PBIS by zhouwenjuan

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 40

									 Promises and Pitfalls in School-wide Positive
 Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

Catherine Bradshaw, Ph.D., M.Ed.
Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention ofYouthViolence (CDC)
Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention and Early Intervention (NIMH)
Department of Mental Health


Penn State IES Fellows: May 17, 2011
PBIS Model: Whole-school Prevention
 Application of behavioral, social learning, &
  organizational behavioral principles
   Clear behavioral expectations (e.g., ready, responsible, and respectful)
   Positive rewards
   Procedures for managing disruptions




                     (Horner & Sugai, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2006)
Be Responsible
Respect Yourself
Respect Others
Eagle Tickets
PBIS Model: Whole-school Prevention
 Application of behavioral, social learning, &
  organizational behavioral principles
   Clear behavioral expectations (e.g., ready, responsible, and respectful)
   Positive rewards
   Procedures for managing disruptions
 Focus on changing adult behavior
   Emphasizes staff buy-in
   Team-based & data-based process
   Consistency in discipline practices




                     (Horner & Sugai, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2006)
                              Observe Problem Behavior



                         Warning/Conference with Student




                     No                 Is behavior                   Yes
Use Classroom                              office                                   Write referral to
Consequence                             managed?                                         office


                       Classroom                Office
Complete Minor         Managed                  Managed
                                                                                     Administrator
Incident Report        •Preparedness            •Weapons
                       •Calling Out             •Fighting or Aggressive               determines
                       •Classroom Disruption    Physical Contact                     consequence
                       •Refusal to Follow a     •Chronic Minor
                       Reasonable Request       Infractions
                       (Insubordination)        •Aggressive Language                 Administrator
  Does student         •Failure to Serve a      •Threats
                                                                                     follows through
have 3 MIR slips       Detention                •Harassment of Student
                       •Put Downs               or Teacher                          on consequence
  for the same         •Refusing to Work        •Truancy/Cut Class
 behavior in the       •Inappropriate           •Smoking
  same quarter         Tone/Attitude            •Vandalism
                       •Electronic Devices      •Alcohol
                                                                                     Administrator
                       •Inappropriate           •Drugs                              provides teacher
                       Comments                 •Gambling                              feedback
                       •Food or Drink           •Dress Code
   Write the                                    •Cheating
   student a                                    •Not w/ Class During
                                                Emergency
REFERRAL to                                     •Leaving School
the main office                                 Grounds
                                                •Foul Language at
                                                Student/Staff

           SIDE BAR on Minor Incident Reports
           •Issue slip when student does not respond to pre-correction, re-direction, or verbal warning
           •Once written, file a copy with administrator
           •Take concrete action to correct behavior (i.e. assign detention, complete behavior reflection
           writing, seat change)
                                                        Office Referrals by Student
 Office Referrals by Teacher                                             1994-1995
                      1994-1995                   100
300
                                                  80
250

200                                               60

150                                               40
100
                                                  20
50

 0                                                 0
      1   5   9   13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49         1   7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79
                       Teachers                                    No. of Referrals
PBIS Model: Whole-school Prevention
 Application of behavioral, social learning, &
  organizational behavioral principles
   Clear behavioral expectations (e.g., ready, responsible, and respectful)
   Positive rewards
   Procedures for managing disruptions
 Focus on changing adult behavior
   Emphasizes staff buy-in
   Team-based & data-based process
   Consistency in discipline practices
 Can be implemented in any school level, type, or setting
   Non-curricular model – flexible to fit school culture & context
 Coaching to ensure high fidelity implementation
   On-going progress monitoring
 Public health approach (universal / selective / indicated)
   Requires a shift from punitive/reactive to preventive

                     (Horner & Sugai, 2001; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2006)
   Maryland’s Tiered Instructional and Positive Behavioral
       Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Framework

