Adoption of PBIS within school districts

Exploring Teachers' Intentions to Use Behavioral Classroom Interventions

Multi-tiered systems of behavioral supports offer teachers tools to implement positive, antecedent- or consequence-based interventions for all students (i.e., Tier 1), and for those who need additional support (i.e., Tier 2), such as students with ADHD. Because these interventions may be challenging to use, targeted, theory-driven implementation strategies may assist teachers in implementing them with fidelity. This exploratory study examined teachers' intended and self-reported use of specific Tier 1 and Tier 2 behavioral classroom interventions. Sixty-five K-8 teachers from five urban public schools completed an online survey about their intentions to use and self-reported use of four Tier 1 and Tier 2 behavioral classroom interventions. Teachers' intentions varied by intervention, with the weakest intentions for using a daily behavior report (Tier 2), and weaker intentions for using high rates of specific praise than for other Tier 1 interventions. Teacher's self-reported use was significantly lower than intended use for Tier 1 interventions, but not Tier 2 interventions. Results were generally similar whether the referent group was students with ADHD symptoms or the entire class. These results suggest specific factors to target to support teachers' use of behavioral classroom interventions.

Recess Policy Implementation: Beliefs and Perceptions of Site-Based Decisions-Makers

METHODS

Using the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991) as a theoretical framework, this study examined what administrators and teachers at a public elementary school located in a district in Northeast Georgia communicated as to their salient behavioral beliefs (attitude), normative beliefs (subjective norms), and control beliefs (perceived behavioral control) relative to the implementation of the district's written recess policy.

RESULTS

The results of this study demonstrated that teachers new to the field and those certified in early childhood education were more supportive of implementing the practice. The results further demonstrated that more experienced teachers and those certified in elementary education were less supportive.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH POLICY, PRACTICE, AND EQUITY

The findings in this study revealed that obtaining participant buy-in was critical for the implementation and that targeted professional development would be a suitable vehicle for improving school health for students.

CONCLUSIONS

The most cited reasons for support for the policy were an understanding that an unstructured break was beneficial for students and that participants considered it a non-negotiable. The most cited reasons for a lack of support included more time needed for academics and a need for expanded behavioral consequences.

Study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of a bundle of implementation support strategies to improve the fidelity of implementation of schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in rural schools

Background

Improving the implementation of evidence-based interventions is important for population-level impacts. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is effective for improving school climate and students’ behavioral outcomes, but rural schools often lag behind urban and suburban schools in implementing such initiatives.

Methods/Design

This paper describes a Type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of Rural School Support Strategies (RS3), a bundle of implementation support strategies selected to improve implementation outcomes in rural schools. In this two-arm parallel group trial, 40 rural public schools are randomized to receive: 1) a series of trainings about PBIS; or 2) an enhanced condition with training plus RS3. The trial was planned for two years, but due to the pandemic has been extended another year. RS3 draws from the Interactive Systems Framework, with a university-based team (support system) that works with a team at each school (school-based delivery system), increasing engagement through strategies such as: providing technical assistance, facilitating school team functioning, and educating implementers. The primary organizational-level outcome is fidelity of implementation, with additional implementation outcomes of feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and cost. Staff-level outcomes include perceived climate and self-reported adoption of PBIS core components. Student-level outcomes include disciplinary referrals, academic achievement, and perceived climate. Mediators being evaluated include organizational readiness, school team functioning, and psychological safety.

Discussion

The study tests implementation strategies, with strengths including a theory-based design, mixed methods data collection, and consideration of mediational mechanisms. Results will yield knowledge about how to improve implementation of universal prevention initiatives in rural schools.

Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting

Background

Implementation outcomes research spans an exciting mix of fields, disciplines, and geographical space. Although the number of studies that cite the 2011 taxonomy has expanded considerably, the problem of harmony in describing outcomes persists. This paper revisits that problem by focusing on the clarity of reporting outcomes in studies that examine them. Published recommendations for improved reporting and specification have proven to be an important step in enhancing the rigor of implementation research. We articulate reporting problems in the current implementation outcomes literature and describe six practical recommendations that address them.

Recommendations

Our first recommendation is to clearly state each implementation outcome and provide a definition that the study will consistently use. This includes providing an explanation if using the taxonomy in a new way or merging terms. Our second recommendation is to specify how each implementation outcome will be analyzed relative to other constructs. Our third recommendation is to specify “the thing” that each implementation outcome will be measured in relation to. This is especially important if you are concurrently studying interventions and strategies, or if you are studying interventions and strategies that have multiple components. Our fourth recommendation is to report who will provide data and the level at which data will be collected for each implementation outcome, and to report what kind of data will be collected and used to assess each implementation outcome. Our fifth recommendation is to state the number of time points and frequency at which each outcome will be measured. Our sixth recommendation is to state the unit of observation and the level of analysis for each implementation outcome.

Conclusion

This paper advances implementation outcomes research in two ways. First, we illustrate elements of the 2011 research agenda with concrete examples drawn from a wide swath of current literature. Second, we provide six pragmatic recommendations for improved reporting. These recommendations are accompanied by an audit worksheet and a list of exemplar articles that researchers can use when designing, conducting, and assessing implementation outcomes studies.

Can Policy Promote Adoption or Outcomes of Evidence-based Prevention Programming?: a Case Illustration of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

This study examined the impact of a state policy requiring that any school with a habitual truancy rate of 8% or higher to be trained in Tier 1 school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS). A regression discontinuity (RD) design was used to examine how the schools' mandate status related to SW-PBIS training as well as student suspensions, truancy, and achievement in 410 public middle and high schools, of which 261 were affected by the mandate. We further examined the growth trajectories (i.e., improvement) of implementation fidelity over time using growth mixture modeling (GMM). Contrary to the intent of the policy to improve student outcomes, the RD results suggested that the mandate did not significantly impact reading and math achievement, truancy rates, or SW-PBIS training in 2010-2011 through 2013-2014. Mandated schools had higher suspension rates in 2010-2011 through 2013-2014 than the non-mandated schools; however, these differences in the suspension rates appear to have persisted from years prior to the mandate. Descriptive analyses suggested that mandated schools had statistically significantly higher rates of training, and the GMM analyses on the fidelity data indicated that mandated schools were significantly more likely to be in an improving implementation growth trajectory over time. Taken together, results suggested that the policy showed some promise for improving SW-PBIS training and fidelity over time, but it had little to no impact on student outcomes.