Pas, Elise T.; Ryoo, Ji Hoon; Musci, Rashelle; Bradshaw, Catherine P. (2019). Grantee Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593800
Reviewed: April 2024
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of proficient and advanced students in a state reading test |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Percentage of proficient and advanced students in a state reading test |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of proficient and advanced students in a state math test |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Percentage of proficient and advanced students in a state math test |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
School-level truancy rate |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
School-level truancy rate |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
School-level suspension rate |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Elementary Schools - Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
School-level suspension rate |
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Secondary schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 37% | |
| Native American | 0% | |
| Other or unknown | 9% | |
| White | 49% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
The study was conducted in public schools, both elementary and secondary, across all 24 districts in Maryland. In accordance with the protocol, this review focuses only on elementary schools (which included K–5, K–6, and K–8 configurations).
In the first year of the study, among the participating students, 12 percent received special education, 35 percent received free and reduced-price meals, 36 percent were African American, 49 percent were White, 8 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were Asian, and 0.4 percent were American Indian.
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a school-wide intervention offering three tiers of support. School-wide PBIS (SW–PBIS) is a universal (tier 1) intervention that teaches all staff to use a proactive and positive approach for behavior management. Staff are trained to implement three core components of SW–PBIS: 1) setting and teaching clear behavioral expectations; 2) implementing a system for proactively encouraging desired behaviors and preventing undesired behaviors; and 3) creating and implementing a system for consistently responding to behavioral infractions that will be applied to all students across all school settings. SW–PBIS is meant to be implemented throughout the school year.
The comparison condition consisted of schools that had not yet undergone PBIS training.
The intervention schools were required to 1) make a 3-year commitment to implement SW–PBIS; and 2) identify four to six staff members to be trained by the federal Office for Special Education Programs in SW–PBIS. New teams were given a 2-day initial training and returning teams, a 2-day booster training. Each four-to-six-person intervention school team trained all the staff in their school to implement the three SW–PBIS components. The teams also provided their schools with ongoing supports throughout the school year.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube