Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" sectionabout

Forthcoming Articles Expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section

  • Gender, Power, and Politics in the Academy
  • Girls' Education in the Developing World
  • Non-Formal & Informal Environmental Education
  • Find more forthcoming articles...


Education School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
Brandi M. Simonsen, George Sugai
  • LAST REVIEWED: 29 July 2020
  • LAST MODIFIED: 30 September 2013
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0001


School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS), also known as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), is a framework for organizing positive, proactive, and evidence-based behavioral practices within a school setting that has been implemented in more than 18,000 schools in the United States. Detailed overviews of SWPBS are available online at the US National Technical Assistance Center on PBIS. SWPBS emphasizes universal prevention (tier 1) practices that are implemented by all staff to support all students across all settings. Further, SWPBS employs a continuum of supports that increase in intensity based on students’ responsiveness to intervention. This continuum is typically described as providing two additional tiers of support: targeted group supports (tier 2) and intensive individualized supports (tier 3). In the subsections of this entry, we provide a general interview and describe the critical features of and empirical support for each tier. In addition, we provide a brief discussion of SWPBS in alternative settings (e.g., alternative schools and juvenile justice) with relevant citations.

General Overviews

Based on decades of behavioral (e.g., Baer, et al. 1968; Skinner 1953) and prevention (e.g., Caplan 1964) theory and science, SWPBS is an empirically supported (Horner, et al. 2010; Safran and Oswald 2003) prevention-oriented (Walker, et al. 1996) framework for implementing positive behavior support (Sugai, et al. 2000; Sugai and Horner 2002). Resources in this section provide readers with an understanding of the theoretical roots and general features of the school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) framework.

  • Baer, Donald M., Montrose M. Wolf, and Todd R. Risley. 1968. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1.1 (Spring): 91–97.

    DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This landmark article describes seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis (ABA), the applied theory and science that underlie much of the work in SWPBS. The seven dimensions of ABA include applied, behavioral, analytic, technological, conceptual systems, effective, and generality.

    Find this resource:

  • Caplan, Gerald. 1964. Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This text provides a foundational understanding of preventative practices in mental health that serve as important guiding principles for SWPBS implementation, especially the logic of three-tiered prevention: (a) primary prevention (reducing emergence of new problems), (b) secondary prevention (reducing length of existing problems), and (c) tertiary prevention (reducing complications and severity of existing problems).

    Find this resource:

  • Horner, Robert H., George Sugai, and Cynthia M. Anderson. 2010. Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children 42.8: 1–14.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Across numerous studies, researchers have documented the positive outcomes of implementing intervention practices within each tier of SWPBS. In this article, the authors review relevant research on practices included within each tier and describe the organization of these supports in a framework. They conclude that SWPBS is an evidence-based practice in typical schools for decreasing problem behavior and increasing prosocial behavior.

    Find this resource:

  • Safran, Stephen P., and Karen Oswald. 2003. Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children 69.3 (Spring): 361–373.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Schools implementing SWPBS use data to guide implementation of behavioral supports (based on the principles of ABA) school-wide, in specific settings, and to support individual students whose behaviors indicate the need for intensive intervention. Early evidence supports the efficacy of SWPBS, and additional research is needed.

    Find this resource:

  • Skinner, B. F. 1953. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Behavioral theory is the foundation for ABA and SWPBS. In this text, Skinner provides an overview of behavioral theory, including discussions on education and culture that have direct implications for SWPBS, an educational approach for establishing and maintaining positive and proactive school and classroom cultures.

    Find this resource:

  • Sugai, George, and Robert H. Horner. 2002. The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy 24.1–2: 23–50.

    DOI: 10.1300/J019v24n01_03Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The development of what is currently referred to as “PBIS” (or SWPBS) has been shaped by a long history of research and demonstration activities and results. The early behavioral roots of SWPBS are described and a variety of influences are noted; for example, applied behavior analysis, positive behavior supports and individuals with severe intellectual disabilities, effective positive behavior supports, and positive behavioral interventions and supports.

    Find this resource:

  • Sugai, George, Robert H. Horner, Glen Dunlap, et al. 2000. Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2.3: 131–143.

    DOI: 10.1177/109830070000200302Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997 introduced the concept of PBIS as a means of improving the behavioral outcomes of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The authors of this paper describe the terminology associated with PBIS, the conceptual foundations supporting PBIS practices and systems, and the assessment and intervention practices and systems that compose the PBIS framework.

    Find this resource:

  • Walker, Hill M., Robert H. Horner, George Sugai, et al. 1996. Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 4.4: 194–209.

    DOI: 10.1177/106342669600400401Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Although it is now common to consider three tiers of prevention in multiple school models (e.g., SWPBS, response to intervention, multi-tiered systems of supports), Walker and the other authors of this article were among the first to translate three-tiered prevention logic into an educational setting, describing three tiers of support that are now characteristic of SWPBS.

    Find this resource:

General Implementation

School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) is operationalized in a series of blueprints that provide overviews of implementation (Sugai, et al. 2010), professional development (Lewis, et al. 2010), and evaluation (Algozzine, et al. 2010). Further aspects of implementation are detailed in various chapters of the Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (Sailor, et al. 2009). Because of the unique nature of SWPBS implementation in a high school setting, Flannery and Sugai (2009) detail the efforts of a group of researchers and practitioners in exploring current challenges and effective strategies for implementing SWPBS in high school settings.

Universal Support School-Wide

As described, tier 1 includes supports provided to all students by all staff across all settings. Although each school team should select, adopt, and implement supports that are appropriate for their unique context and culture, tier 1 typically includes the following common features. First, school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) schools select a representative school-team (e.g., administrator, teachers, non-certified staff, parents) whose members participate in professional development activities, disseminate information to the faculty, and guide implementation of tier 1 supports. Second, with input from the school faculty, the team selects three to five positively stated school-wide expectations (e.g., Respect Self, Others, and Environment; Be Safe, Responsible, and Respectful), which are defined for each classroom and non-classroom setting within the school. Third, the team facilitates explicit social skills instruction related to each expectation within each setting and routine of the school and classroom. Fourth, the team promotes active supervision of students across all settings and routines. Fifth, school staff members systematically implement a school-wide recognition system (e.g., specific contingent praise, token economy) to acknowledge student displays of expected behavior. Sixth, school staff members consistently implement a continuum of responses in order to correct student displays of inappropriate (expectation-violating) behavior. Finally, school staff members collect data (related to fidelity, social validity, and outcomes of implementation) to inform and guide decision-making. When schools implement the first tier of SWPBS with fidelity, randomized control trials (e.g., Bradshaw, et al. 2010; Horner, et al. 2009) and evaluation studies (e.g., Taylor-Greene, et al. 1997) have demonstrated that students experience positive outcomes, including decreases in documented problem behavior (i.e., office referrals, suspensions, expulsions), decreases in teachers’ reports of bullying, and increases in academic outcomes. To date, most of these effects have been observed in elementary and middle school settings; however, high school trials are underway. Further, schools that implement SWPBS with fidelity experience better outcomes than schools that do not (Simonsen, et al. 2012). In addition, large-scale evaluation data suggest that SWPBS may be scaled across districts and states (e.g., Barrett, et al. 2008; Muscott, et al. 2008). See also McIntosh, et al. 2011.

  • Barrett, Susan B., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Teri Lewis-Palmer. 2008. Maryland statewide PBIS initiative: Systems, evaluation, and next steps. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 10.2: 105–114.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300707312541Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Authors describe the implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) across 467 schools trained in PBIS across Maryland. The systems developed and implemented within the state promote high levels of implementation fidelity and positive outcomes across schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Bradshaw, Catherine, Mary Mitchell, and Philip Leaf. 2010. Examining the effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 12.3: 133–148.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300709334798Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article describes a randomized control trial that demonstrates positive outcomes achieved by schools implementing PBIS with fidelity.

    Find this resource:

  • Horner, Robert H., George Sugai, Keith Smolkowski, et al. 2009. A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 11.3: 133–144.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300709332067Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    One of the earliest attempts to experimentally verify the effectiveness of SWPBS involved wait-list controlled trials involving schools in three states that were implementing tier 1 practices and systems. This study documented statistically significant improvements in disciplinary actions and encouraging (but not statistically significant) improvements in academic scores in reading.

    Find this resource:

  • McIntosh, Kent, Joanna L. Bennett, and Kathy Price. 2011. Evaluation of social and academic efforts of school-wide positive behaviour support in a Canadian school district. Exceptionality Education International 21.1: 46–60.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article presents an overview of SWPBS implementation in British Columbia, with a comparison of outcomes among districts that implemented with and without fidelity and those that did not implement.

