school discipline and safety are positive behavioral...

School Discipline and Safety

Are Positive Behavioral InterventionsEffective at Reducing Misbehavior inStudents with Behavioral Disorders?

Contributors: Suzanne E. Eckes & Charles J. Russo & Allan G. Osborne Jr.Print Pub. Date: 2012Online Pub. Date: October 31, 2012Print ISBN: 9781412987561Online ISBN: 9781452218656DOI: 10.4135/9781452218656Print pages: 231-248

This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the paginationof the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

Princeton University

Copyright ©2013 SAGE knowledge

of 21 School Discipline and Safety: Are PositiveBehavioral Interventions Effective at Reducing

Misbehavior in Students with Behavioral Disorders?

10.4135/9781452218656.n14

[p. 231 ↓ ]

Chapter 14: Are Positive BehavioralInterventions Effective at ReducingMisbehavior in Students with BehavioralDisorders?

Overview

Suzanne E. Eckes Sarah B. Burke, IndianaUniversity

The term positive behavior support (PBS) was first formally defined in academicliterature in 1990 (Crimmins & Farrell, 2006). Since then, notions concerning PBS orpositive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) have evolved in ways that haveprofoundly impacted educational policy and school operations (Brown & Michaels,2006). PBIS was included in the reauthorization of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA) in 1997 and is based on the principles of applied behavioranalysis. The PBIS approach focuses on a preventative school discipline model wherebehavioral supports are integrated throughout the school to address both social andacademic behavior. When managing student behavior using PBIS, educators developplans to address behavior both inside and outside the classroom. As such, PBIS shouldbe viewed as a multifaceted support system for students in which educators work withfamilies and others to address an [p. 232 ↓ ] individual student's needs. Generally,PBIS is thought of as having three key components:

http://www.sagepub.com

http://knowledge.sagepub.com





Insofar as a number of the early studies conducted on the effectiveness of PBISstrategies provided convincing endorsements of the support system, the approach waslargely adopted in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA (Crimmins & Farrell, 2006).

Experts agree that the best intervention for students with emotional and behavioraldisorders (EBDs) is prevention. Research shows that the earliest possible interventionsare needed to halt the destructive progression that EBDs can take throughout theelementary and secondary school years of children (Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2004).One model for prevention using a three-tiered approach that initially focuses on allstudents in schools but that becomes more selective and intensive as additionalservices are needed is the PBIS model.

There is much enthusiasm over the use of PBIS for students with EBDs becauseimproving the culture of schools and the behaviors of all children in classrooms canalso bring stability and predictability to the learning environment for students withEBDs. In addition, Lucille Eber, Teri Lewis-Palmer, and Debra Pacchiano (2002)posited that teachers and administrators feel less overwhelmed when the generalbehavior of schools improve, thus giving them more time and energy to commit towardimplementing effective interventions for students with EBDs. In this regard, the pointessay posits that “empirical evidence continues to mount attesting to the effectivenessof PBIS to help school officials reduce misconduct exhibited by students with behaviordisorders.”

In general school populations, the PBIS model has been shown to reduce officereferrals, expulsions, suspensions, and detentions; improve standardized test scores;and reduce the number of playground incidents (see Lechtenberger, Mullins, &Greenwood, 2008). Despite the overwhelming enthusiasm for the PBIS model andits highly touted use for students who receive special education services for EBDs,though, little data actually prove that the PBIS model is effectively reaching studentswith EBDs. This is in part because [p. 233 ↓ ] at the third tier of interventions, wheremost students with EBDs would receive services, each intervention is tailored preciselyto the individual needs of children. With highly individualized interventions such asthese, it is nearly impossible to group children together so that they can be groupedtogether in order to be studied to determine the effectiveness of PBIS as a whole.The counterpoint essay suggests that there is a lack of data demonstrating the impact







of PBIS on students. To this end, the counterpoint essay asserts: “What is missingin the literature is an understanding of what happens to students over time in PBISenvironments. Research is needed to evaluate whether these students have betterlearning outcomes and become better citizens of their communities over time.”

Although there are some questions as to the reliability of the research base supportingindividualized PBIS strategies, many scholars in the field still agree that individualizedPBIS interventions provide the best approach when attempting to modify the behaviorof students with intense or chronic behavior problems (Bambara & Lohrmann, 2006).The early research on individualized PBIS has been criticized for being grounded inrestrictive settings using clinicians rather than practitioners, and less research has beenconducted on what it takes to achieve positive student outcomes in schools lackingaccess to clinicians (Snell, 2006). Although Daniel Crimmins and Anne F. Farrell (2006)recognized that more research needs to be conducted on the use of individualizedPBIS to clear up issues of reliability and validity in the literature, they still argue that theuse of individualized PBIS is critical to the success of students with the most intensebehavioral problems.

In this chapter, Theresa A. Ochoa (Indiana University) argues in the point essaythat PBIS reduces misconduct rates in students with EBDs, citing its effectivenessfor creating safer learning environments. She contends that in addition to reducingmisbehavior, PBIS also promotes adaptive behaviors. In the counterpoint essay, DianaRogers-Adkinson (University of Wisconsin–Whitewater) responds by highlighting someof the limitations and criticisms involved in using the PBIS model. She cautions thatsome of the outcome data are difficult to interpret, that several of the current studieson PBIS include a variety of limitations, and that the cost of implementing this model isoften difficult for school boards.

[p. 234 ↓ ]







Point

Theresa A. Ochoa, Indiana University

Evidence garnered from years of research shows that positive behavioral interventionsand supports (PBIS) reduce misconduct in students with behavior disorders. Empiricalstudies indicate that the positive behavior support approach to discipline is an effectivemethod that school officials can use not only to reduce misbehavior but also topromote adaptive behavior from all students in general and from students with behaviordisorders in particular. According to its advocates, the PBIS model is a proactive andpositive method by which educational officials explicitly tell students the rules they areexpected to follow while teaching them ways of behaving to keep them out of trouble.

The PBIS model is a shift away from punitive and reactive disciplinary measures thathave largely proven ineffective in curbing crime, violence, and student misbehaviorin schools. This essay provides an overview of both the foundations of PBIS and thecomponents of PBIS programs, pointing out the research that shows its effectivenessfor creating safer learning environments in schools. Unlike the views expressed in thecounterpoint essay, this point essay focuses on the strengths of PBIS.

Foundation of PBIS

Two years after the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct, the federal law safeguarding the rights of students with disabilities, George Sugaiand Robert H. Horner (1999) proposed a systems approach to discipline and crimeprevention in schools in which they radically shifted away from punitive responsesto misbehavior and emphasized a positive and preventative approach. However,despite its relative novelty to schools, the PBIS model is a derivative of applied behavioranalysis (ABA), a discipline that has had a well-established conceptual, methodological,and technological foundation since the 1960s. Like ABA, PBIS strives to understandthe nature of behavioral problems by examining antecedents and manipulating







consequences that will motivate individuals to exhibit appropriate behavior by providingmeaningful and positive reinforcements. The PBIS model for student discipline follows athree-tiered approach.

Primary Interventions: Schoolwide Supports

The first level of PBIS, known as primary interventions, is a universal tier in whichbehavioral expectations are explicitly communicated to all stakeholders [p. 235 ↓ ]including students, faculty, and staff in schools. Schoolwide PBIS is a noncurricularuniversal prevention strategy that aims to alter school environments by creatingimproved systems and procedures promoting positive behavioral changes in staffand students. The key elements of any schoolwide or classwide PBIS system includeselecting a small set of behaviors to focus on, typically between three or five; teachingand reinforcing appropriate behavior; establishing consistent procedures to followwhen misbehavior occurs; and developing an objective data-based system to monitorprogress toward the school's behavioral goals, which is capable of being adjusted asneeded.

To start, a group of individuals, usually five to eight, in a school is selected to identifythe behaviors that are of concern to the school. Individuals selected can includeteachers and administrators. For example, the school may identify behaviors suchas smoking, truancy, and showing disrespect toward others. Once the problembehaviors are designated, teams recast the problem behaviors in positive termsreflecting the behavioral goals they want to achieve. Thus, for example, truancy isredefined as the goal of regular attendance. Although this difference in language issubtle, it is critical because the focus of the PBIS model is on framing behavior andbehavioral interventions in a positive manner. The idea is to increase the likelihood of“catching” students engaging in the appropriate behavior and reinforcing it, rather thaninadvertently reinforcing maladaptive behavior by continuing to focus attention solely oninappropriate behavior.

Once behavioral problems have been identified and behavioral targets, or replacementbehaviors, have been developed, the next step in a schoolwide PBIS programis to communicate behavioral expectations to students. Kelly L. Morrissey, Hank







Bohanon, and Pamela Fenning (2010) implemented a schoolwide PBIS plan, findingthat the most effective way of communicating behavioral goals to students was in aschoolwide assembly where all students and faculty received information and instructionsimultaneously instead of hearing it in staggered form and in smaller groups acrossseveral months.

In communicating behavioral expectations, the critical element is ensuring that studentsare given examples of both unwanted behavior and adaptive positive behavior, sothat students will be more likely to know what behavior they are expected to emit andwhich to avoid. For teachers, it is important to communicate all the procedures forresponding to appropriate behavior because it will take concerted efforts and retrainingto encourage teachers to attend to and reinforce positive rather than inappropriatebehavior. In addition, consistency is also more likely when communication takes placewith teachers as a group. Monitoring progress toward behavioral goals is also animportant component of schoolwide PBIS programs.

With respect to the previous example of attendance as a schoolwide behavioral target,PBIS programs require the collection of data to determine whether [p. 236 ↓ ] theintervention program is having the desired effect. If the school team who designedthe intervention plan used daily attendance in each class as the way of monitoringattendance and data show that attendance is improving across classes, then theycan conclude that the attendance intervention is effective and can continue on thesame path. However, if the data obtained reveal that truancy continues or increased,then the team should reevaluate and adjust the intervention until the desired outcomeis achieved. In general, schoolwide PBIS programs are expected to address thebehavioral concerns of most of the student population. Most advocates of PBIS agreethat up to 80% of students in any school will respond favorably to any well-implementeduniversal prevention PBIS program.







Secondary Interventions: Targeted Small-Group Supports

Central to any PBIS approach is the understanding that schoolwide interventions willnot be effective for all students. Conceptually, PBIS programs expect that approximately15% to 20% of the student body population in any given school will require moretargeted attention to reach behavioral expectations set by the school's PBIS team.Therefore, the second tier in a PBIS program is known as secondary interventions.Secondary-level interventions are designed for at-risk students who need moreintensive and small group behavioral instruction beyond what was available at theprimary intervention level.

To be sure, students who are unresponsive to universal prevention receive additional,more intense, and targeted interventions and supports. In the continuum of behavioralsupports, Tier 2 interventions are implemented in small groups for students who areat risk for school failure. Secondary targeted interventions may include teaching skillssuch as self-regulation and conflict resolution to students who have acquisition, fluency,or performance deficits. Check-in/check-out (CICO) systems, First Step to Success,peer mentors, and homework clubs are examples of specific secondary interventionsdesigned to provide efficient behavior support for students at risk of more intenseproblem behavior. The CICO system uses behavioral report cards to increase structureand feedback to students who exhibit persistent problematic classroom behavior.

CICO Systems

Behavioral report cards provide students with structures and prompts during schooldays, adult written feedback through the day, visual reminders of personal goals forthe day, data collection, and communication between adults at [p. 237 ↓ ] schooland home. Anne W. Todd, Amy L. Campbell, Gwen G. Meyer, and Robert H. Horner(2008) implemented the CICO approach with four elementary school-age boys whoseteachers and school administrator agreed that they exhibited repetitive disruptiveclassroom behavior resulting in referrals to the office. At the end of the 10-week







program consisting of a morning check-in with a trained staff member who evaluatedthe home reports and provided the students with new report cards as well as verbalencouragement, the disruptive behavior of all four students decreased significantly. Thedaily report cards contained the three rules students were expected to follow and areaswhere teachers rated the level of achievement and compliance with each rule. Studentscarried their report cards and presented them to specified teachers at 3 times during theday, and the teachers indicated points earned for a total of 9 possible points during aday. At the end of a day, students met with the same staff member to check out. Check-out consisted of reviewing performance, totaling up points, and deciding how to spendreward points. The students’ daily report cards were summarized and taken home toshare with their parents, who were expected to sign and give them back to their childrento return to their teachers in school the next day.

