagnostic categories. Thus, despite
agement strategies (e.g., praise, use of rules, and the siloed literatures, DRC and CICO have been stud-
feedback about the rules) and focus on increasing ied with students with similar disruptive behaviors
precorrection (e.g., goal review at the start of the or and are broadly applicable to students with or at risk
period), practice with self-regulation or social skills, for problems in attention, hyperactivity/impulsivity,
and opportunities for positive reinforcement. Both noncompliance, and conduct problems.

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

In addition to externalizing difficulties, research- of points to earn (e.g., 80% of points across all peri-
ers have advocated for the use and adaptation of both ods; Hawken et al., 2015, 2020). However, in a review
CICO and the DRC for addressing student internal- of adaptations to the CICO protocol, it was reported
izing difficulties (e.g., anxiety, depression). Inter- that about 30% of reviewed studies made alterations
nalizing difficulties may be less readily detected, to the goals to individualize them to student need,
particularly in the classroom setting, yet pose risk such as modifying the percentage of points for the
for difficulties engaging in academic tasks, learning goal or adding a social skill goal (Majeika et al.,
problems, peer challenges, and academic impairment 2020). Thus, the goals on the CICO card are often
(e.g., Jones et al., 2019). Despite the need to address similar across students but can be individualized.
these concerns, less guidance is available for address- In contrast to the Daily Progress Report, goals
ing internalizing concerns in school settings com- on a DRC have been individualized to the student’s
pared to externalizing concerns (Weist et al., 2018). areas of impairment (Pyle & Fabiano, 2017) rather
For the DRC, recommendations for its use with than based on school-wide expectations. DRC goals
internalizing concerns include combining the DRC are often specific to (1) the child’s unique chal-
with other behavioral intervention strategies, such as lenges (e.g., completes at least 3 steps in a morning
a fear hierarchy and exposures, and creation of spe- routine); (2) a time of day (e.g., keeps hands to self
cific goals related to approach behaviors and use of during transitions with 4 or fewer mistakes), or (3)
coping strategies (see Conroy et al., 2022). Likewise, academic productivity (e.g., completes 50% of math
in recent years, several studies utilizing single-case work). In some cases, DRC goals are tracked as fre-
designs have demonstrated the preliminary effective- quency counts (e.g., number of interruptions) or per-
ness of CICO for internalizing problems (e.g., Kladis cent of work completed (e.g., Fabiano et al., 2010;
et al., 2023). Owens et al., 2012). It is recommended that teachers
In summary, CICO and DRC are relatively aligned gather baseline data for 3 to 5 days before starting the
in their purpose, hypothesized mechanisms of action, intervention to inform the initial goal criteria, which
targeted behaviors, and core procedures, and both should be set at a level that ensures student success
have been studied and used as a Tier 2 level of ser- more days than not (Owens et al., 2012; Vujnovic
vice. However, nuanced differences between CICO et al., 2014). As students achieve their goal, the cri-
and DRC may be present in the specificity of target terion for success is adjusted to a higher standard
behaviors and goals, the nature of feedback provided, to gradually shape student behavior into the typical
and implementation personnel and resources. It is range. However, there is variability across DRC stud-
worth discussing these nuances because they offer ies, with some using a 3-point rating for each target
insights for improving the utility of each intervention (similar to CICO) and some using specific counts or
and serve to stimulate ideas for future research. percentages (e.g., Jurbergs et al., 2010; Holdaway
et al., 2020).

Differences Nature of Feedback

Specificity of Target Behavior and Goals Given the differential specificity of the goals, the
nature of feedback provided to students may also dif-
Consistent with the CICO manual (Crone et al., fer. With CICO, emphasis is placed on teachers pro-
2010), the behavior contract (i.e., referred to as the viding positive and corrective feedback during transi-
Daily Progress Report) outlines school- or classroom- tion periods, such as at the end of lessons or end of
wide behavioral expectations that are often consist- the school day (Filter et al., 2022). However, in some
ent across all students (e.g., Be safe, be respectful, be publications, it is recommended that teachers provide
responsible). These behaviors are typically rated on a feedback more than once per hour (Hawken et al.,
3-point scale (e.g., 0 = Try again, 1 = OK, 2 = Great!) 2020). In contrast, when implementing a DRC, teach-
representing the degree to which the student followed ers are encouraged to provide performance feedback
the expectation. During the morning check-in, the throughout the day when each instance of the target
mentor and student set a daily goal for the percentage behavior occurs (i.e., at the point of performance),

Vol:. (1234567890)
Educ. Treat. Child.