    Find this resource:

  • Muscott, Howard S., Eric L. Mann, and Marcel R. LeBrun. 2008. Positive behavioral interventions and supports in New Hampshire: Effects of large-scale implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support on student discipline and academic achievement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 10.3: 190–205.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300708316258Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Schools in New Hampshire that implemented SWPBS experienced desired outcomes, including decreases in office referrals and suspensions, and increases in math scores. The authors describe features of this large-scale implementation.

    Find this resource:

  • Simonsen, Brandi, Lucille Eber, Anne Black, et al. 2012. Illinois statewide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Evolution and impact on student outcomes across years. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 14.1: 5–16.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300711412601Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Schools that implemented SWPBS with fidelity experienced greater decreases in documented problem behaviors (referrals, suspensions, and expulsions) and greater increases in academic performance in math (statewide math assessment). Also, the percentage of schools implementing SWPBS with fidelity increased across years.

    Find this resource:

  • Taylor-Greene, Susan, Doris Brown, Larry Nelson, et al. 1997. School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education 7.1: 99–112.

    DOI: 10.1023/A:1022849722465Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors describe an evaluation of SWPBS in their school, which resulted in decreases in disciplinary infractions. They also describe the intervention components implemented within their application of SWPBS.

    Find this resource:

Universal Support in the Classroom

In addition to school-wide practices, there are a series of universal practices that should be implemented in the classroom: maximize structure; explicitly define, teach, monitor, and reinforce positively stated expectations; actively engage students in instruction; and implement consequences, contingent on student behavior, that focus on increasing students’ desired behaviors (e.g., specific praise, token economies), decreasing students’ undesired behaviors (e.g., error corrections), or both (e.g., differential reinforcement; see Simonsen, et al. 2008). Although these practices work for all students, there is also evidence to support similar strategies for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; see Lewis, et al. 2004). Despite awareness of evidence-based practices, implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) practices in the classroom remains an area of need in many schools (see Reinke, et al. 2013). Therefore, research that explores strategies to increase teachers’ use of universal supports in the classroom is particularly important. In the past decade, researchers have explored a variety of teacher supports, from self-monitoring (Simonsen, et al. 2013) to consultations with performance feedback (see Jeffrey, et al. 2009; Reinke, et al. 2008).

  • Jeffrey, Jennifer L., Barry L. McCurdy, Sam Ewing, and Dustin Polis. 2009. Classwide PBIS for students with EBD: Initial evaluation of an integrity tool. Education and Treatment of Children 32.4: 537–550.

    DOI: 10.1353/etc.0.0069Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article provides an overview of an integrity tool and consultation process that employs benchmarking to monitor teachers’ classroom management.

    Find this resource:

  • Lewis, Timothy J., Shawna Hudson, Mary Richter, and Nanci Johnson. 2004. Scientifically supported practices in emotional and behavioral disorders: A proposed approach and brief review of current practices. Behavioral Disorders 29.3 (May): 247–259.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors identify empirically supported practices for students with EBD, including reinforcement, high rates of opportunities to respond, and positive behavior support (i.e., social skills instruction, self-management, functional assessment-based interventions, and school-wide positive behavior support [SWPBS]).

    Find this resource:

  • Reinke, Wendy M., Keith C. Herman, and Melissa Stormont. 2013. Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 15.1: 39–50.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300712459079Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In this article, the authors document that some components of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports (SW-PBIS) are evident at the classroom level (e.g., posting expectations); however, evidence-based classroom management practices (e.g., specific praise) are often demonstrated at lower levels than recommended.

    Find this resource:

  • Reinke, Wendy M., Teri Lewis-Palmer, and Kenneth Merrell. 2008. The classroom check-up: A classwide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review 37.3: 315–332.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Reinke and the other contributors describe a consultation process that increased treatment integrity of classroom management strategies and decreased disruptive behavior of students in the classroom. Results suggest that the classroom check-up with performance feedback was associated with desired changes in teacher and student behavior.

    Find this resource:

  • Simonsen, Brandi, Sarah Fairbanks, Amy Briesch, Diane Myers, and George Sugai. 2008. Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment for Children 31.3: 351–380.

    DOI: 10.1353/etc.0.0007Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Effective classroom management is critical to the successful implementation of SWPBS. This article describes critical features of evidence-based classroom management, which are briefly summarized in Reinke, et al. 2013.