First Step to Success

The Oregon First Step to Success Program is another example of a secondary-levelintervention that has proven to reduce the disruptive behavior of at-risk students. Theintervention includes three elements: screening and early detection procedures thatprovide four different options for use by adopters; a school intervention component thatteaches an adaptive behavior pattern to facilitate successful adjustment to the normaldemands of schooling; and a parent training component called HomeBase that teachesparents how to develop their child's school success skills such as cooperation, sharing,completion of school work, or accepting limits set by schools.

To evaluate the program's effectiveness, Hill M. Walker, Annemieke Golly, JanaeZolna McLane, and Madeleine Kimmich (2005) conducted a replication study scaledup to include a total of 181 children from schools within 11 of Oregon's 36 counties.The program took place over a period of 18 months and included behavioral trainingcoaches who recruited students, teachers, and parents to participate. Children selectedto participate in the study had to exhibit significant externalizing social-behavioraladjustment problems. Problems may include chronic noncompliance, severe tantrums,oppositional defiant behavior, aggression toward others, and frequent conflicts inplayground or classroom settings with peers. At the conclusion of the 18-month [p. 238

↓ ] program, pre-post change scores for the First Step group were statistically more







positive than the scores for the control group. In sum, students in the First Step programshowed less aggression and maladaptive behavior and increased their adaptivebehavior and academically engaged time on school tasks compared with studentswho did not take part in the Tier 2 (secondary) intervention. Despite the strength ofsecondary-level interventions, the PBIS framework notes that a small percentage ofstudents will be nonresponsive to first- or second-level interventions and will needtertiary interventions.

Tertiary Interventions: IndividualizedBehavioral Supports

Under the PBIS framework, Tier 3 interventions, also referred to as tertiaryinterventions, are reserved for students who are already immersed in antisocialbehavior and have been resistant to any lower level supports. It is estimated that 5%to 7% of students will need tertiary interventions to minimize the detrimental impactof their behavioral challenges. Students who require tertiary interventions are likely tohave behavioral disorders. Tertiary interventions are intensive and administered at theindividual student level. Functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and mental healthsupports such as wraparound community services are examples of Tier 3 interventions.FBAs help educators determine the variables that sustain inappropriate behavior andcue the student to engage in adaptive behavior. The main goal of FBAs is to understandthe function that maladaptive behavior serves in the lives of students in order to replaceit with adaptive socially acceptable alternative behavioral responses.

Lee Kern, Patricia Gallagher, Kristin Starosta, Wesley Hickman, and Michael George(2006) conducted a 3-year study to investigate the long-term effects of FBA-basedinterventions on a student diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,Down syndrome, and oppositional defiant disorder who also engaged in chronicaggression. His teachers had implemented other lower level interventions with limitedsuccess. Following PBIS Tier 3 intervention guidelines, a support team was formedconsisting of his grandmother, one certified teacher and three teachers in training, thetechnical assistance program coach, and the program director. The technical assistanceprogram coach completed a review of available data by reviewing school records and







gathered information from the teaching staff using a questionnaire about the student'sbehavioral and educational strengths and weaknesses. After information was gathered,hypotheses were developed and tested in an attempt to determine the variables (orcircumstances) that maintained [p. 239 ↓ ] inappropriate behavior. Once variables wereconfirmed to maintain behavior, an intervention was developed to reduce the student'saggression and teach him socially appropriate behavior.