including both labeled praise for working toward their for the CICO intervention or benchmarks for progress
goal (“Thank you for waiting to be called on before monitoring, yet implementation experts estimate that
speaking”) and corrective feedback for the undesira- CICO should be implemented for 6 weeks per student
ble behavior (“Oops! That’s an interruption. I’ll make (Hawken et al., 2015).
a mark on your card”). This recommendation likely With the DRC intervention, the classroom teacher
emerged as a result of the DRC being studied primar- is typically responsible for all aspects of implementa-
ily with students with ADHD (Fabiano et al., 2010; tion, including the morning check-in, providing feed-
Owens et al., 2012) because students with ADHD back throughout the day, reviewing the DRC at the
benefit from specificity and immediacy of feedback end of the day, and ensuring communication with car-
given challenges with self-evaluation and regulation egivers. A consultant (e.g., school counselor, school
(Sagvolden et al., 1998; Neef et al., 2013). In addi- psychologist) may be available to assist with the ini-
tion to providing praise for desired behavior; creating tial development of the intervention, implementation
a goal that limits the amount of disruptive behavior supports, and to assist with communication with car-
(with contingent reinforcement for doing so) is also egivers (see Owens et al., 2020a). An economic eval-
important for shaping behavior of children who strug- uation of different models of DRC implementation
gle with self-regulation (Rosen et al., 1984). In addi- (i.e., with face-to-face implementation supports ver-
tion, teachers are encouraged to check-in with the sus online implementation support) tracked consult-
student and offer encouragement about performance ant and teacher time spent in DRC development and
on goals during transition times and at the end of the implementation tasks. In the face-to-face consultation
day. Thus, the DRC may result in more targeted feed- models, teachers spent 3 h in the initial workshop to
back to the student relative to CICO, in part due to learn about the DRC, followed by a 1-h target behav-
the targeted behaviors for which the DRC was origi- ior identification and analysis interview, and a 1-h
nally developed. DRC development meeting (i.e., including reviewing
baseline data, finalizing the DRC, and launching the
Personnel and Resources intervention with the student). Once the intervention
was launched, the intervention implementation and
The typical models of implementation for CICO data tracking required about 15 min per week and
and the DRC differ with regard to school personnel meeting with the consultant required about 5 min per
involved, the time requirements for personnel, and the week for 8 weeks. These times were cut in half when
associated costs and resources for implementation. using an interactive guided online platform (Owens
The prototypical implementation model of the CICO et al., 2020a). With regard to benchmarks for suc-
intervention includes an identified CICO coordina- cess, evidence suggests that for elementary school
tor (e.g., school counselor) who oversees the school’s students, large changes in student behavior can occur
CICO program (Hawken et al., 2020). This coordina- within 1 month of implementation, with incremen-
tor is responsible for checking students in and out (or tal small gains continuing into the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
assigning mentors to do this), awarding points, pro- months (Holdaway et al., 2020; Owens et al., 2012).
viding reinforcement, and coordinating home–school At first glance, CICO may require greater weekly
communication (Hawken et al., 2020). The classroom time of the CICO coordinator than that required by
teacher(s) is involved by providing ratings through- DRC consultant (if one is used), and similar time
out the day and feedback to the student at the end of commitments may be expected from teachers. How-
lessons, with an estimated daily time commitment ever, if a school psychologist or PBIS team is support-
of 5–10 min each day (25–50 min/week; Schaper, ing all teachers with a DRC, the personnel resources
2023). A district-level coach may facilitate scaling- required to support the Tier 2 interventions is likely
up the intervention across the district (Hawken et al., similar. The use of an online component to support
2015). The CICO manual estimates the CICO coor- teachers’ use and tracking of the DRC can reduce
dinator should spend 10–15 h per week on CICO- the time burden for consultants and teachers (Owens
related duties, which would support 15–20 students et al., 2020c; DRCO; Mixon et al., 2019). The time-
in elementary or 20–30 students in secondary settings and economic-savings of the CICO online data track-
(Crone et al., 2010). There is no definitive timeline ing system (CICO-SWIS; May et al., 2003) have not

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

been investigated. Further, there are research-based methodological rigor and contributed strong evidence
benchmarks for the magnitude of behavior change without reservations based on WWC standards; (2)
that can be expected over time given the resources eight SCDs contributed to the evidence with reserva-
needed for implementation and progress monitoring tions; and (3) no group-based studies contributed any
(Holdaway et al., 2020; Owens et al., 2012), whereas evidence for CICO (Maggin et al., 2015). In contrast
such benchmarks are not available for CICO, leaving to these reviews describing mixed evidence, Wolfe
their differences in resource inputs per student over et al. (2016) used alternative methodological inclu-
time unclear. sion criteria (i.e., Horner et al., 2005) and concluded
In summary, at their core, CICO and the DRC that 16 studies (15 SCDs) supported CICO as an evi-
are similar interventions, with similar goals, based dence-based practice for addressing attention-main-
on similar theoretical underpinnings. There may be tained behavior. Finally, in their review of five stud-
nuanced differences (e.g., goal specificity, personnel ies (4 SCDs), Mitchell et al. (2017) also concluded
and resources involved) that are perhaps more salient that CICO was an evidence-based practice based on
in their written manuals and recommendations than the 2014 Council for Exceptional Children Standards,
in actual practice, as modifications of both interven- given that there was a proportionately greater number
tions in practice may be common. Given the simi- of studies with positive effects than those with neutral
larities and differences of the interventions, as well or mixed effects.
as their siloed existence across bodies of literature, In an attempt to clarify the level of evidence for
it is important to consider the effectiveness of each CICO, Drevon et al. (2019) pooled the effects from
intervention. 32 (31 SCDs) of the articles in the aforementioned
systematic reviews and concluded that 43% of stud-
ies met WWC Standards Without Reservations, 19%
Evidence of Effectiveness met With Reservations, and 38% did not meet the
standards. CICO had a large effect on behavioral out-
CICO comes (g = 1.22), with no significant moderation by
grade level (i.e., secondary vs. elementary). In Park
In 2014, it was reported that CICO was being used and Blair’s (2020) meta-analysis of group design
in over 3,000 schools, yet no review had systemati- studies, just one of the six included studies met WWC
cally examined the effectiveness of the intervention Standards Without Reservations (i.e., Simonsen et al.,
(Hawken et al., 2014). Since then, five systematic 2011), and the remaining five studies did not meet
reviews (Hawken et al., 2014; Klingbeil et al., 2019; the criteria. Across the 146 students included in the
Maggin et al., 2015; Mitchell et al., 2017; Wolfe meta-analysis, there was a moderate effect of CICO
et al., 2016) and two meta-analyses (Drevon et al., (g = 0.42), with a significant moderation effect such
2019; Park & Blair, 2020) on CICO have been con- that outcomes were significantly stronger (g = 0.70)
ducted. Klingbeil et al.’s (2019) review will not be for elementary school students relative to mid-
discussed here given its exclusive focus on modified dle school students (g = 0.27). Thus, meta-analytic
versions of CICO. The remaining four systematic studies demonstrate moderate to large effects of the
reviews varied in their criteria for evaluating meth- CICO, that may be moderated by grade level, from
odological rigor and reached different conclusions. In studies of variable quality.
the earliest review, Hawken et al. (2014) established
their own methodological inclusion criteria, resulting DRC
in 28 included studies (eight group designs, 20 sin-
gle-case designs; SCDs). They concluded that group At least three reviews (Barth, 1979; Chafouleas et al.,
design studies supported small to large effects of 2002; Riden et al., 2018) and three meta-analyses
CICO whereas SCDs supported “questionable” effec- (Iznardo et al., 2017; Pyle & Fabiano, 2017; Vannest
tiveness (Hawken et al., 2014). Maggin et al. (2015) et al., 2010) summarize the group design and SCD
implemented more stringent methodological inclu- studies for the DRC. In its earliest review, 24 studies
sion criteria following What Works Clearinghouse supported the effectiveness of the home-based rein-
(WWC) standards. They found that (1) no studies met forcement of school behavior system (Barth, 1979),

