Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support

Abstract

Bullying behaviors are a growing concern in U.S. schools, and are documented to have detrimental effects for victims, perpetrators, and bystanders. Most interventions focused on bully prevention either have limited empirical support, or focus primarily on the behavior of the bully. We present here an alternative approach to bully prevention based on the growing recognition that interventions should be function-based. Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support (BP-PBS) gives students the tools necessary to remove the social rewards maintaining bullying behavior through a strong link to schoolwide positive behavior support, a discrimination between "being respectful" versus "not being respectful" in unstructured settings, and the explicit teaching of a simple, schoolv wide response to bullying effective for victims, bystanders, and perpetrators of bullying. This is coupled with an efficient strategy for school staff to use when dealing with reports of bullying including a sequence of questioning and practice. A single-subject, multiplebaseline design across six students and three elementary schools was implemented in an empirical evaluation of the effectiveness ofBP-PBS. Results indicated that implementation of the program not only significantly decreased incidents of bullying behavior for all six students observed, but also increased the likelihood of appropriate victim responses and bystander responses, indicating a substantial decrease in the social rewards that served to maintain bullying behavior. In addition, through a pre-post survey, students also reported improved perceptions of the bullying and safety at their schools.Finally, school staff members were able to implement the program with a high degree of fidelity and regarded the program as effective and easy to implement. These findings have major implications for the design and support of effective social culture in schools.Limitations of the research and future efforts are suggested to encourage the field in a new direction with bully prevention efforts, away from overly complicated definitions and interventions, toward a school-wide approach including specific strategies and a reconceptualization of the bullying construct.CURRlCULUM VITAE

Bullying and Students With Disabilities

“…Five of the six studies (83.3%) met both of the elements for adequate intervention agent descriptions (Espelage et al, 2015;Humphrey et al, 2013;Rahill & Teglasi, 2003;Ross & Horner, 2014;J. Five of the six studies (83.3%) met both of the elements for adequate intervention agent descriptions (Espelage et al, 2015;Humphrey et al, 2013;Rahill & Teglasi, 2003;Ross & Horner, 2014;J.…”

“…(Rahill & Teglasi, 2003;Ross & Horner, 2014), two at the secondary level (Espelage et al, 2015;Saylor & Leach, 2009), and one at a school for students Pre-K through eighth grade (J. All design-appropriate elements for the indicator were met to be scored as Yes.…”

“…Otherwise, specific assessments and description of determination are required. Ross and Horner (2014) focused primarily on students with ED and learning disabilities (LD; IDEA). Rahill and Teglasi (2003) conducted their study with students with Emotional Disturbance (ED; IDEA).…”

“…A. Vessey & O'Neill, 2011) included students with a range of disability eligibilities (see Table 3). Ross and Horner (2014) used principal nomination and administered behavior-rating scales. A. Vessey & O'Neill, 2011).…”

“…Five of the six studies (83.3%) met both of the elements for adequate intervention agent descriptions (Espelage et al, 2015;Humphrey et al, 2013;Rahill & Teglasi, 2003;Ross & Horner, 2014;J. In the two remaining studies, classroom teachers were the primary intervention agents though other agents were administrators and instructional aides (Ross & Horner, 2014) and tutors (Humphrey et al, 2013). In Vessey and O'Neill, intervention agents were school nurses who delivered counseling procedures, whereas in Rahill and Teglasi, agents were school psychologists and researchers.…”