In this case, the team developed a plan to teach the student to use a communicationbook to tell teaching staff about his needs and wants or when he needed a break fromtasks. The team tailored school work to the student's level from easiest to more difficultand put rewards in place for successful accomplishment. The intervention was phasedin during the first year so as not to overwhelm the student or staff. The team madeadjustments to the intervention plan in the second year, and new teaching staff wastrained to administer the intervention plan. Team members made additional changes tothe student's intervention in year three to account for deterioration of student behaviorand inconsistency in following the student's individualized education program goalsand interventions. Training of new teaching staff also took place during year three. Intheir analysis, the researchers found that tertiary intervention succeeded in reducingbehavioral problems (aggression) by teaching the target student to communicate hisneeds. In response to the functional assessment, which found that the student engagedin aggression to avoid difficult and unwanted tasks and to gain attention from staffmembers, the intervention taught him how to request a break and obtain attention fromdesirable teaching staff in a socially appropriate and an age-appropriate manner.

Conclusion

In sum, empirical evidence continues to mount attesting to the effectiveness of PBIS tohelp school officials reduce misconduct exhibited by students with behavior disorders.The three-tiered approach to discipline within the PBIS framework offers schools anopportunity to improve the learning climate of schools for all students by reducingmisconduct and increasing appropriate behavior. The universal level interventionsin Tier 1 prevent many school infractions from occurring by making sure that allstudents are aware of school rules and behavioral expectations and by focusing onreinforcing positive behavior when it occurs. Small-group, targeted interventions at Tier







2 provide focused instruction design to support students who need additional and directinstruction that allow students at risk for behavioral problems to learn and implementappropriate social skills. Finally, tertiary interventions at the third and final tier reducethe likelihood that students with behavioral disorders will engage in extreme misconductthrough sustained, intensive, and extensive behavioral supports that encompass theinstructional, social, and mental health realms of the lives of students.

[p. 240 ↓ ]

Counterpoint

Diana Rogers-Adkinson, University ofWisconsin–Whitewater

As clearly articulated in the point essay, there are numerous strengths to the positivebehavior intervention and support (PBIS) model that can be used to help disciplinemisbehaving students as a means of maintaining safe learning environments in schools.The widespread use of the PBIS model also illustrates that it resonates with schoolpersonnel. Yet, it is important to explore some of the limitations and criticisms of thePBIS model. Among the difficulties with the PBIS model are issues related to treatmentfidelity, reliability of office discipline referrals as a measure of school improvement, costfactors, and methodological limitations of the research regarding this approach.

Treatment Fidelity

Treatment fidelity related to PBIS refers to the consistency with which interventions areapplied by multiple staff members in similar, preferably identical, manners. Treatmentfidelity under the PBIS model is linked to the concept of reliability. In other words, this isan intervention that is applied consistently in similar situations over time. In educationalresearch, the minimally acceptable standard for reliability is considered to be 80%.This means that in 8 out of 10 experiences, interventions were delivered in a consistent







manner regardless of who administered them. Unfortunately, fidelity of treatment isdifficult to create during large-scale interventions such as PBIS and is one reportedconcern regarding the PBIS intervention process at all three levels such as Tier 1 orTier 2.

Proponents of the PBIS model state that as a result of staff training, all children willexperience schoolwide positive behavior supports to provide a sense of constancy ofexpectations and consequences in educational environments. Unfortunately, sincethis definition of consistency is loose, it results in concerns regarding the fidelity ofthe interventions cited in most of the PBIS studies. Limited literature has attemptedto address treatment fidelity to date, but those works that have explored fidelity aretypically on a small scale such as with one grade level in a school building.

PBIS trainers have attempted to increase the rate of treatment fidelity in classroomsand schools through a training model that includes integration of performance feedbackby means of direct observation and immediate feedback to the staff providing theintervention. The extent to which trainers are able to observe and provide feedbackvaries greatly by school district, often as a result [p. 241 ↓ ] of the cost of personnelneeded to provide extensive staff feedback on a more frequent basis.

