Courtney Ruhno

8/16/17
CEP 822
Contributing Factors for Successful SWPBIS in Secondary Education

Introduction:

In education today the culture of the school has become one of the primary priorities. It

is important for schools to develop a positive atmosphere that enables students to feel safe,

comfortable, and confident in their learning. One way schools have been able to achieve this

priority is through the implementation of a School- Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and

Supports (SWPBIS) system. Although mostly elementary schools tend to implement SWPBIS, it

is also important for schools of secondary education to have a system in place to support a

positive culture. This paper will investigate the factors that contribute to effective SWPBIS in

secondary education settings. Primarily the effectiveness will be determined by amount of

Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODR) and measure of fidelity of the implementation.

Synthesis of Methods Used:

During the investigation of this topic, ten research articles regarding SWPBIS were

gathered and analyzed. Upon review of case studies collected, I was able to observe similarities

in regards to the methods in SWPBIS implementation and data collection. Prior to data

collection many schools conducted surveys to determine the climate of the school before

implementation of SWPBIS. One case study spoke mentioned that “two years before this study,

the school advisory committee had asked the second author of this article to conduct a school

climate survey because teachers, parents, and students had identified student–teacher, parent–

teacher, and student–student relationships as strained. They felt that a school climate survey

would help pinpoint issues that could be addressed by the school community.” (Silva, Langhout,

Kohfeldt, & Gurrola, 2015, p. 795) In addition, many case studies include training for staff in
 Courtney Ruhno
8/16/17
CEP 822
procedures and the development of the leadership team within in schools for SWPBIS system.

The training and support process in one case study included that “the PBIS teams received initial

training and implementation materials from coaches and national trainers, whereas the training

activities at the school level were led by the school-specific PBIS teams with support from

project-assigned coaches.” (Bradshaw, Pas, Debnam & Johnson, 2015, p. 486) Majority of all

schools that had SWPBIS implemented formed a leadership team that consisted of

administration, teachers, and other staff.

Measuring the fidelity of the implementation of SWPBIS was another key factor among

all the case studies. In order to determine the validly of the results, evaluation tools had to be

used to establish that the SWPBIS are implemented to a degree in which it is intended. In one of

the studies, four types of evaluations tools for fidelity were examined and compared. The most

common tool for evaluation was the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET). In the study

conducted by Mercer, McIntosh and Hoselton it was determined that “the primary finding is that

total scores on the SET were significantly higher than on all other Tier 1 fidelity assessments

(7.95–11.86 percentage points, d = .39–.72), indicating that higher total scores are more likely to

be obtained on the SET than on other measures for similar levels of Tier 1 implementation.”

(2017, p. 7) This may account for why so many research articles use the SET as the primary

source to determine fidelity in the implementation of SWPBIS. Finally the data of the frequency

and amount of ODRs were collected and evaluated to determine if the implementation of

SWPBIS would have a decreasing effect.

Synthesis of Findings:

After review the research articles, the results concluded some positive patterns in regards

to the effects the implementation of SWPBIS had upon a school or students. Many of the case
 Courtney Ruhno
8/16/17
CEP 822
studies discussed that their data over the course of several years indicated a decrease of ODRs

and a decrease in the frequency of ODRs individual students received in a course of a year. One

article reported that “the effect of fidelity on ODR rates indicated statistically significant

decreases (−0.81, p < .001) for schools approaching fidelity and for schools at fidelity (−1.07, p

< .001) as compared with the reference group.” (Freeman, Simonsen, McCoach, Sugai,

Lombardi & Horner, 2015, p.47) This result means that schools with higher fidelity saw more of

a decrease in the amount and frequency of ODRs compared to the controlled group of schools

that did not receive any training or assistance in the implementation of SWPBIS. A case study

conducted by Bohanon, Fenning, Carney, Minnis-Kim, Anderson-Harriss, Moroz, and Pigott

examined the average ODRs in a school over the course of three years. The results of this study

demonstrated that the “total number of referrals for Year 2 was 5,215 (1.93 per day, per 100

students, per average daily enrollment) and 4,339 for Year 3 (1.54 per day,per 100 students,per

average daily enrollment)”(2006, p. 140) showing a 20% decrease. Furthermore, an additional

case concluded that “there was a statistically significant effect of implementation fidelity on

problem behavior in Year 2 (b =-3.05, p .03) and Year 3 (b =-3.18, p < .01), showing that as SET

scores increased, individual student problem behavior decreased.” (Flannery, Flenning, Kato &

McIntosh, 2014, p. 120)

The effects of SWPBIS were also evaluated in regard to academics. One study collected

data on the Academic Index (AI) of the students in schools with SWPBIS or referred to as

treatment schools compared to schools in a controlled group. The results of this case study

found in the “post baseline, control schools exhibited an adjusted average AI rate of increase of

2.3 points per year, compared to the treatment schools’ rate of 6.7 points per year.” (Madigan,

Cross, Smolkowski & Strycker, 2016, p. 416) These results were over the course of nine years
 Courtney Ruhno
8/16/17
CEP 822
but demonstrate that SWPBIS can have an effect on not only behavior but support academic

improvement as well. All these results helped solidify my beliefs of the positive impact

implementing SWPBIS can have on a school’s culture. Since most of these studies were

conducted using secondary education settings, it also demonstrates that SWPBIS is not only

needed in the elementary levels but in with students in high school as well. Implementing

SWPBIS can contribute to improving behaviors and teach students more positive approaches and

outlets for their feelings and conflicts. In addition, by creating a more positive environment in a

school, students are able to feel more safe and comfortable within their classrooms which allow

for improvement in regards to academics.