Vol:. (1234567890)
Educ. Treat. Child.

although it is unclear if the interventions across the violations. The authors did not implement stringent
studies were consistent with current models and defi- methodological quality coding or inclusion criteria.
nitions of the DRC. An updated review by Chafouleas Across studies, the average Hedge’s g ES was 0.59,
et al. (2002) concluded “widespread endorsement [of with stronger effects found for studies using direct
the DRC] cannot be made without caution” (p. 166) observation of outcomes. The authors concluded that
given limited research, serving as a call for additional the DRC is an effective intervention for youth with
research in applied settings. Between 2007 and 2017, externalizing difficulties (Iznardo et al., 2017).
Riden et al. (2018) identified 11 such studies (3 SCD) In summary, the evidence for both interventions
examining the effects of DRCs in academic settings. is relatively strong, showing via both single-case
They concluded that the DRC was associated with design studies and randomized control trials that
small to moderate impact for students with a variety these interventions produce moderate to large change
of academic and behavioral concerns (Riden et al., in observed disruptive, on-task, and classroom rule
2018). None of these reviews implemented stringent following behaviors, and teacher-rated symptoms
methodological review criteria. and functioning. Change in academic outcomes is
Meta-analyses of SCD studies have generally sup- mixed, but promising. Such changes have been found
ported positive effects of the DRC. Vannest et al. across elementary and secondary school students for
(2010) conducted the first meta-analysis of SCD both interventions, with mixed evidence regarding
studies examining the effectiveness of the DRC the equivalence of CICO across grade levels (Drevon
for children with a variety of presenting problems. et al., 2019; Park & Blair, 2020) whereas the DRC
They identified 17 studies and evaluated the meth- has been found to be equally efficacious across grade
odological rigor using criteria recommended by level (Pyle & Fabiano, 2017; Vannest et al., 2010).
Horner et al., (2005), classifying 5 studies as having Although replication is required, the DRC has evi-
“strong” to “very strong” methodological rigor. The dence for facilitating student progress toward goals
meta-analysis revealed an improvement rate differ- on student’s Individual Education Plan (Fabiano
ence (IRD) effect size of 0.61. Intervention effects et al., 2010). In addition, the methodological rigor
were not moderated by grade level (i.e., secondary vs. varied greatly across studies, which can further exac-
elementary) or target type, but effects were moder- erbate the challenges faced when making an informed
ated by the degree of home–school collaboration and decision about what constitutes an “evidence-based”
daily time using the DRC (i.e., 1 h vs. > 1 h daily). intervention. To facilitate such decision making, we
Pyle and Fabiano (2017) focused their meta-analysis leveraged this brief review and literature synthesis
on SCD studies that used the DRC as a stand-alone to offer guidelines to help educators and researchers
intervention for children with ADHD. Fourteen make decisions about when to use each intervention.
studies contributed to large and consistent IRD ESs
(ranging from 0.59 to 1.00; with one exception).
Student age (ages 4–14) and gender and the degree Considerations and Guidelines
of home–school communication did not moderate
outcomes. The authors coded the methodological A primary lesson from our brief review is that both
rigor of the 14 studies for adherence to WWC stand- interventions have evidence of effectiveness, and we
ards, treatment integrity, and observer awareness of argue that there are more similarities than differences
treatment condition. Stronger outcomes were found between these two interventions. Indeed, some of the
among studies with higher methodological rigor com- perceived differences between the two interventions
pared to those with lower rigor. These findings high- may be more a function of the siloed disciplines in
light the potential undesirable impact of combining which they were developed and semantic in nature
higher and lower quality studies when summarizing rather than reflecting actual differences in the inter-
the effectiveness literature. ventions. Thus, both interventions have sufficient
In the only group design meta-analysis of the DRC, support to be recommended as front-line interven-
Iznardo et al. (2017) identified seven group studies of tions for students demonstrating challenging class-
the DRC for children with ADHD, focusing specifi- room behavior that are not otherwise addressed with
cally on the outcomes of on/off task behavior and rule Tier 1 level supports. We note that studies evaluating