Immediacy of feedback is also critical but difficult to achieve on a large scale in mostschool districts. Specifically, classwide Tier 1 interventions are most open to variabilityin the consistency implementation across classrooms or buildings because of thevolume of personnel involved in the intervention process. Variability also occurs acrossgrade levels based on the varying developmental needs of students. This fluctuation ofimplementation then has the potential to cloud the impact data since the interventionsused in Grade 1 may not resemble the developmentally appropriate interventionsthat are applied in Grade 5. At the same time, Tier 2 and 3 interventions have thepotential to have a higher rate of treatment fidelity as a result of the lower numbers ofchildren and staff involved in the process; yet research continues to indicate limitationsin consistent implementation of small-group interventions at the Tier 2 level and withbehavior intervention plans for children with Tier 3 interventions.







Office Referral Data

Office discipline referrals (ODRs) are a discipline technique that educators use tosignal to students that their behavior has reached a level of concern warranting thereporting of their actions to school administrative teams. This involves the completion ofa form of some type that students may be given to take with them to school offices fordisciplinary conferences with appropriate staff. In other cases, reports may be submittedelectronically to the disciplinary administrators. ODRs consist of a check sheet toindicate the type of infraction, such as disrupting a classroom or insubordination, andblanks to fill in the demographic information, including the names of the student andstaff members, witnesses to the conduct, date, time, and setting data. Finally, there isusually space for open-ended input should teachers wish to clarify situations.

The ODR became a measure of choice in PBIS as it was less cumbersome and moreimmediate than data such as individualized behavior rating scales or implementationof screening systems like Hill Walker's Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders.ODRs as an indicator of school improvement have numerous flaws. The first concernis reliability insofar as ODRs are teacher self-reports of their perception of situations,with teachers deciding when ODRs are necessary. Discipline referrals also tend tovary based on teacher tolerance for behavior or their perceived belief that the ODRswill correct future misbehavior by the students in question. Latency of form completionis another concern since delays in completion of forms may negatively impact theaccuracy of the reported data.

[p. 242 ↓ ]

Second, limitations occur when ODRs are used to determine the intensity of behaviorsacross a school setting or as a measure of school improvement. Kent McIntosh, AmyL. Campbell, Deborah R. Carter, and Bruno D. Zumbo (2009) have illustrated some keyissues including the following:

Another concern regarding ODRs is the low rate of referrals for internalizing behaviorssuch as sullenness and appearing depressed, although such issues suggest a need forintervention within a PBIS model. Finally, it is important to note that cultural bias in the







number of referrals has been suggested, with African American and Hispanic studentsreceiving a greater proportion of ODRs in schools. School boards and educators mustbe keenly aware of how their demographics may skew or impact ODR data.

Cost

The cost of long-term implementation of PBIS is significant. Financial outlays areprimarily related to personnel, initial and ongoing training issues, and material costs.The most significant cost is the initial training of all staff. In launching PBIS, typicallya schoolwide advisory board is formed. This team includes a paid outside consultantas well as numerous internal stakeholders who are typically redirected from previouslyassigned duties to meet and assess baseline needs before PBIS implementation. As aresult, the duties of team members may be reassigned, or substitutes may be hired tocover instructional staff members. Personnel are also needed to facilitate the baselinedata collection process.

The second phase, initial implementation of PBIS in a building or district, includes thecost of trainers, fidelity training during the academic year, continued team meetings,and ongoing data collection. Long-term training costs require structures for trainingnew staff, monitoring of long-term fidelity across the setting, and ongoing PBIS teammeetings to review data for office referrals. Other associated costs include materialsand supplies. For example, a [p. 243 ↓ ] schoolwide, computer-based software systemfor recording information system is often recommended to improve the data collectionprocess. Such a system costs school boards $250 to $300 per school annually. Studentincentives such as rewards for good behavior tickets, schoolwide reward programs,and student assemblies are also required with the PBIS model at the Tier 1 level.Other materials include new social skills programs, a bullying curriculum, and/or angermanagement materials associated with Tier 2 or 3 PBIS interventions.

Bruce A. Blonigen and his colleagues (2008) have illustrated the costs of implementingthe PBIS model from a cost/benefit perspective and suggest that first-year costsfor a single school implementation of PBIS are more than $170,000. Large-districtimplementation in the initial year is more than a million-dollar investment. For large-scale implementation to occur, school boards must address the cost factor. If PBIS is a







primary building/district goal, then the expense may prevent the use of resources thatare specific to academic needs. Grants at the state and federal level have been themost frequent tool to foster implementation of PBIS. In states without such grants, littlehas occurred to foster implementation of PBIS statewide.