    Find this resource:

  • Simonsen, Brandi, Ashley S. MacSuga, Lindsay M. Fallon, and George Sugai. 2013. The effects of self-monitoring on teachers’ use of specific praise. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 15.1: 5–15.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300712440453Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Self-monitoring is an efficient and effective strategy to manage one’s behavior. In this article, authors demonstrate that self-monitoring resulted in desired increases in teachers’ use of specific praise for some, but not all, participating teachers.

    Find this resource:

Targeted Support

School staff members implement tier 2 supports for students whose behaviors are not responsive to tier 1 but whose behaviors are not chronic or serious enough to warrant an intensive individualized intervention (tier 3). Schools typically offer a range of targeted intervention supports, such as check-in/check-out (see Fairbanks, et al. 2007; Hawken and Horner 2003; Hawken, et al. 2007; Simonsen, et al. 2011); check, connect, and expect (Cheney, et al. 2009); and small group social skills training (Lane, et al. 2003), which are selected and implemented based on a student’s documented needs. Common features of tier 2 supports include (a) team-driven, planned, and ongoing screening to identify students whose behaviors indicate a need for tier 2 support (e.g., regular data-review, teacher nomination); (b) interventions that intensify supports available in tier 1 (e.g., intensified social skills instruction, increased prompting of expected behavior, increased opportunities for specific and contingent positive and corrective feedback); (c) team- and data-driven selection, implementation, and monitoring of intervention effectiveness; (d) intervention implementation within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., five school days between referral for and implementation of supports); and (e) increased emphasis on the home-school connection. When appropriate tier 2 supports are implemented with fidelity, participating students increase desired academic and social behaviors and decrease off-task, disruptive, and other problematic behaviors; however, assessment data should be used to guide intervention selection and monitoring (see McIntosh, et al. 2009; March and Horner 2002).

  • Cheney, Douglas A., Scott A. Stage, Leanne S. Hawken, Lori Lynass, Christine Mielenz, and Maryann Waugh. 2009. A 2-year outcome study of the check, connect, and expect intervention for students at risk for severe behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 17.4: 226–243.

    DOI: 10.1177/1063426609339186Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Check, connect, and expect (CCE) combines features of “Check and Connect” (Christenson, et al., Reaching Today’s Youth 2.1: 18–21, Fall 1997) and Crone, et al., Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program (New York: Guilford, 2004). Using an experimental time series design, with a stratified sample randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, authors documented positive effects of implementing CCE on students’ problem behavior; however, effects were not observed for academic or social skills over time.

    Find this resource:

  • Fairbanks, Sarah, George Sugai, David Guardino, and Margaret Lathrop. 2007. Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children 73.3: 288–310.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article illustrates the successful implementation of response to intervention logic for social behavior by implementing three tiers of support within elementary school classrooms.

    Find this resource:

  • Hawken, Leanne S., and Robert H. Horner. 2003. Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education 12.3: 225–240.

    DOI: 10.1023/A:1025512411930Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Authors describe the effects of a check-in/check-out (CICO) intervention, called the behavior education program (BEP) with middle school students. Effects are modest, but promising, suggesting a possible functional relation between implementation of the BEP and decreases in disruptive behavior and increases in academic engagement.

    Find this resource:

  • Hawken, Leanne S., K. Sandra MacLeod, and Linda Rawlings. 2007. Effects of the behavior education program (BEP) on office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 9.2: 94–101.

    DOI: 10.1177/10983007070090020601Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Elementary school students who participated in a CICO (BEP) intervention received fewer office disciplinary referrals during intervention than before intervention. Authors used a multiple baseline design to document effects across participants.

    Find this resource:

  • Lane, Kathleen L., Joseph Wehby, Holly M. Menzies, Georgia L. Doukas, Sarah M. Munton, and Rebecca M. Gregg. 2003. Social skills instruction for students at risk for antisocial behavior: The effects of small-group instruction. Behavioral Disorders 28.3 (May): 229–248.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Structured small-group social skills instruction may support students with social skill deficits. In this article, students demonstrated decreased disruptive behavior and negative social interactions and increased academic engaged time while participating in small-group social skills instruction.

    Find this resource:

  • March, Robert E., and Robert H. Horner. 2002. Feasibility and contributions of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 10.3 (Fall): 158–170.

