what is a positive behavior support according to horner

• Periodical List
• Behav Anal Pract
• five.viii(ane); 2015 May
• PMC5048248

Behav Anal Pract. 2015 May; eight(i): fourscore–85.

School-broad PBIS: An Instance of Applied Behavior Analysis Implemented at a Calibration of Social Importance

Robert H. Horner

^anegrid.170202.60000000419368008University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 U.s.a.

George Sugai

²filigree.63054.340000000088067226University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT U.s.

Abstract

School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is an example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. In this newspaper, PBIS is defined and the contributions of behavior assay in shaping both the content and implementation of PBIS are reviewed. Specific lessons learned from implementation of PBIS over the by twenty years are summarized.

Keywords: Positive behavioral interventions and supports, Whole-school social culture, Applied behavior analysis

Behavior Analysis in Practice is focused on applied demonstrations of behavior analysis in school, community, piece of work, and home contexts. 1 electric current example is the emergence of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) as a framework for improving the academic and social outcomes for students. In this newspaper, we depict PBIS, the contributions of beliefs assay to defining, evaluating, and implementing PBIS, and initial lessons learned from the past xx years of implementing PBIS across over 21,000 schools in the United states. Our goals are to both frame the strong tie betwixt PBIS and ABA and suggest lessons learned that may influence both research and large-scale implementation efforts with other examples of behavioral intervention.

School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a framework for delivering both the whole-school social civilisation and additional tiers of behavior support intensity needed to meliorate educational and social outcomes for all students. PBIS is an practical example of behavioral theory (Baer et al. 1968; Cooper et al. 2007; Dunlap et al. 2008). Every bit Anderson and Kincaid (2005) take noted, the PBIS meets each of the five features used to define applied beliefs analysis (applied and behavioral; analytic and conceptual; technological; effective; and generality). Many in the field may in fact argue that positive beliefs support is best described only as an case of beliefs analysis. Others, yet, (including Anderson and Kincaid) have argued that elements of PBIS, including person-centered planning (Kincaid et al. 2005), wrap-effectually mental health supports (Eber et al. 2009), self-decision (Carr et al. 1999; Wehemeyer 2005), prevention science (Catalano et al. 2002; Gordon 1983), and implementation science (Fixsen et al. 2005) include elements that are not all the same validated through behavioral science. Regardless of whether PBIS is "just" or "generally" behavior analysis, a central bulletin is that PBIS grew from and is infused with the principles and technology of behavior analysis.

The impact of behavior assay on PBIS is most articulate in (a) the emphasis on operational definitions of behavior and intervention elements, (b) the logic model used to select environmental manipulations designed to alter student and staff behavior, and (c) an unrelenting commitment to measurement of both implementation fidelity and the impact of PBIS on pupil outcomes. 2 themes that define PBIS are a focus on the whole-school as the unit of intervention (Biglan 1995; Mayer 1995; Mayer and Butterworth 1979), and the simultaneous development of interventions tied to at least iii tiers of support intensity (Fuchs and Fuchs 2006). Figureone presents the oftentimes referenced multi-tiered prevention approach borrowed from customs wellness and offset introduced to education past Hill Walker (Walker et al. 1996). The logic from this approach starts with defining an system'southward most highly valued outcomes (e.thousand., reading, math, writing, and social beliefs), and and then selecting the smallest prepare of enquiry-validated procedures needed to evangelize these outcomes with at least 80 % of the target population. In schools, this "Tier I" level focuses on establishing a school-wide positive social civilisation that includes (a) defining and teaching a minor set of behavioral expectations (east.g., be respectful, be responsible, and be safe), (b) establishing a ubiquitous organization for reinforcing performance of these expectations, (c) implementing a consistent system for interrupting, correcting, and redirecting behavioral errors, and (d) building an efficient organization to collect, summarize, and use data for decision-making (Horner et al. 2010; Putnam et al. 2002; Sugai and Lewis 1999; Sugai et al. 2014).

