Cultural Challenges in Adapting SWPBIS to a Dutch Context

Abstract

The transfer and adoption of school-wide approaches, like School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), from one country to another, is an underexamined process. SWPBIS was mainly developed in the US. Although research shows that implementation of SWPBIS contributes to a positive school climate and a decrease in problem behavior, little is known about the generalizability of the effects in other countries. Of special interest is the role of underlying cultural values and concepts as reflected in SWPBIS. This can influence the acceptance of teachers and principals when implementing SWPBIS in another country. SWPBIS procedures need to be adjusted to the educational context where it is implemented. As a consequence, fidelity of implementation can be at stake when adjustments affect not only SWPBIS procedures (e.g., the way expected behavior is taught) but also core features (e.g., teaching of behavior). In this study, we explored cultural adaptation efforts in the Netherlands. We have drawn on perceptions of Dutch SWPBIS experts. In two sessions, 12 and then 10 experts were questioned. Results suggested that core features of SWPBIS seemed to be quite consistent across cultures, but adaptations in procedures were necessary.

School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports: Fidelity of Tier 1 Implementation in 117 Dutch Schools

“…In fact, this was the only item scoring at the same level as U.S. schools ( M = 1.49) whereas all other items scored lower (Kittelman et al, 2018). At the introduction of SWPBIS in the Netherlands, the systematic use of token economy systems met with resistance of teachers (Nelen et al, 2019). However, for most participating schools, this seemed to no longer be an issue as they clearly have managed to implement token economy systems according to requirements.…”

“…When SWPBIS was introduced in the Netherlands, core features were formulated in a recognizable and culturally acceptable language, and procedures were adjusted to the Dutch educational context. Earlier research (Nelen, Willemse, Van Oudheusden, & Goei, 2019) in which Dutch SWPBIS experts were questioned about core features and procedures of SWPBIS in the Netherlands, showed that experts agreed on the importance of all core features and that cultural adaptation was merely about adjusting procedures. All adaptations seemed to be in line with the theoretical base of SWPBIS.…”

“…For example, because parents often provide supervision at lunchtime in Dutch elementary schools, many schools have developed SWPBIS training materials for these parents. Elements of behavioral theory, more specifically the use of token economy systems, are regularly met with resistance of teachers (Nelen et al, 2019). Openly praising students is, in the Netherlands, often considered “over the top.” Part of the resistance was probably also due to a limited notion of the concept of positive reinforcement, where Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is often equated with praise and tokens.…”

“…After that, different modalities of supporting the implementation of SWPBIS emerged: Schools were coached by officially trained coaches or coaches who acquired SWPBIS knowledge just by reading, both internal and external coaches, networks of SWPBIS schools arose, and schools started implementation on their own, without guidance of a coach. Generally, two tendencies in implementation strategies could be distinguished: following manualized SWPBIS procedures and techniques or using implementation strategies and techniques in a more flexible way (Nelen et al, 2019). Castro, Barrera, and Martinez (2004) referred to these tendencies as the tension between fidelity and contextual fit.…”

School‐wide positive behavioral interventions and supports in Dutch elementary schools: Exploring effects

“…The TFI was chosen because it is the most recently developed and up-to-date instrument, it is brief, and it is based on the factors and features in existing validated fidelity measures. The SET was chosen to compare TFI measurements with more objective data (Nelen, 2020b).…”