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

the DRC started in the 1970s well before the PBIS proceeding to more intensive Tier 3 level services.
framework moved into conventional practice. Thus, However, additional research is needed to evaluate
historically the DRC has typically not been charac- the utility of this conceptualization.
terized as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention and has not Given the similarities across these interventions,
been acknowledged much within the PBIS frame- the decisions about when to use CICO and/or DRC
work. Given the definitions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 may be guided by school-, student- and teacher-level
interventions (Center on PBIS, 2023), we argue that factors that can guide decision making. We discuss
both DRC and CICO can be used at both Tiers. For some guidance related to these decisions below;
example, both CICO and DRC can be effective when however, the current siloed nature of the disciplines
applied in the general education classrooms (e.g., from which these interventions were derived inhibits
Holdaway et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2015; Owens our understanding of what conditions may be better
et al., 2012; Simonsen et al., 2011; Williams et al., suited for each intervention, or for combining them.
2012) and when employed with students receiving Thus, we conclude by highlighting future research
special education services in integrated and self- efforts that may illuminate decision criteria for inter-
contained classrooms (Fabiano et al., 2010; Hawken vention selection among educators.
& Horner, 2003). Once developed and launched, both
require low effort by teachers, are flexible and assess- School‑, Student‑, and Teacher‑Level Factors
ment-based, and allow for increased opportunity for
positive feedback. In addition, following behavio- Several considerations can guide educators’ deci-
ral principles, both can be intensified (e.g., feedback sions about when to use CICO and/or DRC. First, at
and/or rewards could be provided at more frequent the school level, if educators have developed school-
intervals) and/or provided alongside a more inten- wide expectations for appropriate behavior and they
sive package of Tier 3 supports for students who need consistently apply these expectations (i.e., frequently
more individualized and intensive supports than that review, practice, and reinforce them), then they are
provided at the Tier 2 level. PBIS teams can integrate likely in a good position to build from this founda-
either intervention into their already available systems tion and use CICO as a primary Tier 2 intervention.
for identifying students who are candidates for Tier 2 Likewise, if there are sufficient resources to identify a
interventions. Both provide methods of assessing stu- CICO coordinator and multiple personnel are availa-
dent improvement (increased points earned for CICO ble to serve as CICO mentors, using CICO may allow
and decrease in instance of challenging behavior or school personnel to reach many students in need. In
increase in positive behavior for DRC), which a PBIS contrast, in some schools there is a lack of emphasis
team can utilize for data-based decision making. on school-wide expectations, application of Tier 1
Further, with clear similarities and limited differ- behavioral support is inconsistent or still in develop-
ences, these two interventions have the potential to ment (Pas & Bradshaw, 2012), and /or there is a lack
be combined within a continuum of service. Within of resources for a coordinator position. Given that
tiers, interventions and supports can be intensi- these conditions may compromise the effectiveness of
fied. For example, there is an opportunity to begin CICO, teachers and students in such settings may be
Tier 2 services with a CICO Daily Progress Report best served via the use of DRCs as the primary Tier 2
that includes general school behavior expectations intervention.
as the target behaviors (e.g., be safe, be respectful, Second, student characteristics may influence the
be responsible). If the student’s behavior does not decision of whether to use CICO or DRC. Namely,
improve within an acceptable time period on a par- given that the DRC was designed for and studied
ticular goal (e.g., be respectful), educators could shift primarily with students demonstrating hyperactive,
from a general rating (e.g., 0 = Try again, 1 = OK, impulsive and/or inattentive behaviors that affect
2 = Great!) to a more specific goal that limits the classroom performance, if these are the primary con-
number of disruptive behaviors (Respects peers with cerns, then a teachers can have confidence that a DRC
5 of fewer instances of teasing) that more closely rep- is well matched to these student characteristics. How-
resents a DRC. This type of intervention modifica- ever, given that diagnoses are not a primary driver
tion could occur within Tier 2 level of service, before within education (e.g., relative to within mental

Vol:. (1234567890)
Educ. Treat. Child.

health fields) and that many problems can manifest mentors for CICO (Sanchez et al., 2015); however,
as hyperactivity/impulsivity and/or inattention, if the there are peer relationship and confidentiality issues
previously described school conditions are present, that need to be considered. The strengths and weak-
then a CICO Daily Progress Report is likely to be a nesses of the classroom teacher and the number of
reasonable first line Tier 2 intervention. As with any students in need of Tier 2 interventions need to be
Tier 2 intervention, educators should use progress considered when selecting an intervention.
monitoring data to guide subsequent response-to- In summary, school, child, and teacher character-
intervention and modification decisions, such as fur- istics should all be considered when selecting among
ther individualization of goals or provision of more available interventions. If schools have established
frequent and specific behavior feedback as in a DRC. school-wide expectations, are implementing them
Regarding student age or gender, special versus gen- with consistency, and have resources to serve as
eral education classroom setting, internalizing prob- CICO mentors, then CICO is a valuable option to
lems, or opportunities for home–school communica- provide effective Tier 2 support. In addition, within
tion, the literature is currently too limited to inform this context, DRCs could also be used for students
strong recommendations regarding how such charac- who need greater specificity related to target behav-
teristics may affect the effectiveness of either CICO iors and/or feedback at the point of performance,
or the DRC for a specific child. especially among classrooms whose teacher pos-
Third, teacher characteristics may guide the deci- sesses strong behavior management knowledge and
sion of whether to use CICO and/or DRC. For exam- skills at baseline. However, much more research is
ple, teachers who exhibit strong classroom manage- needed to identify the characteristics of the child,
ment skills and data-based decision making, are classroom, and school that influence the effectiveness
confident they can implement a DRC, and appreciate of these interventions and how they can be addressed.
autonomy may be excellent candidates for imple- Further, we acknowledge that both interventions are
menting a DRC (Mixon et al., 2019; Owens et al., flexible and can be modified to include individualized
2017; Owens et al., 2020a). In contrast, research goals and feedback systems, reducing the differences
has demonstrated that teachers low in knowledge of between the two interventions. Although it may be
behavioral principles and who have limited behavior beneficial for schools to be prepared with both inter-
management skills may struggle to adopt and imple- ventions to match student needs, it may not be feasi-
ment the DRC with high effectiveness (Owens et al., ble to support the training and personnel required for
2020a). Teachers possessing such characteristics may both interventions. However, for both interventions,
be better suited to implement CICO in their class- there are publicly available resources and materials
rooms with the support of a CICO coordinator and for training and use1 that may help facilitate personnel
well-defined school-wide expectations. However, the familiarity and preparedness in either intervention.
support of a behavioral consultant, if available, may
help such teachers excel in their implementation of a
DRC (DeFouw et al., 2024). Future Research
Finally, given the rising prevalence of disorders
that manifest as disruptive behaviors in the class- This commentary sheds light on the additional
room, it may be that some classrooms have high rates research that is needed to better facilitate interven-
of challenging behaviors, even with consistent imple- tion decision making among educators. Although
mentation of best practice Tier 1 strategies. In such both interventions are widely recommended and
cases, CICO may be a preferred intervention over widely used, the number of group studies that meet
DRC given that several students may have similar
behaviors targeted on the CICO (i.e., general class-
wide expectations), with more individualization of
1
target behavior for students who do not respond. For CICO, see [Link] for books and vid-
In situations with high demand for interven- eos and many state education websites for PBIS resources. For
DRC, see Volpe and Fabiano (2013); www.​oucirs.​org/​daily-​
tions aimed at reducing disruptive behavior, educa- report-​card-​previ​ew, and [Link]
tors could also consider employing students as peer index.​html.