Multi-tiered prevention model

As symbolized by the Tier I (primary prevention) level in Fig.1, all students experience Tier I beliefs support. This level of support is not dependent on documented "demand" or some formal assessment protocol. Tier I (primary prevention) is proactive and designed to be administered earlier error patterns develop. Because all students receive Tier I supports, these practices must be highly efficient and logically integrated with all other elements of the environs. The start of each schoolhouse yr begins by teaching and/or reviewing school-broad behavioral expectations before students have had the opportunity to make behavioral mistakes. Main prevention is intended to both reduce the likelihood of initial trouble behaviors and support the sustained shift toward positive beliefs when more intense supports are implemented afterwards in the yr.

Tier Two (secondary prevention) practices focus on moderate intensity supports that accost the most common needs of students with ongoing problem behavior. As indicated in Fig.one, Tier II supports are added to Tier I supports and are designed for the 10–15 % of students who benefit from additional structure, more overt, and frequent antecedent prompts, a higher rate of positive recognition, and elevated training in both behavioral expectations and self-regulation skills (Crone et al. 2010; Sugai et al. 2014). The elevated level of adventure experienced past these students is matched not only past elevated back up intensity, but too by the frequency and specificity with which progress monitoring information are collected. Tier II supports typically are packaged and standardized for highly efficient implementation across multiple students (e.m., first step to success Walker et al. 2009; check-in/ check-out Hawken et al. 2006).

Tier 3 (3rd prevention) practices are characterized by individualized assessment, individualized support plan pattern, comprehensive support program implementation, and the direction of support past a squad uniquely organized to see the preferences and needs of private pupil (Scott et al. 2008). The establishment of Tier III supports is an overt commitment by the system to include a full range of students in the schoolhouse. An of import addition to Tier III support practices is a formal procedure for monitoring both if a back up program is being implemented as well equally if it is being effective (Pinkelman 2014). Tier Iii supports are not new to schools. Special education expectations for individualized support have been required since 1975. The value of this approach, even so, now extends beyond special education to all students requiring higher intensity supports. When implementing Tier III behavior supports, teams consider behavioral, academic, mental health, concrete, social, and contextual variables (Crone et al. 2010). This is a loftier-intensity approach to support, intended for 5 % or fewer students within a school. Every bit symbolized inside Fig.1, Tier III supports are expected to be (a) needed less often than Tier I and Tier 2 supports and (b) more constructive when they are implemented within schools that simultaneously offering Tier I and Tier II supports.

Implementation of PBIS has been formally evaluated in a number of descriptive, evaluation, and experimental studies. Findings indicate that PBIS is experimentally associated with reduction in office discipline referrals (Bradshaw et al. 2010, 2012; Horner et al. 2009; Safran and Oswald 2003), reduction in out of school suspensions and expulsions (Bradshaw et al. 2010), improved social emotional competence (Bradshaw et al. 2012), improved organizational efficiency (Bradshaw et al. 2008, 2009), improved academic outcomes (Horner et al. 2009), improved perception of safe (Horner et al. 2009; Ross et al. 2012), and reduction in bullying (Ross and Horner 2009; Waasdorp et al. 2012).

Lessons Learned

A worthy question is why PBIS has been then widely adopted over the past 20 years when and then many other examples of behavior assay accept offered impressive research outcomes with express societal adoption. We offer the following as "lessons learned" that may guide future inquiry and dissemination efforts.

1. Emphasize Cadre Features and Evidence-based Strategies. Behavioral theory focuses on the behavioral mechanism(south) by which cadre features of an environment change behavior. Core features are the "kernels" or "smallest functional units" needed to produce valued outcomes (Embry and Biglan 2008). Within PBIS, consistent attention has been given to operational descriptions of the core features needed to reach academic and social gains for students. The focus on core features allows the separation of the strategy existence employed (e.g., 2d step Frey et al. 2005) and the feature existence established (e.thou., increased instruction of pro-social behavior). Students deport differently when core features are in place, and core features are more likely to exist in place when inquiry validated programs are implemented. Too often, nonetheless, programs and cadre features are combined, and users emphasize adoption of the program or packet without confirming implementation of functional core features. Emphasizing core features, rather than the practices that are used to achieve the core features, allows school personnel to tailor new strategies and packages to the local cultural and context. For instance, while schools using PBIS are expected to define and teach school-broad behavioral expectations, the specific expectations and the method for educational activity the expectations are left to match the culture, resources and organizational demands of the local school.

