LITERATURE REVIEW
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF
SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION
SUPPORTS ON THE AMOUNT
OF BEHAVIORAL REFERRALS IN
A SUBURBAN DISTRICT?
Patricia Hershey
Introduction


In the wake of school shootings, bullying incidents, and other school
violence issues, many school districts are developing School-Wide
Positive Intervention Behavioral Supports (Sugai and Horner,
2002a).
Does having a common School-Wide Behavioral Intervention
Supports program improve behavior? If global SWPBIS are
successful, schools can focus their attentions on developing specific
behavioral interventions for students with the most severe behavioral
issues and improve school safety. In addition, if SWPBIS programs
improve behavior, students and administrators can spend less time on
behavioral issues and devote more time to instruction and student
achievement.
Behavioral Intervention Prior to
SWPBIS




Prior to the development of SWPBIS, the issue of how schools addressed
behavioral concerns was problematic. Schools used inconsistent and
punitive management practices that failed to give students the opportunity
to learn and practice social skills and self- management skills (Colvin,
Kame’enui & Sugai, 1994).
In addition to inconsistent management practices and failure to enforce
rules, rules and behavioral expectations were also inconsistent. Behavior
interventions were reactive rather than preventive (Colvin, Kame’enui &
Sugai, 1994).
Sprague et al., (2001), argued indirect intervention approaches, such as
counseling, used in isolation are ineffective and actually increase the
incidence of antisocial behavior. Verbal reprimands, suspensions, and
detentions do not bring long term change in behavior. They may in fact,
lead to an increase in truancy, vandalism, harassment, and other problem
behavior (Sprague et al., 2001).
Regulatory Connection to SWPBIS


Schools began to look toward a more systematic proactive approach to
address behavior. “The reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities
Educational Act (1997, 2004) increased attention to the use of
scientifically based behavioral interventions and supports, in particular to
prevent the development of problem behaviors and to address the
educational needs of students with serious behavior challenges.” (Sugai &
Horner, 2009, p.226-227).
Although Response- to- Intervention is not mentioned in Individuals with
Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA), or the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
it is related to the emphasis on “scientifically based research” of both acts
(Sugai & Horner, 2009).
Common Features of RtI and SWPBIS

Sugai and Horner (2009) maintained SWPBIS employs the same six core
features as Response to Intervention. They are:
1. Interventions that are supported by scientifically based research.
2. Interventions that are organized along a tiered continuum that
increases in intensity (e.g., frequency, duration, individualization,
specialized supports, etc.).
3. Standardized problem-solving protocol for assessment and
instructional decision making.
4. Explicit data-based decision rules for assessing student progress
and making instructional and intervention adjustments.
5. Emphasis on assessing and ensuring implementation integrity.
6. Regular and systematic screening for early identification of
students whose performance is not responsive to instruction. (p.226)
Three-Tiered Model



In the SWPBIS three-tiered model, the primary tier comprises 80% of the
model and includes all students.
The secondary prevention tier encompasses 15% of the model and
addresses students with at-risk behavior with specialized group
interventions.
The tertiary prevention tier comprises the final five percent of the model.
The tertiary tier consists of specialized individual interventions for students
with high-risk behavior (Sugai & Horner, 2002b).
SWPBIS Implementation



SWPBIS implementation must include continuous evaluation of fidelity and
outcomes.
School climate can be assessed through the use of the School-Wide
Evaluation Tool, the Teacher Implementation Checklist, and student survey
(Horner et al., 2009; Mass-Galloway et al.,
Office discipline referrals (ODRs) are another measure of the effectiveness
of SWPBIS. ODR data is used to evaluate the overall level of social
behavior in schools (Horner et al., 2009).
Usefulness of Tracking ODRs



In 2005-2006, Spaulding, Irvin, Horner, May, Emeldi, and Tobin evaluated
patterns of ODRs and administrative decisions made based on the ODR
patterns in 1, 510 schools nationwide using SWPBIS (Spaulding et al.,
2010).
Spaulding et al., (2010) were able to track the time of day elementary,
middle, and high school students incurred the most ODRs, the behaviors
resulting in ODRs, and the frequency of ODRs at the elementary, middle,
and high school level. Administrators used this data for prevention,
intervention, and to develop appropriate consequences (Spaulding et al.,
2010).
In 1999 Sugai, Horner, and Walker published a study on the use of office
discipline referral data to examine school-wide discipline and violence
prevention. The study included 15 elementary schools and 15 middle
schools. Sugai et al., (1999) recommended the use of ODRs as a means of
identifying students in need of: universal (primary tier) intervention,
secondary tier selected group intervention, and tertiary tier individual
behavior intervention.
Findings of the Review