    DOI: 10.1177/10634266020100030401Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The BEP is a targeted group intervention that includes increased adult attention and feedback for behavior. Thus, the BEP is most effective for students whose behaviors are maintained by access to adult or peer attention. This article illustrates the influence of function on students’ responsiveness to the BEP and demonstrates that function-based adjustments result in desired changes in student behavior, using single case design.

    Find this resource:

  • McIntosh, Kent, Amy L. Campbell, Deborah R. Carter, and Celeste R. Dickey. 2009. Differential effects of a tier two behavior intervention based on function of problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 11.2: 83–93.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Using a group design, authors found statistically significant differences in students’ responsiveness to the CICO based on function of behavior: students with attention-maintained problem behavior experienced better outcomes than students with escape-maintained problem behavior.

    Find this resource:

  • Simonsen, Brandi, Diane Myers, and Donald E. Briere III. 2011. Comparing a behavioral check-in/check-out (CICO) intervention to standard practice in an urban middle school setting using an experimental group design. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 13.1 (January): 31–48.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300709359026Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In this article, the authors used a randomized pre-test post-test control group design to compare the effects of CICO with standard practice in an urban middle school. Results indicate that CICO is related to decreases in observed off-task behavior; however, statistically significant differences were not found for office referrals or teacher ratings of students’ behaviors.

    Find this resource:

Intensive Individualized Support

Students displaying chronic or serious problem behaviors benefit from tier 3 supports, which are based on individualized functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and similar assessment data (see Ingram, et al. 2005; Sugai and Lewis-Palmer 2004). School staff should actively collaborate with families and other service providers to select, implement, and monitor each intervention component. Typical tier 3 supports are documented in a behavior support plan (BSP) and include (a) individualized antecedent strategies to prevent the problem behavior, (b) instructional strategies to teach an appropriate behavior that replaces the problem behavior, and (c) consequence strategies to increase the appropriate replacement behavior and decrease the problem behavior. For students with problem behaviors related to academic needs, support plans need to address both academic and social behavior needs (see Burke, et al. 2003; Lee, et al. 1999). In addition, for students with intensive needs, a student-specific team will use a wraparound process (Scott and Eber 2003) to coordinate support provided to the student and/or family across multiple agencies (e.g., school, mental health, juvenile justice, social services). Each of these components (FBA, BSP, and wraparound process) is supported by empirical evidence, summarized in the following studies.

  • Burke, Mack D., Shanna Hagan-Burke, and George Sugai. 2003. The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behaviors: Preliminary results from a single-case experiment. Learning Disability Quarterly 26.1: 15–25.

    DOI: 10.2307/1593681Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In this single case design study, researchers document the usefulness of functional behavioral assessment as a means of determining the escape-maintained function of problem behavior and development of an intervention that considers function in the development of an effective behavior intervention plan.

    Find this resource:

  • Ingram, Kimberly, Teri Lewis-Palmer, and George Sugai. 2005. Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 7.4: 224–236.

    DOI: 10.1177/10983007050070040401Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors demonstrate the importance of considering function when designing intensive behavior support plans using a single case reversal design.

    Find this resource:

  • Lee, Young-Yon, George Sugai, and Robert H. Horner. 1999. Using an instructional intervention to reduce problem and off-task behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 1.4: 195–204.

    DOI: 10.1177/109830079900100402Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Researchers in this study conducted a functional assessment and determined that task difficulty was related to occurrences of problem behavior. Based on this determination, math items were manipulated to reduce task difficulty, and the improvements in on- and off-task behavior were observed.

    Find this resource:

  • Scott, Terrance M., and Lucille Eber. 2003. Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 5.3: 131–143.

    DOI: 10.1177/10983007030050030201Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article provides a framework for integrating functional assessment and wraparound processes in the context of school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS).

    Find this resource:

  • Sugai, George, and Teri Lewis-Palmer. 2004. Overview of function-based approach to behavior support within schools. Assessment for Effective Intervention 30.1: 1–6.

    DOI: 10.1177/073724770403000101Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors in this special issue cover a range of topics related to the use of function-based approaches. Functional behavioral assessment, behavior intervention planning, and implementation checklists are emphasized.