Evidence-Based Practice

Beginning in the mid-2000s, the U.S. Department of Education placed increasedemphasis on the use of “proven” methods or curriculum in schools. This process ofdetermining what practices are evidence-based—that is, have a base of researchbehind them to demonstrate the effect of the practice—became required. Experimentaland quasi-experimental studies are considered de rigueur in determining whether apractice can be considered an evidence-based practice (EBP). The five primary criteriathat are used to evaluate whether practices meet the EBP criteria are illustrated in Table14.1. Tyler L. Renshaw, K. Richard Young, Paul Caldarella, and Lynnette Christensen(2008) asserted that PBIS should be conceived as a framework that educators applyevidence-based practices within rather than an EBP itself. Their analysis of the fiveaspects of EBP asserts that the procedures implemented within PBIS do not meet EBPstandards. Using Renshaw et al.'s model, PBIS fails as an EBP primarily as a result ofthe lack of comparative studies using replicable implementation of practice.

Methodological Criticisms

The final issue presented regarding the PBIS model relates to a type of methodologicalcriticism often discussed in the research literature. First, little [p. 244 ↓ ] control groupresearch has been presented regarding the PBIS model. The Department of Educationhas illustrated a variety of research methods for educators that it views as providingclear evidence that interventions were the cause of the reactions such as learningoutcomes that took place. This process is referred to as a control study. Some ofthe basic expectations in controlled research are that the participants were randomlyassigned to groups, that some would not receive the treatment to allow a basis forcomparison, and that treatment fidelity has occurred. Unfortunately, such studies are



http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/debate_schooldiscipline-safety/t14.1.xml

http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/debate_schooldiscipline-safety/t14.1.xml





difficult to implement under the framework of schoolwide intervention processes. SmallN (or number, referring to the fact that few participants are involved) studies with milddisability conditions are the most prevalent research to date.

Table 14.1 Criteria for Evidence-Based Practice

Another common criticism is the lack of cohort model assessment data. Most of thePBIS literature uses academic year comparisons or whole school data to evaluatethe impact of the process on school climate. What is missing in the literature is anunderstanding of what happens to students over time in PBIS environments.

[p. 245 ↓ ]

Research is needed to evaluate whether these students have better learning outcomesand become better citizens of their communities over time, and whether there isimprovement in school discipline and safety. Unfortunately, little work has explored theimpact on student behavior of attending school in PBIS cultures over time or movingfrom PBIS to non-PBIS schools. There are also noted limitations regarding perceptionresearch. Perception studies explore how participants in the PBIS process feel theenvironment has changed as a result of implementation. However, there is a lack ofstudent data regarding perceived changes in school climate. Some studies to dateindicate students often report similar rates of problem behavior before and after PBISimplementation. Studies also suggest teachers are more likely than students to reportperceptions of improved classroom climates. Furthermore, most studies use aggregate







data of all teachers for teacher report data, thus failing to account for the more negativeperception of classroom climate among younger, less experienced teachers.

Conclusion

Although there is considerable evidence that supports the implementation of the PBISmodel, caution is warranted in interpreting ODR outcome data. In addition, cost is acritical factor to school boards. It is also important to note that since a majority of studieslack a control group design, such limitations must be considered when interpretingthe impact of PBIS research. Finally, there is concern that the PBIS model does notmeet the federal criteria for EBP. The practice should be considered a framework tofacilitate effective implementation of identified EBPs in order to help educational officialsdiscipline misbehaving students as they seek to maintain safe and orderly learningenvironments for all members of their school communities.

Further Readings and Resources

Bambara, L. M., & Lohrmann, S. (Eds.). (2006). Special edition: Severe disabilities andschool wide positive behavior support . Research & Practice for Persons with SevereDisabilities , vol. 31 ( no. 1).