   The focus on core features also has direct relevance for the implementation process. Because adoption of a parcel or intervention strategy is not adoption of PBIS, school teams need a formal way to appraise if core features are in place. This is done through formal fidelity cess. Implementation of PBIS is not determined by participation in a training workshop, employment of a "certified trainer," or purchasing an instructional production. Implementation of PBIS is assessed by measuring if the cadre features of Tier I, Tier Ii, and Tier Three back up are in identify in a school (c.f. Algozzine et al. 2010).

2. Implement "Systems" that Support and Sustain Effective Practices. The likelihood that a school will implement and sustain PBIS with high fidelity depends largely on attention not just to the PBIS core features, only the "systems" that support implementation (e.g., policies, team structures, data systems, funding, and regulations) (McIntosh et al. 2010). Figure2 provides a summary of the integration of outcomes, intervention practices that change student behavior, the systems that support and sustain adult behavior, and the data needed for adaptation and continued comeback.

   

   Behavioral theory teaches u.s.a. that organizations do not acquit, people behave. And people carry differently inside social contexts with conspicuously defined contingencies (Dickinson 2000). Organizational behavioral theory extends what we accept learned near developing adaptive private behavior patterns, to development of similar behavior patterns across coordinated groups of individuals (Abernathy and Lattal 2014). In schools, this means (a) establishing engaged leadership teams, (b) delivering training and support to teams of individuals, (c) providing the resources and time to let teams to receive training, apply skills/practices learned in training, and (d) adapting procedures in response to data, local cultural, and organizational variables. Schools implementing these practices are more probable to implement PBIS with high allegiance and sustain PBIS with valued educatee outcomes (Coffey & Horner 2012; McIntosh et al. 2010).

3. Collect and Use Data for Decision-making. Among the nifty contributions of behavior analysis has been a consistent emphasis on operational measurement (Cooper et al. 2007). Within PBIS, behavioral measurement is primal at two levels. The start level focuses on the extent to which adopted procedures take been successful in establishing the core features of PBIS (e.g., measurement of fidelity or intervention integrity; Fryling et al. 2012). Investing in valid, reliable, and efficient measures of implementation fidelity led to over eleven,524 schools in 2014 systematically measuring PBIS fidelity with 81 % meeting Tier I fidelity criteria during the year. The second, and more traditional, emphasis is on continuous measurement of pupil beliefs. Inside PBIS, school teams monitor educatee discipline patterns to assess not but the frequency of problems, just the type of problem behavior, locations where problems are most and least probable, fourth dimension of day, students engaging in problem behavior, and the perceived maintaining behavioral function of problem behavior. By asking every staff member in a schoolhouse to record not just who and what a student did that was problematic, just the perceived function of the problem beliefs, PBIS builds a organisation that extends role-based behavior support from Tier Iii, high-intensity, individual support plans to the Tier 2 and Tier I levels of school-wide prevention. The primal is that data are used not simply for policy levels reports to state and district administrators, just for local decision-making at the school and classroom level. Effective use of information by school teams has been demonstrated to ameliorate educational outcomes (Newton et al. 2012), and the repeated use of data at the school level has been associated with improved sustainability of PBIS implementation (McItosh et al. 2014).

4. Implementation Process

   A quaternary lesson fatigued from behavior analysis is an emphasis on the implementation process. Implementation scientific discipline (Fixsen et al. 2005, 2013) separates intervention practices (what is done to change student behavior) from the practices used to modify an organizational system (adoption of the intervention practices). It is as important to ascertain how effective practices are adopted as information technology is to provide the research demonstrating that these practices both produce desired alter in the organization, and desired outcomes for the target population.