       Academic Systems                                                     Behavioral Systems
 Intensive, Individually Designed Interventions
 • Address individual needs of student                                        Intensive, Individually Designed Interventions
 • Assessment-based                                                           • Strategies to address needs of individual
                                                        1-5%   1-5%           students with intensive needs
 • High Intensity
                                                                              • Function-based assessments
                                                                              • Intense, durable strategies
 Targeted, Group Interventions                      5-10%        5-10%             Targeted, Group Interventions
 • Small, needs-based groups for                                                   • Small, needs-based groups for at-
 at risk students who do not respond                                               risk students who do not respond to
 to universal strategies                                                           universal strategies
 • High efficiency                                                                 • High efficiency/ Rapid response
 • Rapid response                                                                  • Function-based logic



Core Curriculum and                        80-90%                                           Core Curriculum and
                                                                         80-90%
 Differentiated Instruction                                                                 Universal Interventions
• All students                                                                              • All settings, all students
• Preventive, proactive                                                                     • Preventive, proactive
• School-wide or classroom                                                                  • School-wide or classroom
systems for ALL students                                                                    systems for ALL students and
                                                                                            staff


                                                                                                      (MSDE, 2008)
Maryland’s PBIS Organizational Model
School Level
   826 PBIS Teams (one per school) ≈ 59%                                     Student
      Team leaders (one per school)
      Behavior Support Coaches (560)                                     Classroom
District Level (24)
   District Coordinators                                                 School

State Level                                                             District
   State Leadership Team
        Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)                  State
        Sheppard Pratt Health System
        Johns Hopkins University
        24 Local school districts
        Department of Juvenile Services, Mental Hygiene Administration
        University of Maryland
   Management Team
   Advisory Group
National Level
   National PBIS Technical Assistance Center
      University of Oregon, University of Connecticut, & University of Missouri

                                                        (Barrett, Bradshaw & Lewis-Palmer, 2008; JPBI)
             Group Randomized
              Trial of SW-PBIS
Funding
 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
 National Institute of Mental Health
 Institute of Education Sciences
Sample
 37 voluntary elementary schools across 5 school districts
   Enrollment 227-983; 60% Caucasian; 48% suburban; 41% urban fringe; 49% Title I

Design
 Group randomized effectiveness trial
   21 PBIS & 16 “Focus/Comparison”
 Baseline plus 4 years (spring 2002 - spring 2007)
   Data from 29,423 students & 3,563 staff                                                   Project Target


               (Bradshaw et al., Prevention Science, 2009; School Psychology Quarterly, 2008; JPBI, 2010)
                         SET: PBIS Implementation Fidelity
                       100%                                                                                     95%
                                                                       90%                  91%
                                                  84%
                       80%
     Mean Scores (%)




                                                                 61%
                       60%                   56%
                                                                                      49%                 48%
                              43%
                       40%       37%


                       20%


                        0%
                              Baseline        Year 1               Year 2              Year 3               Year 4

                                                          Comparison            PBIS
Notes. No significant differences between groups at baseline, but differences at all other years at p<.05. Overall SET
score: Wilks’ Λ = .38, F (4,32) = 13.36, p <.001, partial η2 = .63, d = 3.22. (Bradshaw, Reinke et al., ETC, 2007)
        Brief Summary of SW-PBIS
         Training Effects on Fidelity
• High fidelity implementation and
  sustainability of PBIS
  All trained schools reached high fidelity within 4 years
   (66% by the end of year 1)
  All trained schools sustained high fidelity




        (Bradshaw, Reinke et al., ETC, 2007; Bradshaw et al. Prevention Science, 2009)
       Analysis of Climate Data:
 Organizational Health Inventory (OHI)
 OHI: 37 item staff-report measure of 5 aspects of a healthy
  functioning school (Hoy et al., 1991)
   academic emphasis - students are cooperative in the classroom, respectful of other
      students who get good grades, and are driven to improve their skills
     staff affiliation - warm and friendly interactions, commitment, trust
     collegial leadership - principal’s behavior is friendly, supportive, open
     resource influence - principal’s ability to lobby for resources for the school
     institutional integrity - teachers are protected from unreasonable community and
      parental demands
     overall OHI score (average of all items)
 Analyses
   Longitudinal analyses were conducted using a 3-level approach in Mplus 4.21
      (Muthén & Muthén, 2006)
       Intent to treat approach (Lachin, 2000) & moderated by fidelity (SET)
       Adjusted for staff (sex, race, age) and school (FARMs, student mobility, faculty
        turnover, & school enrollment) covariates on intercept and slope
               Effect of PBIS on Overall OHI
               3.50
                                                                                           Comparison
                                                                                           PBIS         *
               3.25
 Overall OHI




