An empirical definition of elementary school adjustment. Selection of target behaviors for a comprehensive treatment program.

The team watched K-5 students in regular classrooms. They noted how often each kid showed six everyday behaviors. These were things like staying on task and following teacher directions. They wanted to see which behaviors best tell the difference between kids who do well and kids who struggle in school.

The six behaviors clearly split the two groups. Kids labeled well-adjusted scored high on all six. Kids labeled poorly-adjusted scored low. The gap was big enough that any teacher could spot it without fancy math.

Fullana et al. (2007) extends this idea to preschool. They asked three- to five-year-olds which reinforcers they like during work time. The children picked edible treats over stickers or toys, proving that even little kids can tell us what keeps them engaged.

Killeen (1978) and Capehart et al. (1980) built the measuring rules used here. R showed how to know when a behavior is stable, and W showed how long to watch before you trust the data. The 1984 study follows both guides, so its six-item checklist is both quick and reliable.

Hastings et al. (2001) used the same prove-it mindset with a 30-second toy test. Their brief engagement measure predicted which items would work as reinforcers, just as the six school behaviors predict which kids need help.

You now have a six-behavior shopping list for classroom success. Watch any student for a short period and score those items. Low scores flag who needs an intervention before report cards sink. No extra tests, no long checklists—just six plain targets you can train paraprofessionals to track tomorrow.