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

the highest level of rigor (i.e., What Works Clear- a limit or goal is set on the number of undesirable
inghouse Criteria without Reservations) is strikingly behaviors the student can exhibit (e.g., respects others
limited. We are aware of only one group design study with three or fewer mistakes versus respects others),
for CICO and two group design studies for DRC. the timing of feedback given to the student (e.g., end
Although each intervention has several rigorous sin- of the day or period or at the point of performance),
gle-case design studies documenting the impact of the fidelity or consistency of feedback given, and type
the intervention, these studies by the nature of small of rewards given (e.g., home-based, school-based,
samples, are limited with regard to generalizability none, functionally equivalent). The relative predictive
and informing what works for whom and under what utility of these components could highlight the most
conditions (i.e., examination of moderating student important mechanisms of change and the topics and
characteristics or contextual factors). Thus, studies skills to focus on in training and fidelity monitoring.
that directly compare the effectiveness of each inter- Future research should also explore strategies for
vention and include an evaluation of the potential enhancing the cultural sensitivity of these interven-
moderating effects (e.g., school climate, child and tions for use with children of diverse cultural back-
family cultural background, complexity of the child’s grounds. On one hand, high specificity and objectiv-
problems, family supports, teacher characteristics) ity in the definition of the target behaviors and in the
would provide important information that could help tracking of behavioral frequencies may reduce the
practitioners know when and with whom to provide impact of teacher bias on perceptions of disruptive
one intervention over the other, or perhaps when to student behavior (Kunesh & Noltemeyer, 2019). Yet,
combine the interventions along a continuum of ser- there is much to be learned about specific ways teach-
vice. If there are no differences in outcome between ers could modify the goals and/or feedback to match
the two interventions, then decisions about which student characteristics (e.g., language, cultural cus-
intervention to use is less of a concern and the choice toms; Sugai et al., 2012).
can be guided by contextual factors, school resources, Finally, it will be prudent to determine the train-
and teacher preference. ing required for each and how training protocols
Within such a comparative study, additional ques- contribute to the cost-effectiveness of these inter-
tions could be assessed such as: Is one intervention ventions. Current recommendations reflect greater
more effective than the other in changing student time resources required for the CICO relative to the
behavior or academic performance? What is the rela- DRC, but the lack of comparative studies leaves the
tive acceptability and feasibly of each intervention? questions regarding relative cost-effectiveness of the
Is one intervention associated with stronger imple- interventions unanswered. Further, the relative cost-
mentation fidelity? The answers to such questions effectiveness of either intervention may be enhanced
could also inform intervention decisions. Likewise, a through additional research and development. There
SMART design comparing the relative sequencing of is emerging research documenting both the poten-
the two interventions could also indicate if it is better tial cost-effectiveness of technology-driven supports
for educators to start with one intervention first and/ for some teachers as well as the cost-effectiveness
or if there is incremental benefit of the other if the of consultation individualized to teacher needs when
first is insufficient. However, deciding what elements there are barriers to implementation (e.g., Owens
are included in a DRC versus CICO would need to be et al., 2020c; Owens et al., 2019).
highly specified to highlight their differences.
Another approach that could yield critically impor-
tant information is to disregard the names of the inter- Conclusions
ventions and focus the analyses on testing the extent
to which various components purported to be mecha- This commentary integrates information from two
nisms of change predict intervention outcome. Criti- literatures that have historically been siloed, mak-
cal components include the strength of the student- ing it difficult for educators and researchers to
mentor or student–teacher relationship, the type of understand the similarities and differences between
feedback given to the student (i.e., rated on a 3-point CICO and DRC interventions, and offers informa-
scale versus frequency counts of behavior); whether tion to make informed decisions about when to use

Vol:. (1234567890)
Educ. Treat. Child.