               3.00                                                                 Sig. change
                                                                                    (.05)
               2.75


               2.50


               2.25
                      0                1                       2                       3                       4

                                                     Study Year
Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope of overall OHI significant at p<.05.
                    Effect of PBIS on Collegial Leadership
                        3.50

                                                                                                               *
 Collegial Leadership



                        3.25                                                       Sig. difference
                                                                                   (.05)
                        3.00                                                                         *

                        2.75

                                                                                           Comparison
                        2.50                                                               PBIS



                        2.25
                               0       1                       2                       3                       4

                                                     Study Year
Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope of overall OHI significant at p<.05.
 Note. Adjusted means from 3-level model. * Intervention effect on slope significant at p<.05.
              Brief Summary of SW-PBIS
              Training Effects on Climate
• PBIS training associated with significant
 improvements in staff members’ report of school
 climate / organizational health
 • Principal leadership, collegial relationships, academic emphasis,
   recourse influence, institutional integrity, and overall OHI
 • Effect sizes ranged from .24 (AE) to .35 (RI)
 • OHI intercept and slope negatively correlated
    Schools starting with lower levels of OHI tended to take longer to reach high
     fidelity, but improved the most




              (Bradshaw, et al., SPQ, 2008; Bradshaw et al. Prevention Science, 2009)
Brief Summary of Impacts of SW-PBIS
        on Student Outcomes
• Significant impacts for students:
  Significant reduction in school-level suspensions among the
   PBIS schools
  Students in PBIS schools were 32% less likely to receive an
   office discipline referral
  A positive trend for school-level MSA academic
   performance was observed




                                            (Bradshaw et al., JPBI, 2010)
           Impact of SW-PBIS on Bullying and Rejection:
                      HLM 3-Level Results
                                  Teacher-Reported Bullying                    Teacher-Reported Rejection
                                 Coefficient                SE                      Coefficient                SE
Intercept
  Intercept                     1.4029***                0.0242                    1.8174***                0.0359
  Mobility                         0.0001                0.0028                      0.0021                 0.0032
  Student Teacher Ratio           -0.0057                0.0053                      -0.0011                0.0088
  Faculty Turnover                -0.0016                0.0034                      0.0018                 0.0034
  Enrollment                       0.0089                0.0115                     0.0309*                 0.0141
  Special Education Status      0.1176***                0.0268                    0.3646***                0.0367
  Ethnicity (Black)             0.2317***                0.0316                    0.1545***                0.0288
  Grade Cohort                    -0.0564                0.0473                     -0.1095*                0.0481
  FARMS                         0.0846***                0.0165                    0.2347***                0.0241
  Gender                        0.2261***                0.0183                    0.2127***                0.0176
Slope (Growth)
  Intercept                     0.0326***                0.0099                    0.0767***                0.0158
 SWPBIS Intervention             -0.0230*               0.0088                     -0.0339*                 0.0145
 Mobility                          0.0015                0.0009                       0.0011                0.0009
 Student Teacher Ratio           0.0043*                 0.0016                      0.0042                 0.0022
 Faculty Turnover                  0.0023                0.0013                     0.0028*                 0.0013
 Enrollment                      -0.0114*                0.0037                     -0.0110*                0.0048
 Special Education Status         -0.0043                0.0089                       0.0187                0.0121
 Ethnicity (Black)              0.0333***                0.0059                      -0.0024                0.0078
 Grade Cohort                      0.0127                0.0161                       0.0121                0.0181
 FARMS                          0.0218***                0.0051                      -0.0018                0.0079
 Gender (male)                  0.0188***                0.0064                      0.0056                 0.0077
   Note. Measure is Teacher Observation of Classroom Adjustment TOCA (teacher-reported) * p<.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001
Impact of SW-PBIS on Teacher-Reported
  Perpetration of Bullying Behaviors




