School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and Student Academic Achievement

Angus, Gail; Nelson, R. Brett

doi:10.1007/s40688-019-00245-0

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Martinez, 2002;Locke & Fuchs, 1995), and academic interventions tailored to individuals' specific academic deficits (Filter & Horner, 2009;Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2009;Sanford & Horner, 2013) Horner, & Sugai, 2013). These findings show consistent, positive effects of PBIS on academic achievement for at-risk students (Angus, & Nelson, 2021;Houchens, Zhang, Davis, Niu, Chon, & Miller, 2017). With respect crossover effects, two studies (Trzesniewski et al, 2006;Morgan, Farkas, Tufis, & Sperling, 2008) provide insight about the co-occurrence of reading performance and behavior problems.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Capturing the complexity: examining the effect of instructional intensity in the context of a response to intervention framework on learning outcomes for students with academic and behavioral needs

Hwang¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[EMBARGOED UNTIL 6/1/2023] The main purpose of this study was to investigate quality instruction for students with academic and behavioral needs within RTI framework by examining the differential effects of various levels of instructional intensity, using the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 2011 data set. With a dynamic system framework, teachers' instructional practices were investigated at a micro-level learning environment and the level of school Response-to- Intervention implementation was investigated at a macro-level learning environment, and how these two levels of learning environment synergistically work together to support learning opportunities for students with academic and behavioral needs were examined in this study. Specifically, teachers' instructional practices were described across three dimensions focusing on the (1) content of instruction (i.e., academic, behavior), (2) type of instruction (i.e., whole class, small group, individual work instruction), and (3) time spent on instruction (i.e., frequency and duration). Content, type, and amount of instruction which were derived from teachers' ratings, served as metrics of instructional intensity. School learning environments were measured by the level of school RTI implementation. The level of school RTI implementation which were derived from school administrators' rating, served as an indicator of a positive and supportive school environment for students at risk or with disabilities. Therefore, four research questions guided this study. First, to examine the differential effect of various levels. (1) Student level: To identify the types of patterns of students exhibited in academic and behavior in kindergarten, what are the subtypes of academic and behavioral adjustment among the kindergarten sample of students? And how does the latent profile membership affect later academic outcomes at the end of first grade? (2) Teacher level: To identify the relative effectiveness of varying levels of instructional intensity, how does the teachers' time spent on content and type of instruction affect students' later academic outcomes? And how do those instructional practices differentially affect students' later academic outcomes by the latent profile membership? (3) School level: To identify the quality of school environment, how does the level of school RTI implementation affects students' later academic outcomes? And how does the level of school RTI implementation differentially affect students' later academic outcomes by the latent profile membership? (4) Across level: To investigate a synergy effect of combined micro and macro-level learning environment, how does the interaction between teachers' instructional practices and school RTI implementation affect students' later academic outcomes? And how do those interactions differentially affect by the latent profile membership? For the analysis, students enrolled in spring of kindergarten were included as the sample of the study. The sample included a total of 15,344 of students, 5,013 of teachers, and 989 of schools Since the data in the study had a nested structure, multilevel modeling analysis was applied. The results suggested that first, there were four distinctive profile types of academic and behavioral adjustment in the kindergarten sample of the study: (1) Wellperforming in academics group (WP-A; n = 656), (2) Average performance in both academic and behavior group (AP-AB; n = 10,757), (3) Moderate risk for academic and behavior (MR-AB; n = 3,359); (4) Higher risk for behavior (HR-B; n = 572). The identified latent membership failed to predict the relationship between risk identified at early stage and their longitudinal negative outcomes, specifically for WP-A. Second, there was a significant main effect of content and type of instruction and moderating effect of latent profile membership on type of instruction. For the main effect of content of instruction, when teachers spent 15 minutes more time on addressing disruptive behavior, students were expected to score 0.239 times lower in their later academic outcomes. For the type of instruction, all the types of instruction significantly impacted on students' later academic outcomes. Specifically, for whole-class instruction, when teachers spent 45 minutes more time on whole-class instruction, students were expected to score 0.210 times higher in their later academic outcomes. For small group instruction, when teachers spent 45 minutes more time on small group instruction, students were expected to score 0.240 times lower in their later academic outcomes. For individual work instruction, when teachers spent 45 minutes more time on individual work instruction, students were expected to score 0.211 times higher in their later academic outcomes. Also, the differential effect of individual work instruction was observed. For WP-A, when teachers spent 45 minutes more on independent work instruction, students were expected to score 0.720 times higher in their later academic outcomes. However, students were expected to score 0.246 times lower in their later academic outcomes for MR-AB. Third, there was no significant main of school RTI implementation on students' later academic outcomes. However, there was a significant interaction between HR-B and school RTI implementation. Specifically, for HR-B, students were expected to score 0.616 times higher on their later academic outcomes, compared to AP-AB. Lastly, there was a significant main effect of interaction between behavior instruction and school RTI implementation. The higher a school RTI implementation level, 0.173 times greater the effect of behavior instruction provided by that school on student's later academic outcomes. Also, there was a significant interaction between MRAB, time spent on academic instruction, and school RTI implementation. Specifically, for students with moderate risk for academic and behavior, the higher a school RTI implementation level, 0.783 times greater the effect of the duration of academic instruction provided by that school on students' later academic outcomes. Interesting finding was that the two systems (learning environment) synergistically affected student's later academic outcomes whereas neither teacher's academic instruction nor school RTI alone did. These findings support a dynamic systems model of how individual students learn in the context of classroom instruction and the school learning environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Capturing the complexity: examining the effect of instructional intensity in the context of a response to intervention framework on learning outcomes for students with academic and behavioral needs