   Figure3 integrates the lessons learned from implementation of PBIS. Showtime, implementation of PBIS in schools requires a district or regional implementation team. Students are the unit of touch on, schools are the unit of intervention, but districts are the unit of implementation. Teams are the mechanism for comprehensive and sustained implementation. The district leadership squad is more than than advisory or informative they actively manage and guide the implementation process. 2d, in that location is a tendency for implementation efforts to both start and end with initial demonstrations. This is ineffective. Effective implementation processes build district and schoolhouse chapters while establishing initial demonstrations. Equally initial schools in a district adopt PBIS the leadership team needs to be improving commune capacity to (a) carry PBIS training without reliance on external trainers, (b) provide agile coaching of trained skills to ensure that they are applied under natural conditions, at high allegiance, and with the accommodation to local civilisation needed to achieve the core features, (c) establish the behavioral expertise in behavior analysis needed for moving from the foundational knowledge needed for Tier I practices to the more sophisticated knowledge needed for implementation of Tier II and Tier III supports, and (d) evolution of the evaluation capacity to appraise both schoolhouse-level and district-level outcomes. Failure to invest in the implementation elements needed to move from "sit-in" to "total implementation" too often results in major financial and organizational loss (Horner et al. 2014).

   

Summary

The promise of applied beliefs analysis is that our understanding of human behavior volition have direct impact on improving social systems. The challenges faced in schools, families, work places, and communities require better application of behavioral theory. School-wide PBIS is one example of successful implementation of behavioral theory to address a major social concern. It is an example that is notwithstanding evolving, but with over 21,000 schools in the USA actively engaged in implementing PBIS, and a growing torso of scholarship supporting the impact of PBIS on student behavior information technology is worthwhile to consider lessons learned. A full summary of these lessons is across the scope of the present paper, only four key messages have relevance for anyone extending behavioral theory to large social systems.

Showtime, use current science to isolate the smallest number of cadre features needed in a context to produce valued outcomes. Place multiple strategies and practices for establishing these core features allows different implementers to select the strategy or practise that all-time fits their social and cultural context.

Second, implement the "systems" needed for sustained loftier fidelity use of effective practices. Systems include the policies, teaming structures, decision-making protocols, funding, and organizational practices that let constructive interventions to be adopted with efficiency and effectiveness. Third, a central part of this process is development of data systems that allow all individuals in the system to engage in constructive controlling. Finally, attention to the implementation process is as critical as attention to the research-validated practices. Implementation includes attention to the selection of cadre practices, the teams needed to accomplish functional effects, the stages of adoption, and the development of the drivers and data systems that allow effective practices to flourish.

Acknowledgments

This enquiry was supported by the Part of Special Education Programs The states Department of Education (H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the United states of america Section of Education, and such endorsements should non be inferred.

