A State-Wide Quasi-Experimental Effectiveness Study of the Scale-up of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Pas, Elise T.; Ryoo, Ji Hoon; Musci, Rashelle; Bradshaw, Catherine P. (2019). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593800
-
examining1,159Schools, gradesK-12
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2019
- IES Performance Measure (findings for School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on clusters by demonstrating that the analytic sample of individuals is representative of the clusters and satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the clusters in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: Elementary and Secondary 2011-12;
|
9.78 |
9.76 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2007-08;
|
6.15 |
6.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2008-09;
|
6.12 |
6.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2009-10;
|
6.81 |
7.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2010-11;
|
8.00 |
8.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2011-12;
|
7.46 |
7.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2007-08;
|
12.49 |
14.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2008-09;
|
13.47 |
13.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2009-10;
|
12.77 |
13.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2010-11;
|
13.22 |
13.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Truancy rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2011-12;
|
14.15 |
14.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Suspension event rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: Elementary and Secondary 2011-12;
|
8.72 |
7.99 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Suspension event rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2010-11;
|
4.33 |
4.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Suspension event rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary - 2011-12;
|
4.35 |
4.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Suspension event rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2007-08;
|
22.24 |
23.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Suspension event rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2008-09;
|
22.68 |
20.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Suspension event rate |
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SW-PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary - 2009-10;
|
18.97 |
17.07 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Maryland
-
Race Asian 5% Black 39% Native American 0% Other or unknown 8% White 48% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in elementary (grades K-5, K-6, and K-8 schools) and secondary schools (grades 6-8, 9-12, and 6-12 schools) in Maryland between the 2006-07 and 2011-12 school years.
Study sample
Students across the entire state of Maryland are included in the analysis. Across the intervention and comparison groups for elementary and secondary schools in the analytic sample, less than 0.5 percent were American Indian, 4.5 percent were Asian, 7.6 percent were Hispanic, 39 percent were African American, and 47.5 percent were White. Twelve percent of students were receiving special education services, and 38.5 percent were receiving free or reduced price meals (p. 45).
Intervention Group
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a school-wide intervention aimed at improving the school environment and promoting positive student behaviors. The PBIS framework is made up of three tiers: (1) a universal system of supports for students, (2) targeted preventative interventions for high-need students, and (3) intensive preventative interventions for high-need students. This study focuses primarily on implementation of the universal, school-wide tier given that there was limited training and support for tiers 2 and 3 available within the state of Maryland during the study period. The universal, school-wide component includes training of staff to set clear expectations for positive behaviors, establish a system to promote these behaviors,and develop and implement consistent plans to respond to behavioral infractions.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition consisted of schools that did not receive training in PBIS. The study does not describe what took place in comparison schools, so it will be assumed that the schools proceeded with their business as usual discipline systems.
Support for implementation
Staff at schools in the intervention condition received training and support through the PBIS Maryland Consortium, a collaborative of the Maryland State Department of Education, Sheppard Pratt Health System and Johns Hopkins University. The collaborative provided a two-day training for new teams and booster sessions for experienced teams. There were also quarterly full-day leadership meetings offered to district leaders, as well as quarterly trainings provided to school-wide PBIS coaches. Within school districts, the coaches and district leaders provided supports such as quarterly meetings or additional internal professional development (p. 44)
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).