Hwang¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research conducted by Aceves et al (2021), Long et al (2018), and Waasdorp and Bradshaw (2018) waived consent and assent because participants could not be identified by the data collected. Research by Angus and Nelson (2021) as well as Blodgett and Lanigan (2018) waived consent and assent because only archival data was obtained from participants. In the case of Blodgett and Lanigan's (2018) article, no contact was made with any participants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of participatory research assent procedures in school psychology

Flowers,

McCleary,

Dawes

et al. 2023

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the realm of psychology and related fields, like school psychology, obtaining informed consent from clients or participants who are 18 years old or older is mandatory for researchers. However, if the individuals are below 18 years old or under a conservatorship, their assent is crucial even if their parent or legal guardian has provided formal consent. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of assent during research, there is a lack of research and guidelines on how to obtain it effectively. To bridge this gap, we conducted a review and created a summary of research published in school psychology journals on gaining assent during research studies. The articles were categorized based on the experimental design, population, and level of assent described. Our findings offer a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on gaining assent in school psychology, which will enhance transparency in research methods.

show abstract

“…Implementation of SWP-BIS has been shown to positively influence student behavior (Bradshaw et al, 2012), particularly among students who have the most room to develop their SEB skills (Bradshaw et al, 2014). Further, SWPBIS has consistently been shown to decrease exclusionary discipline (e.g., Bradshaw et al, 2012;Childs et al, 2016;Noltemeyer et al, 2019) and may positively influence students' academic achievement over time (Angus & Nelson, 2021). There has been widespread adoption of SWPBIS across schools in the United States (Horner et al, 2014), meaning that the positive impacts associated with SWPBIS have the potential to reach students across thousands of schools.…”

Section: Implementation Of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several implementation outcomes (e.g., fidelity, feasibility) that relate to high quality implementation (Damschroder et al, 2009). SWPBIS fidelity (i.e., the degree to which SWPBIS is implemented as prescribed) is widely examined (Lee & Gage, 2020), with studies showing that increased adherence to SWPBIS is associated with desirable SEB and academic outcomes for students (Angus & Nelson, 2021;Childs et al, 2016;Freeman et al, 2016;Gage et al, 2017;James et al, 2019;Noltemeyer et al, 2019;Simonsen et al, 2012; for exceptions see Heidelburg et al, 2022 andKim et al, 2018). Though there are no empirical studies that we know of linking feasibility to fidelity, there are reasons to think that variation in SWPBIS fidelity may be partially due to teachers' perceptions of how feasible SWPBIS practices are.…”

Section: Role Of Feasibility In Achieving High Quality Implementation...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher Perceptions of Implementation Climate Related to Feasibility of Implementing Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions

Corbin

Hugh

Ehrhart

et al. 2022

School Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) to be effective, educators must use the practices as intended. Whether a teacher uses a practice as intended can depend, in part, on how feasible the practice is perceived to be. Identifying malleable factors associated with teachers’ perceptions of SWPBIS feasibility can help schools identify targeted supports to improve feasibility. Implementation climate, or the shared perception among implementers that their school supports implementation efforts, is known to promote high quality implementation. However, little is known about how individuals’ perceptions of their school’s implementation climate may influence their perceptions of feasibility. The lack of empirical evidence points to a need to explore whether educators’ shared and individual perceptions of implementation climate influence feasibility of implementing SWPBIS. Therefore, this study examines the link between teachers’ individual and shared perceptions of implementation climate related to the feasibility of implementing SWPBIS in a sample of 348 K-5 general education teachers across 39 elementary schools in the pacific northwestern United States. Results indicate that teachers who experience their schools’ implementation climate as positive are more likely to report SWPBIS as feasible, controlling for teachers’ shared perceptions of implementation climate. Implications for schools aiming to improve their implementation of SWPBIS, including the development of individualized implementation supports (e.g., tailoring implementation strategies to support each and every teacher), are discussed.

show abstract

School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and Student Academic Achievement

Cited by 8 publications

References 41 publications

Capturing the complexity: examining the effect of instructional intensity in the context of a response to intervention framework on learning outcomes for students with academic and behavioral needs

Capturing the complexity: examining the effect of instructional intensity in the context of a response to intervention framework on learning outcomes for students with academic and behavioral needs

Review of participatory research assent procedures in school psychology

Teacher Perceptions of Implementation Climate Related to Feasibility of Implementing Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About