Implications for My Practice:

So far in my review of my research, I have concluded that effective SWPBIS can be

possible in a secondary education setting. My question at the beginning was in regards to which

factors could contribute to this effectiveness. The two most common factors that were presented

in these studies were time and training. First providing ample time to allow fidelity of the

implementation of SWPBIS was critical. This time was not measured in days, weeks, or months

but in years. The minimum amount of years a study used to determine impact in behavior or

academics was at least three years. Many of the schools that do abandon SWPBIS do so within

the first 5 years with “majority of these schools (89%) abandoned in the first 3 years of

implementation” (Nese, Mcintosh, Nese, Hoselton, Bloom, Johnson, & Ghemraoui, 2016, p.

266). In addition, the factor of training can have a large impact of the success of implementing

SWPBIS in a secondary education setting. All of the research articles and case studies made a

point within the research to emphasize training to not only develop a leadership team but also

allow time for the leadership teams to train other staff in the building. In these case studies there
 Courtney Ruhno
8/16/17
CEP 822
were detailed descriptions on how leadership teams should be conducted and that there needs to

be “time to meet and that staff have opportunities to attend relevant professional development

activities” (Flannery, Sugai & Anderson, 2009, p.183). Furthermore, with training comes the

development of confidence to implement SWPBIS among staff and when staff is more confident

then more buy-in is created. It is ideal that “80% criterion for buy-in has been suggested as a

necessary condition for schools to successfully implement SW-PBIS” (Filter, Sytsma &

McIntosh, 2016, p. 25) and that can be achieved through training and support.

By understanding the factors that contribute to successful implementation of SWPBIS

and that there are proven benefits to SWPBIS in a secondary education setting, I can perform my

role in school as the PBIS Advisory Team Leader more effectively. First I understand the

importance of training and will make an effort to devote time training the entire staff during

beginning of the school year professional development but also be available for support and

assistance throughout the year. In addition, understanding that the factor of time is a big

contributor, I can communicate that information to administrators and use the evidence

demonstrating to allow time for implementation to take effect instead of basing effectiveness on

only one year. Throughout this research I was pleasantly surprised to find evidence that supports

the effect SWPBIS can have on behavior and hope to apply my findings to improving my school

culture in a more positive way as well.

 Courtney Ruhno
8/16/17
CEP 822

References
Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harriss, S., Moroz, K.
B., . . . Pigott, T. D. (2006). Schoolwide Application of Positive Behavior Support in an Urban
High School A Case Study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,8(3), 131-145. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007060080030201

Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Debnam, K. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2015). A Focus on Implementation
of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in High Schools: Associations With
Bullying and Other Indicators of School Disorder. School Psychology Review,44(4), 480-498.
doi: https://search-proquest-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/1770814919?accountid=12598

Filter, K. J., PhD, Sytsma, M. R., PsyD, & McIntosh, K., PhD. (2016). A Brief Measure of Staff
Commitment to Implement School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Hammill Institute on Disabilities,42(1), 18-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508416642212

Flannery, K., Flenning, P., Kato, M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of implementation on problem behavior in
high schools. School Psychology Quarterly,29(2), 111-124.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1037/spq0000039

Flannery, K., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in
High School Early Lessons Learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,11(3), 177-185.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708316257

Freeman, J., PhD, Simonsen, B., PhD, McCoach, D., PhD, Sugai, G., PhD, Lombardi, A., PhD,
& Horner, R., PhD. (2015). Relationship Between School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions
and Supports and Academic, Attendance, and Behavior Outcomes in High Schools. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions,18(1), 41-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715580992

Madigan, K., Cross, R. W., Smolkowski, K., & Strycker, L. A. (2016). Association between
schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and academic achievement: a 9-year
evaluation. Educational Research and Evaluation,22(7-8), 402-421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1256783

Mercer, S. H., PhD, McIntosh, K., PhD, & Hoselton, R., BS. (2017). Comparability of Fidelity
Measures for Assessing Tier 1 School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693384
 Courtney Ruhno
8/16/17
CEP 822
Nese,R,McIntosh, K., Nese, J., Hoselton, R., Bloom, J., Johnson, N., . . . Ghemraoui, A. (2016).
Predicting Abandonment of School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Behavioral Disorders,42(1), 261-270. doi: https://search-proquest-
com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/1847563606?accountid=12598

Silva, J. M., Langhout, R. D., Kohfeldt, D., & Gurrola, E. (2015). “Good” and “Bad” Kids? A Race and
Gender Analysis of Effective Behavioral Support in an Elementary School. Urban Education,50(7), 787-
811. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914534859