each intervention. Our synthesis reveals that both related to individualization, response to intervention,
interventions have evidence of effectiveness and and intervention modification.
that both can be used as front-line interventions for
Tier 2 or Tier 3 levels of service. In addition, this Funding While writing the commentary, the first author was
funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
integration across CICO and DRC literature bases of Education, through Grants R350A210224, R305A200423,
reveals that there are more similarities than differ- R324A190154 to Ohio University. The opinions expressed
ences between the core components and procedures are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S.
of the interventions, particularly given that both are Department of Education.
highly flexible; that is, both can be individualized Declarations
to specific student needs while maintaining the core
mechanisms of change. Thus, if schools are apply- Disclosure The first author and her team are developers of the
ing school-wide expectations with consistency and www.​daily​repor​tcard​online.​com. None of the authors receive
have the resources for a CICO coordinator and financial benefit from this site.
mentors, then CICO is a viable and recommended
option for many students. In the absence of such Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Human subjects
coordinated resources, educators should consider were not involved in this research, thus informed consent proce-
dures were not needed.
using a DRC for students with behavioral challenges
who need support beyond Tier 1. As an alternative, Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest
it may be prudent to combine these interventions to declare.
along a continuum of service.
We argue that additional research is needed in Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
three areas. The first is a large scale, group design use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
study that directly compare the effectiveness of each medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
intervention and includes an evaluation of the mod- original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
erating school, child, and teacher-level factors that tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
images or other third party material in this article are included
would help practitioners know when and with whom in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
to provide one intervention over the other. The sec- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
ond is to disregard the names of the interventions included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
and focus the analyses on testing the extent to which intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
various components purported to be mechanisms of from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
change predict intervention outcome. Indeed, given [Link]
the importance of having systematic school wide
procedures for assessing the need for and delivering
multitiered supports to students, this latter option References
has appeal. We argue that we should be less tied to
the nuanced differences of the interventions and Ayllon, T., Garber, S., & Pisor, K. (1975). The elimination of
more focused on the critical practice components discipline problems through a combined school-home
that best serve students. The third is to examine the motivational system. Behavior Therapy, 6(5), 616–626.
[Link]
time, training, and costs required to help preservice Barth, R. (1979). Home-based reinforcement of school
and in-service professionals to gain competence in behavior: A review and analysis. Review of Educational
those evidence-based practice components. Given Research, 49(3), 436–458. [Link]
that practice needs typically outpace the speed of 54304​90034​36
Blechman, E. A., Taylor, C. J., & Schrader, S. M. (1981). Fam-
scientific discoveries, in the meantime, we encour- ily problem solving versus home notes as early interven-
age educators to (1) apply interventions that align tion with high-risk children. Journal of Consulting &
with the core similarities across these interventions Clinical Psychology, 49(6), 919–926. [Link]
(i.e., strong relationships, goal setting, principles of 1037/​0022-​006X.​49.6.​919
Center on PBIS. (2023). Positive behavioral interventions &
operant conditioning), because these components are supports. [Link]
connected to effectiveness for both interventions; and Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & McDougal, J. L.
(2) use data from the interventions to guide decisions (2002). Good, bad, or in-between: How does the daily

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

behavior report card rate? Psychology in the Schools, Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R.
39(2), 157–169. [Link] H., Todd, A., & Watson, J. (2007). Check in/check out:
Conroy, K., Hong, N., Poznanski, B., Hart, K. C., Ginsburg, A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level
G. S., Fabiano, G. A., & Comer, J. S. (2022). Harnessing targeted intervention for reducing problem behaviors
home-school partnerships and school consultation to sup- in schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 30(1),
port youth with anxiety. Cognitive & Behavioral Practice, 69–84. [Link]
29(2), 381–399. [Link] Girio-Herrera, E., Egan, T. E., Owens, J. S., Evans, S. W.,
Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2010). Respond- Coles, E. K., Holdaway, A. S., Mixon, C. S., & Kassab,
ing to problem behavior in schools: The behavior educa- H. D. (2021). Teacher ratings of acceptability of a daily
tion program (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. report card intervention prior to and during implementa-
Danielson, M. L., Bitsko, R. H., Holbrook, J. R., Charania, S. tion: Relations to implementation integrity and student
N., Claussen, A. H., McKeown, R. E., Cuffe, S. P., Owens, outcomes. School Mental Health, 13, 69–83. [Link]
J. S., Evans, S. W., Kubicek, L., & Flory, K. (2020). Com- org/​10.​1007/​s12310-​020-​09400-y
munity-based prevalence of externalizing and internaliz- Hawken, L. S., Bundock, K., Barrett, C. A., Eber, L., Breen,
ing disorders among school-aged children and adolescents K., & Phillips, D. (2015). Large-scale implementation of
in four geographically dispersed school districts in the check-in, check-out: A descriptive study. Canadian Jour-
United States. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, nal of School Psychology, 30(4), 304–319. [Link]
52, 500–514. [Link] 10.​1177/​08295​73515​601005
Dart, E. H., Furlow, C. M., Collins, T. A., Brewer, E., Gresham, Hawken, L. S., Bundock, K., Kladis, K., O’Keeffe, B., & Bar-
F. M., & Chenier, K. H. (2015). Peer-mediated check-in/ rett, C. A. (2014). Systematic review of the check-in,
check-out for students at-risk for internalizing disorders. check-out intervention for students at risk for emotional
School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 229. and behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Chil-
DeFouw, E. R., Owens, J. S., Margherio, S. M., & Evans, S. dren, 37(4), 635–658. [Link]
(2024). Supporting Teachers’ Use of Classroom Manage- 0030
ment Strategies via Different School-Based Consulta- Hawken, L. S., Crone, D. A., Bundock, K., & Horner, R. H.
tion Models: Which Is More Cost-Effective for Whom?. (2020). Responding to problem behavior in schools. Guil-
School Psychology Review, 53(2), 151–166. ford Press.
Dougherty, E. H., & Dougherty, A. (1977). The daily report Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a tar-
card: A simplified and flexible package for classroom geted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior
behavior management. Psychology in the Schools, 14(2), support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 225–240.
191–195. [Link] [Link]
14:2%​3c191::​AID-​PITS2​31014​0213%​3e3.0.​CO;2-J Holdaway, A. S., Hustus, C., Owens, J. S., Evans, S. W., Coles,
Drevon, D. D., Hixson, M. D., Wyse, R. D., & Rigney, A. M. E. K., Egan, T. E., Himawan, L., Zoromski, A., Dawson,
(2019). A meta-analytic review of the evidence for check- A., & Mixon, C. S. (2020). Incremental benefits of a daily
in check-out. Psychology in the Schools, 56(3), 393–412. report card over time for youth with disruptive behavior:
[Link] Replication and extension. School Mental Health, 12,
Eklund, K., Kilgus, S. P., Taylor, C., Allen, A., Meyer, L., 507–522. [Link]
Izumi, J., ... & Kilpatrick, K. (2019). Efficacy of a com- Horner, R. H., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., &
bined approach to Tier 2 social-emotional and behavio- Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to
ral intervention and the moderating effects of function. identify evidence-based practice in special education.
School Mental Health, 11, 678-691. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. [Link]
Fabiano, G. A., Vujnovic, R. K., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, 1177/​00144​02905​07100​203
D. A., Massetti, G. M., Pariseau, M. E., Naylor, J., Jih- Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Exam-
nhee, Yu., Yu, J., Robins, M., Carnefix, T., Greiner, A. ining the evidence base for school wide positive behav-
R., & Volker, M. (2010). Enhancing the effectiveness of ior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1–14.
special education programming for children with attention [Link]
deficit hyperactivity disorder using a daily report card. Iznardo, M., Rogers, M. A., Volpe, R. J., Labelle, P. R., &
School Psychology Review, 39(2), 219–239. [Link] Robaey, P. (2017). The effectiveness of daily behavior
org/​10.​1080/​02796​015.​2010.​12087​775 report cards for children with ADHD: A meta-analysis.
Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDon- Journal of Attention Disorders, 24(12), 1623–1636.
ough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research [Link]
and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Edu- Jones, A. M., West, K. B., & Suveg, C. (2019). Anxiety in the
cational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. [Link] school setting: A framework for evidence-based practice.
3102/​00131​89X18​761042 School Mental Health, 11, 4–14. [Link]
Filter, K. J., Ford, A. L., Bullard, S. J., Cook, C. R., Sowle, s12310-​017-​9235-2
C. A., Johnson, L. D., Kloos, E., & Dupuis, D. (2022). Jurbergs, N., Palcic, J. L., & Kelley, M. L. (2010). Daily behav-
Distilling Check-in/check-out into its core practice ele- ior report cards with and without home-based conse-
ments through an expert consensus process. School quences: Improving classroom behavior in low income,
Mental Health, 14, 695–708. [Link] African American children with ADHD. Child & Fam-
s12310-​021-​09495-x ily Behavior Therapy, 32(3), 177–195. [Link]
1080/​07317​107.​2010.​500501