In a 2001 study, Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, and Sprague used ODRs to
evaluate the implementation of SWPBIS over a three year period, which
included a baseline year.
Results included a 28% drop in ODRs in the first year, and a 41% reduction
in ODRs from the baseline year during the second year. Breaking down the
data further, there was a significant decrease in seventh grade referrals
and a less significant effect on eighth grade referrals.
Mass-Galloway et al., (2008) used ODRs to gage the success of SWPIS in
Iowa. Three cohorts were chosen from the pool of applicants from all public
and private schools in Iowa.
Results of the Mass-Galloway et al., (2008) study of both qualitative and
quantitative data were favorable to SWPBS. Results showed less office
discipline referrals and gains in instructional and administrative time due to
the fewer referrals. Seventy-five percent of the sites in the study
experienced a 42% decrease in office referrals per 100 students per day
over a two year period.
Findings of the Review Continued


In 2009, Sherrod, Getch, and Ziomek- Daigle published a study designed
to examine the results of SWPBIS implementation in a Southeastern
suburban elementary school.
Overall, there was a 26% decrease in student ODRs in the SWPBIS group.
Discipline referrals decreased from 219 referrals to 162. Physical
aggression referrals decreased by 40%, bus referrals by 53% and
inappropriate behavior referrals were reduced by 66%. There was a 25%
increase of referrals for disrespectful behavior, and a 63% increase in
referrals for disruptive behavior (Sherrod et al., 2009).
Conclusions


Based upon the research, schools that implemented SWPBIS with fidelity
saw a drop in ODRs. The systemic organization of SWPBIS improves
teacher and student behaviors through consistent use of positive feedback,
social skills instruction and decreases problem behaviors leading to ODRs.
By reducing the number of behavior incidents resulting in ODRs, SWPBIS
allows schools to focus on the at-risk and high-risk behaviors of students.
This allows schools to become safer and spend more time on improving
instructional practices.
Implications


SWPBIS practices are increasing nationwide. Pennsylvania has not yet
mandated SWPBIS, or Behavioral Response to Intervention. Sharing of
research, outcomes, and the reasoning behind the development of SWPBIS
could result in more schools adopting SWPBIS. Perhaps this could be done
through ACT 48 options for principals and teachers and at Safe Schools
conferences.
Several studies tracked student and teacher perceptions of safety. There
should be further study of which components of SWPBIS students perceive
as the most influential in regard to behavior and safety.
References













Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the
organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E.J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with
behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J., (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing schoolwide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 133-144. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from Research Library.
(Document ID: 1769486411).
Mass-Galloway, R., Panyan, M., Smith, C., & Wessendorf, S. (2008). Systems change with school-wide behavior supports Iowa's work in progress. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 10(2), 129-135.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive
behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(4), 448-79. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sherrod, M., Getch, Y., & Ziomek-Daigle, J.. (2009). The impact of positive behavior support to decrease discipline referrals with elementary students. Professional
School Counseling, 12(6), 421-427. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from Career and Technical Education. (Document ID: 1831413781).
Spaulding, S., Irvin, L., Horner, R., May, S., Emeldi, M., Tobin, T., & Sugai, G. (2010). School-wide social-behavioral climate, student problem behavior, and related
administrative decisions: Empirical patterns from 1,510 schools nationwide. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 69-85. Retrieved June 7, 2011, from
Research Library. (Document ID: 1978389691).
Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., Horner, R., Walker, H. M., & Oregon School Study Council, E. e. (1999). Using office discipline referral data to evaluate school-wide
discipline and violence prevention interventions. OSSC Bulletin, 42(2), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2001). Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and
student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(4), 495-511. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002a). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1-2), 23-50.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002b). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 13035. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behavior in schools. Exceptionality, 16(2), 67-77.
doi:10.1080/09362830801981138
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches.
Exceptionality, 17(4), 223-237. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.