Measuring Performance within

School Climate Transformation Grants

Rob HornerOSEP TA-Center on PBIS

www.pbis.org

Goal• Define resources for measuring performance within

SCTG grants that may improve efficiency, consistency and effectiveness of evaluation efforts.

• Provide a brief summary of schools using PBIS in the U.S.

Why a Framework for Multi-tiered Behavior Support?• The fundamental purpose of a Multi-tiered

Behavior Framework is to make schools more effective and equitable learning environments.

Predictable

Consistent

Positive

Safe

All the parts

Logic Model

Intervention Strategies/Programs

Implementation Process

Fidelity of Implementation

Student/ Family Outcomes

Multi-tiered

Why the strategies

work

Build Capacity to Scale

and Sustain

Are we doing the

strategy/program

Valued outcomes/ Academic, Behavior,

Social Emotional

Four ways the OSEP TA-Center may be

helpful

• Coordination and Communicationo Webinars and information dissemination

• Intervention Contento Tier Io Tier IIo Tier III

• Measuring Fidelity of Multi-tiered Behavior Support

• Measuring Student Outcomes

Aligning multiple

initiatives begins by defining common

fidelity and outcome measures

Resources

• Grantees are held accountable for what they submitted. • But some consistency across projects may help all evaluation efforts

• Resources that may be helpful:

o Evaluation Blueprint (www.pbis.org)o Evaluation Annual Reports (www.pbis.org)o State and District Capacity Assessments

• www.sisep.orgo Multi-tiered Fidelity Assessment (Tier I, Tier II, Tier III)

• www.pbisapps.orgo Multi-tiered student discipline data systems

• SWIS, CICO-SWIS, ISIS-SWIS• www.swis.org, www.pbisapps.org

Performance Indicators: SEA

• The number of training and technical assistance events provided by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program to assist LEAs in implementing a multi-tiered behavioral framework.

• The number and percentage of LEAs provided training or technical assistance by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program that report an improvement in knowledge and understanding of the implementation of a multi-tiered behavioral framework.

• The number and percentage of schools in LEAs provided training or technical assistance by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program that implement a multi-tiered behavioral framework.

Performance Indicators: LEA• Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease

in office disciplinary referrals.

• Number and percentage of schools that report an annual improvement in the attendance rate.

• Number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions and expulsions, including those related to possession or use of drugs or alcohol.

• Number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing the multi-tiered behavioral framework with fidelity.

Performance Measure

Considerations

• Use a Formal Evaluation Model

• Measure Fidelity at All Three Tiers

• Consider Measuring Improved State/ District Capacity

• Measure student outcomes within a formal “decision system”

Plan

Perform

Measure

CompareSchool-wide

Positive Behavior Support

Context

InputFidelity

Impact

Multi-Tiered

Behavior Support

Evaluation Model: Evaluation Blueprint/

www.pbis.org

SchoolsAre Schools Implementing Multi-tiered Systems of Behavior

Support?

Possible Measures of Multi-Tiered Behavior Support Fidelity

Measures (www.pbis.org)

Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI) Tier III

Individual Student System Evaluation Tool (ISSET)

Benchmark of Advanced Tiers (BAT)

Measure of Advanced Tiers Tool ( MATT)

Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI) Tier II

Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI) Tier I

School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET)

Team Implementation Checklist (TIC)

Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ)

Regardless of the

Intervention approach used,

TA-Center Fidelity measures

are available and

appropriate

Available from OSEP TA-Center www.pbis.org

No Cost

Assessors Training PowerPoint available

Assessors Training Video in development

TFI- Technical Adequacy(McIntosh, Massar et al. 2014)

Content Validity (.95; .93; .91)Usability (12 of 14 > 80%) (15 min per Tier)Inter-rater Agreement (.95; .96; .89)Test-retest reliability (.98; .99; .99)Factor Analysis (in process)

TFI Data Tier I: 2014

DR GL M RB H0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan-14 May-14 Oct-14

DR GL M RB H0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

67%71%

83%

62%54%

73%

88%

77%

46%50%

Tier II Score on TFI

Winter 2013 Spring 2014

DR GL M RB H0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

56%

79%

88%

71%

32%

79%

91%

71%65%

44%

Tier III Score on TFI

Winter 2013 Spring 2014

Tier II

Tier III

Action Planning

State/Region Capacity

Does a state have the capacity to implement multi-tiered systems of behavior support?

Is Technical Assistance improving the capacity of a state/region to implement multi-tiered systems of behavior support?

Possible Measures of SEA/LEA Capacity

www.sisep.org

• State Capacity Assessment (SCA)o Assessment of extent to which state department has capacity to

implement evidence-based practices at scales of social significance?o No Cost, from OSEP’s SISEP TA-Center www.sisep.org;

www.scalingup.orgo Scores: Total, Sub-scale, Itemo Used for initial assessment, action planning, progress monitoring

• District Capacity Assessment (DCA)o Assessment of extent to which a school district (or region) has capacity

to implement evidence-based practices as scales of social significance?o No Cost, from OSEP’s SISEP TA-Centero Scores: Total, Sub-scale, Itemo Used for initial assessment, action planning, progress monitoring

Implementers Training Video

SCA/ DCA Format(Team with Coach/ Assessor)

Item Data Sources Scoring Criteria Score 0 1 2

MinnesotaState

MinnesotaState

MinnesotaState

State SCA Item Analysis: Action Planning

District Capacity

Is Technical Assistance improving the capacity of a district to implement multi-tiered systems of support?

District Capacity

District Capacity Assessment

District Capacity Assessment

District Capacity Assessment: Duda, et al. 2012

District Capacity Assessment

District Capacity Assessment: Duda, et al. 2012

District Capacity Assessment

District Capacity Assessment

Measures of Student Benefit

• Office Discipline Referralso Tier I = SWISo Tier II = CICO-SWISo Tier III = ISIS-SWIS

• School Climateo Under development

• School Safety Surveyo Risk Factor/ Protective Factor

Performance Monitoring Summary

• Consider including measures of MTBSF fidelity at all three tiers.o Many Tier I optionso Several Tier II optionso One new measure that does all three (Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI)

• Consider assessing SEA/ LEA “Capacity to implement evidence-based interventions”o State Capacity Assessmento District Capacity Assessment

• Outcome measureso Office discipline referrals (SWIS, CICO-SWIS, ISIS-SWIS)… latero School Climateo School Safety Survey

Excellent Examples of

State and District

Reports at www.pbis.or

g