Using Positive Behavior Support Procedures in Head Start Classrooms to Improve School Readiness: A Group Training and Behavioral Coaching Model [Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) vs. business as usual]
Feil, Edward G.; Walker, Hill; Severson, Herbert; Golly, Annemieke; Seeley, John R.; Small, Jason W. (2009). NHSA Dialog, v12 n2 p88-103. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ865812
-
examining263Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aggressive behavior scale (ABS) |
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.10 |
14.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Maladaptive behavior index (MBI) |
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.40 |
18.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social interaction scale (SIS) |
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
42.60 |
42.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Adaptive behavior index (ABI) |
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.20 |
31.90 |
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.
-
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Rural, Suburban
-
Race Other or unknown 27% White 73% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Oregon. Thirteen Head Start centers and 33 classrooms located in Lane County Head Start and Kidco Head Start participated in the study.
Study sample
Seventy-three percent of the students were White and 31% were Hispanic. Thirty percent of the mothers had some college. No information was reported for income. Ten percent of the children in the sample were eligible for special education services at the time of the study. Of the children eligible for special education services, Twenty-three percent of children had an emotional/behavioral disorder category, 55% of children certified for speech/language delay, 19% had a noncategorical/developmental delay and 9% were listed under other categories.
Intervention Group
Teachers taught, modeled, and periodically reviewed behavior standards and expectations with their students during a circle time activity and within generalized settings (e.g., hallways, playground, and gym). Teachers precorrected students for potentially difficult times or situations (e.g., “I am going to watch who can walk all the way past the library without talking”) and acknowledged and reinforced when children complied with expectations (e.g., “Because this morning everyone showed respect by working together so well, we’ll have five minutes of extra free time”). Children were taught routines for entering and exiting, transitions, and quiet-time areas. 'Second Step' violence prevention program (Grossman et al., 1997) was used in one center in each condition.
Comparison Group
Head Start centers in the comparison group continued with business-as-usual (that is, implemented Creative Curriculum) during the study’s first year, with the expectation that those centers would implement the intervention the following year. One comparison center also implemented the ‘Second Step’ violence prevention program during the first year of the study.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the intervention participated in a monthly 2-hour class for a total of 14 hours of training across the school year. A behavioral coach followed up with each participating teacher and was available for one-on-one consultation in his or her respective classroom during instructional hours.
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).