Vol:. (1234567890)
Educ. Treat. Child.

Karhu, A., Närhi, V., & Savolainen, H. (2019). Check in–check Hanley, & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior
out intervention for supporting pupils’ behaviour: Effec- analysis, Vol. 2. Translating principles into practice (pp.
tiveness and feasibility in Finnish schools. European 387–404). American Psychological Association.
Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(1), 136–146. Owens, J. S., Coles, E. K., Evans, S. W., Himawan, L. K.,
Kladis, K., Hawken, L. S., O’Neill, R. E., Fischer, A. J., Fuoco, Girio-Herrera, E., Holdaway, A. S., ... & Schulte, A. C.
K. S., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Kiuhara, S. A. (2023). Effects of (2017). Using multi-component consultation to increase
check-in check-out on engagement of students demonstrat- the integrity with which teachers implement behavioral
ing internalizing behaviors in an elementary school set- classroom interventions: A pilot study. School Mental
ting. Behavioral Disorders, 48(2), 83–96. [Link] Health, 9, 218–234.
10.​1177/​01987​42920​972107 Owens, J. S., Evans, S. W., Coles, E. K., Himawan, L. K.,
Klingbeil, D. A., Dart, E. H., & Schramm, A. L. (2019). A sys- Holdaway, A. S., Mixon, C., & Egan, T. (2020a). Consul-
tematic review of function-modified check-in/check-out. tation for classroom management and targeted interven-
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 77–92. tions: Examining benchmarks for teacher practices that
[Link] produce desired change in student behavior. Journal of
Kunesh, C. E., & Noltemeyer, A. (2019). Understanding dis- Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 28(1), 52–64. [Link]
ciplinary disproportionality: Stereotypes shape pre-ser- doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10634​26618​795440
vice teachers’ beliefs about black boys’ behavior. Urban Owens, J. S., Holdaway, A. S., Zoromski, A. K., Evans, S.
Education, 54(4), 471–498. W., Himawan, L. K., Girio-Herrera, E., & Murphy, C. E.
Lahey, B. B., Gendrich, J. G., Gendrich, S. I., Schnelle, J. F., (2012). Incremental benefits of a daily report card inter-
Gant, D. S., & McNees, M. P. (1977). An evaluation of vention over time for youth with disruptive behavior.
daily report cards with minimal teacher and parent con- Behavior Therapy, 43(4), 848–861. [Link]
tacts as an efficient method of classroom intervention. 1016/j.​beth.​2012.​02.​002
Behavior Modification, 1(3), 381–394. [Link] Owens, J. S., Hustus, C. L., & Evans, S. W. (2020b). The daily
10.​1177/​01454​45577​13006 report card intervention: Summary of the science and fac-
Maggin, D. M., Zurheide, J., Pickett, K. C., & Baillie, S. J. tors affecting implementation. In T. Farmer, M. Conroy,
(2015). A systematic evidence review of the check-in/ B. Farmer, & K. Sutherland (Eds.), Handbook of research
check-out program for reducing student challenging behav- on emotional & behavioral disabilities: Interdisciplinary
iors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(4), developmental perspectives on children and youth (pp.
197–208. [Link] 371–385). Routledge.
Majeika, C. E., Van Camp, A. M., Wehby, J. H., Kern, L., Owens, J. S., Margherio, S. M., Lee, M., Evans, S. W., Crow-
Commisso, C. E., & Gaier, K. (2020). An evaluation of ley, D. M., Coles, E. K., & Mixon, C. S. (2020c). Cost-
adaptations made to check-in check-out. Journal of Posi- effectiveness of consultation for a daily report card inter-
tive Behavior Interventions, 22(1), 25–37. [Link] vention: Comparing in-person and online implementation
10.​1177/​10983​00719​860131 strategies. Journal of Educational & Psychological Con-
May, S., Ard, W., III, Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Glasgow, A., sultation, 31, 382–409. [Link]
Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (2003). School-wide informa- 2020.​17594​28
tion system. Educational and Community Supports, Uni- Owens, J. S., McLennan, J. D., Hustus, C. L., Haines-Saah, R.,
versity of Oregon. [Link] Mitchell, S., Mixon, C. S., & Troutman, A. (2019). Lev-
McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Rossetto eraging technology to facilitate teachers’ use of a targeted
Dickey, C. (2009). Differential effects of a tier two behav- classroom intervention: Evaluation of the Daily Report
ior intervention based on function of problem behavior. Card. Online (DRC.O) System. School Mental Health, 11,
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 82–93. 665–677.
://[Link]./[Link] Park, E. Y., & Blair, K. S. C. (2020). Check-in/check-out imple-
Miller, L. M., Dufrene, B. A., Olmi, D. J., Tingstrom, D., & mentation in schools: A meta-analysis of group design
Filce, H. (2015). Self-monitoring as a viable fading option studies. Education & Treatment of Children, 43, 361–375.
in check-in/check-out. Journal of School Psychology, [Link]
53(2), 121–135. [Link] Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2012). Examining the asso-
Mitchell, B. S., Adamson, R., & McKenna, J. W. (2017). Curb- ciation between implementation and outcomes: State-
ing our enthusiasm: An analysis of the check-in/check-out wide scale-up of school-wide Positive Behavior Inter-
literature using the Council for Exceptional Children’s vention and Supports. Journal of Behavioral Health
evidence-based practice standards. Behavior Modifica- Services & Research, 39, 417–433. [Link]
tion, 41(3), 343–367. [Link] 1007/​s11414-​012-​9290-2
675273 Pyle, K., & Fabiano, G. A. (2017). Daily report card interven-
Mixon, C. S., Owens, J. S., Hustus, C., Serrano, V. J., & Holda- tion and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-
way, A. S. (2019). Evaluating the impact of online profes- analysis of single-case studies. Exceptional Children,
sional development on teachers’ use of a targeted behavio- 83(4), 378–395. [Link]
ral classroom intervention. School Mental Health, 11(1), 706370
115–128. [Link] Riden, B. S., Taylor, J. C., Lee, D. L., & Scheeler, M. C.
Neef, N. A., Perrin, C. J., & Madden, G. J. (2013). Understand- (2018). A synthesis of the daily behavior report card lit-
ing and treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. erature from 2007 to 2017. Journal of Special Education
In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P.

