Sustaining effective individualized behavior support: Barriers and enablers

Can school psychologists be inclusive when delivering evidence‐based behavioural interventions in special schools, behaviour units or clinics? A systematic mapping literature review

“…In addition, Strickland‐Cohen et al . (2019) highlight an unhelpful disconnection between a small number of highly skilled SPs responsible for conducting FBA and teachers who are, largely, responsible for implementing this type of intervention in practice, commenting: ‘It is not uncommon for a small number of professionals with highly specialized training (e.g., behavior specialists and school psychologists) to be responsible for conducting FBAs and building BSPs [Behaviour Support Plans] for large numbers of students who require individualized support within a district’. They add: ‘This model can make it difficult, if not impossible, to adequately address the needs of all students or to address needs in a timely manner’ (p. 2).…”

“…In their mixed‐method follow‐up study Strickland‐Cohen et al . (2019) highlight the challenges of using FBA in schools of any type. In addition, Strickland‐Cohen et al .…”

“…One implicit message that emerged from this mapping review is the importance of timely application of evidence‐based interventions to students at risk of exclusion or school‐drop out: adverse life events are often the start of the pathway into specialist provision and place the student with SEMH and/or disability at elevated risk of a range of further negative outcomes (Oldfield et al ., 2015; Pirrie et al ., 2011). Practically, a strategy to prevent this adverse outcome most probably requires a focus on students who, within a Response to Intervention (RtI) model fall within Tier 2 and whose behaviour is escalating but not yet deemed severe for intensive therapeutic, crisis intervention (Strickland‐Cohen et al ., 2019). De‐escalating negative behaviours before they become habitual and severe for students and with a focus on preventing an individual’s exclusion or expulsion also implies, in an ideal world, greater involvement by SPs in mainstream classrooms.…”

“…Findings 1, 2 and 3 merit further discussion in terms of their implications for professional practice, educational policy and advancing knowledge about whether school psychologists should be inclusive when delivering evidence‐based behavioural interventions in special schools, behaviour units or clinics. A prominent theme in research surveyed was that it discussed SP practice in terms of upskilling teachers and or school counsellors to be able to deliver evidence‐based interventions in mainstream school environments (Strickland‐Cohen et al ., 2019; Strickland‐Cohen et al . 2016) rather in terms of SPs delivering these interventions in a specialist setting such as special schools, behaviour units or clinics.…”

“…Team‐based delivery of evidence‐based behavioural interventions in a mainstream school, often centred within the Positive Behaviour Support and Interventions (PBIS) framework was an important element in some studies captured by this review and offers an important alternative to the idea of the EP or SP working independently in a specialist setting (Gable et al ., 2014; Strickland‐Cohen et al ., 2016; Strickland‐Cohen et al ., 2019). Indeed, there is attractive logic in the idea that an effective evidence‐based intervention should also prevent as well as remediate physically or psychologically harmful behaviours, as Cooper and Jacobs (2011) suggest in their accessible review of the reserch base for effective school‐based behavioural interventions.…”