Blonigen, B. A., Harbaugh, W. T., Singell, L. D., Horner, R. H., Irvin, L. K., &Smolkowski, K. S. (2008). Application of economic analysis to school-wide positivebehavior support . Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , vol. 10 ( no. 1), pp. 5–19.

Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Theimpact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on theorganizational health of elementary schools . School Psychology Quarterly , vol. 23 ( no.4), pp. 462–473. pp. 246

Brown, F., & Michaels, C. A. (2006). School-wide positive behavior support initiativesand students with severe disabilities: A time for reflection . Research & Practice forPersons with Severe Disabilities , vol. 31 ( no. 1), pp. 57–61.







Crimmins, D., & Farrell, A. F. (2006). Individualized behavioral supports at 15 years: It'sstill lonely at the top . Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , vol. 31( no. 1), pp. 31–45.

Dunlap, G. (2006). The applied behavior analytic heritage of PBS: A dynamic model ofresearch . Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention , vol. 8 ( no. 1), pp. 58–60.

Eber, L., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Pacchiano, D. (2002). School-wide positive behaviorsystems: Improving school environments for all students including those with EBD .Proceedings from the 14th Annual Conference Research Conference: A system of carefor children's mental health: Expanding the research base . Tampa, FL: Research andTraining Center for Children's Mental Health.

George, H. P., & Kincaid, D. K. (2008). Building district level capacity for positivebehavior support . Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , vol. 10 ( no. 1), pp. 20–32.

Kern, L., Gallagher, P., Starosta, K., Hickman, W., & George, M. (2006). Longitudinaloutcomes of functional behavioral assessment-based intervention . Journal of PositiveBehavior Interventions , vol. 8 ( no. 2), pp. 67–78.

Lane, K. L., Wehby, J. H., Robertson, E. J., & Rogers, L. A. (2007). How do differenttypes of students respond to schoolwide positive behavioral support programs?Characteristics and responsiveness of teacher-identified students . Journal of Emotionaland Behavioral Disorders , vol. 15 ( no. 1), pp. 3–20.

Lechtenberger, D., Mullins, F., & Greenwood, D. (2008). Achieving the promise .Teaching Exceptional Children , vol. 40 ( no. 4), pp. 56–64.

McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Concurrentvalidity of office discipline referrals and cut points used in schoolwide positive behaviorsupport . Behavioral Disorders , vol. 34 ( no. 2), pp. 100–113. Retrieved from AcademicSearch Complete database.







Morrissey, K. L., Bohanon, H., & Fenning, P. (2010). Teaching and acknowledgingexpected behaviors in an urban high school . Teaching Exceptional Children , vol. 42( no. 5), pp. 26–35.

Renshaw, T. L., Young, K. R., Caldarella, P., & Christensen, L. (2008, November 18).Can school-wide positive behavior support be an evidence-based practice? Onlinesubmission paper presented at the Teacher Educators for Children with BehavioralDisorders Conference, Tempe, AZ.

Snell, M. E. (2006). What's the verdict: Are students with severe disabilities included inschool-wide positive behavior support? Research & Practice for Persons with SevereDisabilities , vol. 31 ( no. 1), pp. 62–65.

Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Martella-Marchand, N. E. (2007).Three-tier models of reading and behavior: A research review . Journal of PositiveBehavior Interventions , vol. 9 ( no. 4), pp. 239–253.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls,and promises . Effective School Practices , vol. 17 ( no. 4), pp. 10–22. pp. 247

Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of atargeted intervention to reduce problem behaviors: Elementary school implementationof check in-check out . Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention , vol. 10 ( no. 1), pp.46–55.

Walker, H. M., Golly, A., McLane, J. Z., & Kimmich, M. (2005). The Oregon First Stepto Success replication initiative: Statewide results of an evaluation of the program'simpact . Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders , vol. 13 ( no. 2), pp. 163–172.

Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, J. M. (2004). Strengthening social and emotionalcompetence in young children—The foundation for early school readiness and success:Incredible Years classroom social skills and problem-solving curriculum . Infants andYoung Children , vol. 17 , pp. 96–113.







Court Cases and Statutes

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

10.4135/9781452218656.n14



school discipline and safety are positive behavioral...

Documents