Vol.: (0123456789)
 Educ. Treat. Child.

Apprenticeship, 7(1). [Link] Volpe, R. J., & Fabiano, G. A. (2013). Daily behavior report
josea/​vol7/​iss1/3/ cards: An evidence-based system of assessment and inter-
Rosen, L. A., O’Leary, S. G., Joyce, S. A., Conway, G., & vention. Guilford Press.
Pfiffner, L. J. (1984). The importance of prudent negative Vujnovic, R., K., Holdaway, A. S., Owens, J. S., & Fabiano, G. A.
consequences for maintaining the appropriate behavior of (2014). Response to Intervention for youth with attention-
hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol- deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Incorporating an evidence-
ogy, 12, 581–604. [Link] based intervention within a multi-tiered framework. In M. S.
Sagvolden, T., Aase, H., Zeiner, P., & Berger, D. (1998). Weist, N. A. Lever, C. P. Bradshaw, & J. S. Owens (Eds.),
Altered reinforcement mechanisms in attention-deficit/ Handbook of school mental health: Research, training,
hyperactivity disorder. Behavioural Brain Research, practice, and policy (2nd ed.; pp. 399–412). Springer.
94(1), 61–71. [Link] Warberg, A., George, N., Brown, D., Churan, K., & Taylor-
00170-8 Greene, S. (1995). Behavior education plan handbook.
Sanchez, S., Miltenberger, R. G., Kincaid, D., & Blair, K. S. Fern Ridge (Eugene, OR) Middle School.
C. (2015). Evaluating check-in check-out with peer tutors Waschbusch, D. A., Bernstein, M. D., Robb Mazzant, J., Wil-
for children with attention maintained problem behav- loughby, M. T., Haas, S. M., Coles, E. K., & Pelham, W.
iors. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 37(4), 285–302. E., Jr. (2016). A case study examining fixed versus rand-
[Link] omized criteria for treating a child with conduct problems
Schaper, A. (2023). Check-in/check-out (CICO): Intervention and callous-unemotional traits. Evidence-Based Practice
tips and guidance. Panorama Education. [Link] in Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 1(2–3), 73–85.
amaed.​com/​blog/​check-​in-​check-​out-​cico-​inter​venti​on [Link]
Simonsen, B., Myers, D., Briere, D. E., & III. (2011). Com- Weist, M. D., Eber, L., Horner, R., Splett, J., Putnam, R., Bar-
paring a behavioral check-in/check-out (CICO) interven- rett, S., Perales, K., Fairchild, A. J., & Hoover, S. (2018).
tion to standard practice in an urban middle school setting Improving multitiered systems of support for students
using an experimental group design. Journal of Positive with “internalizing” emotional/behavioral problems. Jour-
Behavior Interventions, 13(1), 31–48. [Link] nal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(3), 172–184.
1177/​10983​00709​359026 [Link]
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, Williams, K. L., Noell, G. H., Jones, B. A., & Gansle, K. A.
T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., (2012). Modifying students’ classroom behaviors using
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B., an electronic daily behavior report card. Child & Fam-
& Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support ily Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 269–289. [Link]
and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Jour- 1080/​07317​107.​2012.​732844
nal of Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support, 2(3), Wolfe, K., Pyle, D., Charlton, C. T., Sabey, C. V., Lund, E. M.,
131–143. [Link] & Ross, S. W. (2016). A systematic review of the empiri-
Sugai, G., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Fallon, L. M. (2012). A con- cal support for check-in check-out. Journal of Positive
textual consideration of culture and school-wide positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 74–88. [Link]
behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven- 1177/​10983​00715​595957
tions, 14(4), 197–208.
Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., Davis, C. R., Mason, B. A., &
Burke, M. D. (2010). Effective intervention for behavior
with a daily behavior report card: A meta-analysis. School
Psychology Review, 39, 654–672. [Link]
02796​015.​2010.​12087​748

Vol:. (1234567890)