References

• Abernathy WB, Lattal D. Organizational beliefs direction. In: McSweeney FK, Potato ES, editors. Handbook of operant and classical conditioning. Oxford: Wiley; 2014. [Google Scholar]
• Algozzine, B., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Barrett, Southward., Dickey, C. R., Eber, L., et al. (2010). Evaluation blueprint for schoolhouse-wide positive behavior back up. Eugene, OR: National Technical Assistance Centre on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support. Retrieved from www.pbis.org.
• Anderson, C., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Applying behavior assay to school violence and discipline problems: schoolwide positive beliefs back up. The Behavior Analyst, 28, 49–63. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed]
• Baer D, Wolf M, Risley T. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1968;one:91–97. doi: x.1901/jaba.1968.1-91. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Biglan A. Translating what we know most the context of hating behavior into a lower prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Practical Behavior Analysis. 1995;28:479–492. doi: ten.1901/jaba.1995.28-479. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bradshaw, C., Koth, C., Bevans, 1000., Ialongo, Due north., & Leaf, P. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of unproblematic schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(four), 462–473.
• Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O'Brennan, 50. M. (2009). A social disorganization perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors: the influence of schoolhouse context. American Periodical of Customs Psychology, 43(3-4), 204–220. [PubMed]
• Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, K. 1000., & Leafage, P. J. (2010). Examining the furnishings of schoolhouse-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on pupil outcomes: results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in simple schools. Periodical of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148.
• Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-broad positive behavioral interventions and supports on kid behavior problems and adjustment. Pediatrics, e1136–e1145. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
• Carr, E. Chiliad., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., McLaughlin, D. G., McAtee, M. L., et al. (1999). Positive behavior back up for people with developmental disabilities: A enquiry synthesis. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation Monograph Series.
• Catalano RF, Hawkins JD, Berglund ML, Pollard JA, Arthur MW. Prevention science and positive youth development: competitive or cooperative frameworks? Journal of Adolescent Health. 2002;31:230–239. doi: ten.1016/S1054-139X(02)00496-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Coffey, J., & Horner, R. H. (2012). The sustainability of school-wide positive behavior back up. Infrequent Children, 78(four), 407–422.
• Cooper JO, Heron TE, Heward WL. Applied beliefs assay. 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner, R. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Teaching Programme (2d ed.). The Guilford Practical Intervention in the Schools Series. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Dickinson AM. The historical roots of organizational behavior direction in the individual sector: the 1950s - 1980s. Periodical of Organizational Behavior Direction. 2000;20:9–58. doi: 10.1300/J075v20n03_02. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dunlap 1000, Carr East, Horner R, Zarcone J, Schwartz I. Positive behavior support and applied behavior analysis: a familial alliance. Behavior Modification. 2008;32:682–698. doi: 10.1177/0145445508317132. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Eber Fifty, Hyde Yard, Rose J, Breen K, McDonald D, Lewandowski H. Completing the continuum of schoolwide positive behavior back up: Wraparound as a tertiary-level intervention. In: Sailor Due west, Dunlap G, Sugai G, Horner R, editors. Handbook of positive behavior support. LLC: Springer; 2009. pp. 671–704. [Google Scholar]
• Embry DD, Biglan A. Show-based kernels: Key units of behavioral influence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2008;eleven:75–113. doi: 10.1007/s10567-008-0036-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, M. A., Friedman, R. Chiliad., & Wallace, F. (2005). ImplementationResearch: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Enquiry Network (FMHI Publication #231), 11, 247–266.
• Fixsen DL, Blase K, Metz A, Van Dyke Thou. Statewide implementation of testify-based programs. Exceptional Children (Special Result) 2013;79:213–230. [Google Scholar]
• Frey KS, Nolen SB, Edstrom LV, Hirschstein MK. Effects of a schoolhouse-based social-emotional competence programme: linking children'south goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2005;26:171–200. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fryling M, Wallace M, Yassine J. Impact of treatment integrity on intervention effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2012;45:449–453. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-449. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fuchs D, Fuchs L. Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how valid is information technology? Reading Research Quarterly. 2006;41:93–99. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.i.4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gordon RSJ. An operational classification of disease prevention. In: Steinberg JA, Silverman MM, editors. Preventing mental disorders. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human being Services; 1983. [Google Scholar]