    Find this resource:

Support in Alternative Settings

Although school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) was developed and documented as effective in “typical” school settings, emerging research suggests that SWPBS is also effective, when intensified, in alternative settings. Specifically, case studies have demonstrated that intensive tier 1 supports result in decreases in serious problem behaviors (e.g., aggression) and staff use of crisis procedures (e.g., restraint) in alternative school settings (Farkas, et al. 2012; Jolivette, et al. 2012; Kalke, et al. 2007; Miller, et al. 2005; Simonsen, et al. 2010; Simonsen, et al. 2011). In addition, preliminary evidence suggests that tier 2 supports may also be effective in restrictive settings (Ennis, et al. 2012; Swoszowski, et al. 2012).

  • Ennis, Robin P., Kristine Jolivette, Nicole C. Swoszowski, and Monia L. Johnson. 2012. Secondary prevention efforts at a residential facility for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Function-based check-in, check-out. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth 29.2: 79–102.

    DOI: 10.1080/0886571X.2012.669250Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article documents the effects of implementing check-in/check-out (CICO) in a school within a residential treatment facility for a small group of students who were identified as needing targeted support.

    Find this resource:

  • Farkas, Melanie, Brandi Simonsen, Scott Migdole, Mary Donovan, Katharine Clemens, and Victor Cicchese. 2012. Schoolwide positive behavior support in an alternative school setting: An evaluation of fidelity, outcomes, and social validity of tier 1 implementation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 20.4 (December): 275–288.

    DOI: 10.1177/1063426610389615Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    School staff members implemented an intensified version of tier 1 SWPBS, with fidelity, in an alternative school serving junior and senior high school students with (primarily emotional and behavioral) disabilities. The authors present an evaluation of implementation that describes positive student outcomes and social validity.

    Find this resource:

  • Jolivette, Kristine, Sara C. McDaniel, Jeffrey Sprague, Jessica Swain-Bradway, and Robin P. Ennis. 2012. Embedding the positive behavioral interventions and supports framework into the complex array of practices within alternative education settings: A decision-making process. Assessment for Effective Intervention 38.1 (December): 15–29.

    DOI: 10.1177/1534508412454450Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article provides an overview of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in alternative education settings and provides a decision-making framework to guide alternative setting staff members through implementation.

    Find this resource:

  • Kalke, Thomas, Ann Glanton, and Maria Cristalli. 2007. Positive behavioral interventions and supports: Using strength-based approaches to enhance the culture of care in residential and day treatment education environments. Child Welfare 86.5: 151–174.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This case study describes the process and outcomes of implementing PBIS in residential treatment and day treatment environments within the same agency. In particular, all sites demonstrated statistically significant decreases in the use of safety holds after introducing PBIS.

    Find this resource:

  • Miller, David N., Michael P. George, and Julie B. Fogt. 2005. Establishing and sustaining research-based practices at Centennial School: A descriptive case study of systemic change. Psychology in the Schools 42.5 (May): 553–567.

    DOI: 10.1002/pits.20091Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Centennial School is a therapeutic setting for students with disabilities, affiliated with Lehigh University. This article describes the positive effects on student outcomes of implementing a school-wide, proactive, and preventative intervention.

    Find this resource:

  • Simonsen, Brandi, Lisa Britton, and Dale Young. 2010. School-wide positive behavior support in an alternative school setting: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 12.3: 180–191.

    DOI: 10.1177/1098300708330495Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In this case study, school staff implemented SWPBS in an alternative (non-public) school serving students (ages three through twenty-one) with a variety of disabilities who exhibit chronic or severe aggressive behavior. The authors describe decreases in students’ physical aggression and staff members’ use of physical management (i.e., restraint) after staff implemented SWPBS.

    Find this resource:

  • Simonsen, Brandi, Jennifer Jeffrey-Pearsall, George Sugai, and Barry McCurdy. 2011. Alternative setting-wide positive behavior support. Behavioral Disorders 36.4 (August): 213–224.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In this article, the authors summarize the limited empirical literature and describe a conceptual model for intensifying and implementing SWPBS in alternative educational settings.

    Find this resource:

  • Swoszowski, Nicole C., Kristine Jolivette, Laura D. Fredrick, and L. Juane Heflin. 2012. Check in/check out: Effects on students with emotional and behavioral disorders with attention- or escape-maintained behavior in a residential facility. Exceptionality 20.3: 163–178.

    DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2012.694613Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The authors document the effects of implementing check-in/check-out (CICO) interventions in a school within a residential facility. Three students with escape-maintained behavior and three students with attention-maintained behavior participated, and two students within each group appeared to respond positively to the intervention.

    Find this resource:

back to top