                 (N = 12,334, γ = -.02, t = -2.60, p<.05, ES= -.11)
Impact of SW-PBIS on Teacher-
  Reported Student Rejection




            (N = 12,334, γ = -.03, t = -2.32, p<.05, ES= -.14)
SW-PBIS Intervention Status by Grade
       Cohort on Rejection

                             Control Younger
Impact of SW-PBIS on Teacher-
 Reported Disruptive Behaviors




            (N = 12,334, γ = -.02, t = -2.39, p<.05, ES = -.12)
 Impact of SW-PBIS on Teacher-
Reported Concentration Problems




              (N = 12,334, γ = -.03, t = -2.08, p=.046, ES=.09)
 Impact of SW-PBIS on Teacher-
Reported Emotion Regulation Skills




               (N = 12,334, γ = .03, t = -2.30, p=.045, ES = .10)
Impact of SW-PBIS on Teacher-
  Reported Positive Behaviors




            (N = 12,334, γ = .03, t = -2.11, p<.05, ES = .15)
Variations in the Impact of SW-PBIS
  Is there variation in the impact of SW-PBIS based on the
   child’s baseline pattern of risk?
    Is SW-PBIS more impactful for some students than others?
    Parallel to ‘green’, ‘yellow’, and ‘red’ zone framework?
  Used Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to examine variation
    LCA is a person centered approach
      Groups participants with similar patterns among indicator variables into
       latent classes (McCutcheon, 1987)
    Analysis conducted in Mplus 6.1                         (Muthén & Muthén, 1997-2010)

    Fitting the classes
      Substantive theory as well as statistical support (Nylund et al., 2007)
      5 indices: Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Baysian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwartz,
         1978), Sample Size Adjusted Baysian Information Criterion (SSA BIC; Sclove, 1987), Lo-Mendell-
         Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001), and the sample size adjusted
         LMR (Muthén & Muthén, 1997-2008)
     Latent Class Analyses: Mean Baseline TOCA Scores
Mean (Centered)




                  Baseline Teacher Ratings of Student Behavior (TOCA) N = 12,334
    Variation in Impact by LCA Membership:
% within Class Experiencing (Untoward) Outcome
                                                                                                 Socially-
                                     High Risk             At Risk          Normative           Emotionally
                                                                                                  Skilled

TOCA item                        PBIS     Control    PBIS     Control    PBIS     Control      PBIS   Control

Sent to Principals’ Office        71A       78 A      41 B      46 B      22        20         10       11

Rcvd Counseling for
                                   57       54        25 C      30 C      11        11          5        5
Inappropriate Behavior
Rcvd Counseling for
                                  50        56        30D       36D       18        18          9E      13E
Social Skills Development

Grade Retained                     8         7         5         7         3         4          2F       4F

Referred to Special
                                  36        39        23G       27G       13        13          8        6
Education

                        Note. Numbers represent percents experiencing that outcome.
                      Those sharing letters are significantly different at p<.05. N = 12,334
Conclusions of Main Effects
 Several significant impacts of SW-PBIS on the
  school environment, staff, and students
 Main effects on teacher reported adjustment (i.e.,
  concentration problems, aggressive/disruptive
  behavior, bullying, rejection, emotion regulation,
  prosocial behavior)
   Although students in both groups (PBIS and Comparison) tended to
    display higher rates of problem behaviors over time, students in
    PBIS schools faired better than those in comparison schools
   Some indication that the intervention effects are strongest the earlier
    students are exposed to PBIS
Conclusions from Variations Results
 Four classes (not 3) of risk patterns emerged
   High risk (6.6%), At risk (23.3%), Normative (36.5%),
    Social-emotional Skilled (33.6%)
 Those in the ‘high risk’ and the ‘at-risk’ faired the
  worst in the Control schools than in the SW-PBIS
  schools
 Shows that main effects models may ‘wash out’ some
  significant program impacts
 Consistent with an RtI framework, however even the
  higher risk students are doing ‘better’ in an SW-PBIS
  environment
   Examining Contextual Factors
     Associated with Scale-up
Research Aims
 To identify school- and district-level characteristics
  which predict initial training, adoption, and the quality
  with which PBIS is implemented.
   Greater need at the school- and district-level would be
    associated with initial training, but lower odds of adoption or
    quality implementation.
   Greater district infrastructure and wealth would be associated
    with greater odds of all three outcomes.


