An Examination of the Evidence-Base of School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Through Two Quality Appraisal Processes

Abstract

One ongoing challenge within education is preventing and responding effectively to problem behavior. In fact, research over the past two decades has focused on developing comprehensive approaches to prevent problem behavior and intervene at the first signs of student risk to reduce the likelihood of chronic and more intense problem behavior patterns (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a framework for organizing academic, behavioral, and social-emotional practices within a school, across classrooms and for individual students (Sugai, Horner, & Todd, 2000). PBIS is a prevention-oriented, problem-solving approach that emphasizes (a) a continuum of supports to meet the needs of all students, (b) regular monitoring of implementation and outcomes, and (c) the use of data to guide decisions (Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP] Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2015). PBIS is not a scripted program or single intervention. Instead, it is a framework for systemically supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), organized into tiers based on intensity, through ongoing data-based decision making (Horner et al., 2010). Application of PBIS at a school-wide level, referred to as School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), presently is being implemented in thousands of schools across the United States and worldwide

Updating and expanding systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on the effects of school‐wide positive behavior interventions and supports

“…We found a statistically significant effect size for all behavior outcomes and that there was no difference in the overall effect size for suspensions, ODR, or other behavioral outcomes. As noted, the Mitchell et al () did not calculate effect sizes, but found generally positive results, which is aligned with our findings here. No prior systematic review or meta‐analysis reviewed the effect of SWPBIS on academic achievement.…”

“…The current review synthesizes the growing evidence of SWPBIS effects on behavioral, academic, and organizational outcomes and extends prior reviews Mitchell et al, 2018;Solomon et al, 2012) by including unpublished studies and employing a RVE meta-analysis. Overall, we found statistically and educationally significant effects of SWPBIS on all three school-level domains.…”

“…Similarly, Mitchell, Hatton, and Lewis () conducted a systematic review of group‐experimental design studies of SWPBIS, but they focused on SWPBIS training as an independent variable instead of just implementation of SWPBIS. As a result, the authors identified five studies, which they evaluated using WWC and CEC quality standards.…”

“…As a result, the authors identified five studies, which they evaluated using WWC and CEC quality standards. Mitchell et al () found that schools can be successfully trained to implement SWPBIS with fidelity, which also leads to positive distal effects on school‐wide outcomes (e.g., school climate and student behaviors). However, studies did not report the fidelity of SWPBIS training, which was a primary focus of their review, and the authors did not report effect sizes.…”

“…As a result, the authors identified five studies, which they evaluated using WWC and CEC quality standards. Mitchell et al (2018) found that schools can be successfully trained to implement SWPBIS with fidelity, which also leads to positive distal effects on school-wide outcomes (e.g., school climate and student behaviors).…”