• Hawken, Fifty. S., Pettersson, H., Mootz, J., & Anderson, C. (2006). The Behavior Instruction Programme: A check-in, check-out intervention for students at risk. Video or DVD. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Horner RH, Sugai G, Smolkowski K, Eber Fifty, Nakasato J, Todd A, Esperanza J. A randomized, waitlist-controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Periodical of Positive Beliefs Interventions. 2009;11(iii):133–144. doi: 10.1177/1098300709332067. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Horner RH, Sugai G, Anderson CM. Examining the evidence-base for school wide positive beliefs support. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2010;42:1–14. [Google Scholar]
• Horner, R. H., Kincaid, D., Sugai, M., Lewis, T., Eber, L., Barrett, S., et al. (2014). Scaling upwardly school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: the experiences of seven states with documented success. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. Advance online publication. doi: x.1177/1098300713503685.
• Kincaid, D., Knab, J. T., & Clark, H. B. (2005). Person-centered planning. Mental Wellness Law & Policy Faculty Publications. Paper 702. http://schoalrcommons.usf.edu/mhlp_facpub/702
• Mayer GR. Preventing anti-social behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1995;28:267–278. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-467. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mayer GR, Butterworth T. A preventive arroyo to schoolhouse violence and vandalism: an experimental study. Personnel and Guidance Periodical. 1979;57:436–441. doi: ten.1002/j.2164-4918.1979.tb05431.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McIntosh Chiliad, Filter M, Bennett J, Ryan C, Sugai One thousand. Principles of sustainable prevention: designing scale-upwards of school-wide positive behavior back up to promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools. 2010;47:five–21. [Google Scholar]
• McItosh, 1000., Kim, J., Mercer, S., Strickland-Cohen, M.K. & Horner, R., (2014). Variables associated with enhanced sustainability of school-broad positive behavioral interventions and supports. Cess for Constructive Intervetnion, November, 1–8. doi:10.1177/1534508414556503.
• Newton JS, Horner RH, Algozzine B, Todd AW, Algozzine KM. A randomized await-listing controlled analysis of squad-initiated problem solving. Journal of School Psychology. 2012;50:421–441. doi: ten.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pinkelman, S. (2014). Effects of Self-delivered Operation Feedback and Impact Cess via the Individual Student Information Organisation (ISIS-SWIS) on Beliefs Support Plan Treatment Fidelity and Educatee Outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
• Putnam RF, Luiselli JK, Sunderland M. Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Periodical of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2002;4:182–188. [Google Scholar]
• Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Cracking prevention in positive behavior support. Periodical of Applied Beliefs Assay, 42, 747–759. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed]
• Ross, S. W., Romer, Due north., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of school-wide positive behavior interventions and support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 118–128. doi:ten.1177/1098300711413820.
• Safran, Due south. P., & Oswald, Chiliad. (2003). Positive behavior supports: tin can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Infrequent Children, 69(3), 361–373.
• Scott TA, Anderson CM, Spaulding SA. Strategies for developing and carrying out functional assessment and beliefs intervention planning. Preventing School Failure. 2008;52:39–49. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.3.39-fifty. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sugai G, Lewis TJ. Developing positive behavioral support systems. In: Sugai G, Lewis TJ, editors. Developing positive behavioral back up for students with challenging behavior. Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders; 1999. pp. xv–23. [Google Scholar]
• Sugai G, Simonsen B, Bradshaw C, Horner R, Lewis T. Delivering high quality school wide positive behavior support in inclusive schools. In: McLeskey J, Waldron NL, Spooner F, Algozzine B, editors. Handbook of research and practice for inclusive schools. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014. pp. 306–321. [Google Scholar]
• Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of schoolhouse-broad positive behavioral interventions and support (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: a randomized control effectiveness trial. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 166, 149–156. [PubMed]
• Walker HM, Horner RH, Sugai 1000, Bullis M, Sprague JR, Bricker D, Kaufman MH. Integrated approaches to preventing hating beliefs patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 1996;4:194–209. doi: 10.1177/106342669600400401. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Walker, H. M., Seeley, J. R., Small, J., Severson, H. H., Graham, B., Feil, Due east. G., et al. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of the first step to success early intervention: demonstration of program efficacy outcomes in adverse, urban school district. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 197–212. doi:10.1177/1063426609341645.
• Wehemeyer, M. (2005). Cocky-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: re-examining meanings and misconceptions. Inquiry and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 113–120.

---

Articles from Behavior Analysis in Practice are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

---

dunlapouded1981.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048248/

Share this post