                                  (Bradshaw & Pas, accepted pending revision)
        Participating Schools
 All 24 MD districts participate in the PBIS initiative.
 825 traditional elementary schools across 22 districts
  in the state were eligible to be included (i.e., two
  districts had three or fewer schools trained) of which
  312 were trained.
 236 schools across 17 districts had been trained AND
  provided data, indicating active participation and
  could be analyzed for the implementation outcome.
                Outcome Variables
Training in school-wide PBIS
 A school team of at least 4 individuals, including an
  administrator, attended the state’s two-day training event.
Adoption of school-wide PBIS
 School was trained AND submitted implementation data in the
  spring of 2008
Implementation of school-wide PBIS
 The Implementation Phases Inventory (IPI; Bradshaw, Debnam,
  Koth, & Leaf, 2009):implementation and maintenance scales
  and overall score.
                      Conclusions
 Schools with greater need were more likely to receive training,
  and in some cases also adopt SW-PBIS.
   Maryland schools self-identify for training; lower-performing schools
    seem to seek SW-PBIS as a way to improve their school.
 Indicators of school disorganization do not serve as an obstacle
  to successful implementation of SW-PBIS.
 The number of years since training and percent of certified
  teachers is associated with better implementation.
 District variables are related to training and adoption, but not
  implementation.


                                      (Bradshaw & Pas, accepted pending revision)
       Next Steps: Integrating PBIS with…
 PATHS to PAX & PBIS (NIMH, IES; Ialongo & Bradshaw)
   Integrate an evidence-based classroom management program (PAX/Good Behavior Game) and a
    social-emotional learning curricula (PATHS) with PBIS
   Pilot work in 6 Baltimore City PBIS schools over 2 years

 PBISplus Project (IES; Leaf & Bradshaw)
   45 MD elementary schools all implementing school-wide PBIS
   Provides support to SSTs and teachers related to selection of evidence-based practices
   3 years of on-site support and ‘coaching’ provided through a PBISplus Liaison

 Safe and Supportive Schools Grant (MDS3) (USDOE; MSDE)
   Collect data on climate and student safety
   Conduct a 60 high school randomized trial of the integration PBIS with evidence-based violence
    prevention, drug prevention, and truancy prevention programs

 Double Check Cultural Proficiency & Student Engagement (IES;
  Bradshaw)
   Develop school-wide and classroom –based management system s to reduce disproportionality in
    PBIS elementary and middle schools
   Provide professional development, adapt the Classroom Check-up (Reinke, 2007), support data-
    based decision-making
      Potential Challenges to the
             PBIS Model
 What impact does the focus on a team-based adaptive process
    have on variation in implementation quality?
   What are some strengths and limitations of the training model?
   What is the effect on the classroom?
   Is it a process or a program?
   Controversial role of rewards
   What is changing – students or environment?
   Too behaviorally focused? What about internalizing or social-
    emotional factors?
   Is it too adult focused/driven?
   Cost benefit analysis – effect size vs. investment
   What to do when the universal isn’t enough?
   Will this work for urban schools or high schools?
                 Acknowledgements
Johns Hopkins                    Maryland State Department of Education
 Phil Leaf                       Milt McKenna

 Katrina Debnam                  Andrea Alexander

 Chrissy Koth
 Mary Mitchell                  Sheppard Pratt Health System
 Elise Pas                       Susan Barrett
                                  Jerry Bloom
Contact Information                                  PBIS Resources
Catherine Bradshaw, Ph.D.                                 www.PBIS.org
Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence
                                                          www.PBISMaryland.org
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
cbradsha@jhsph.edu

  Supported by NIMH (1R01MH67948-1A, P30 MH08643), CDC (1U49CE 000728 &
  K01CE001333-01), IES (R324A07118, R305A090307, & R324A110107 ) & USDOE

								
To top