Is PBIS Evidence-based?

George Sugai
OSEP Center on PBIS
University of Oregon
Center for Behavioral Education & Research
University of Connecticut
August 5, 2008

www.cber.org www.pbis.org
George.sugai@uconn.edu
 Purpose
Is PBIS Evidence-based Practice?
What is PBIS?
How is evidence-based
determined?
What is PBIS evidence?
 www.pbis.org
Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2008). Is
school-wide positive behavior support
an evidence-based practice? OSEP
Technical Assistance Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Support.

http://www.pbis.org/files/101007eviden
cebase4pbs.pdf.
Evidence
Basics
Why evidence-based?
Maximize outcomes
Minimize harm
Increased accountability
Increase efficiency
Improve decision making
Improve resource use
 Basic Approach
Start w/ what has greatest likelihood of
addressing (evidence-based) confirmed
problem/question
Explained/supported conceptually/empirically
Adapt to local context/culture/need
Monitor regularly & adjust based on data
Adapt for efficient & durable
implementation
 4 Evaluation Criteria
Effectiveness
Has/will practice produced desired outcome?
Efficiency
What are costs (time, resources, $) to implement
practice?
Relevance
Is practice & outcomes appropriate for situation?
Conceptually soundness
Is practice based on theory?
Basic Practices
Evaluation
Guidelines for Selecting Practice
1. Define desired outcome
2. Delineate implementation setting
3. Identify evidence-based practice
4. Evaluate relevance of practice against
outcome & setting/context
5. Adopt/adapt practice to setting/context
6. Arrange supports for accurate
implementation
7. Continuously monitor effectiveness
 Design Questions
Has functional or cause-effect
relationship been demonstrated &
replicated?
Have alternative explanations been
accounted & controlled for?
Have threats or weaknesses of
methodology been controlled for?
Was study implemented w/
fidelity/accuracy?
 Research Designs

Experimental - RCT & SSR

Evaluation - Descriptive w/ baseline
Case Study - Descriptive w/o baseline
Testimonial - No/Limited data
 Results Questions
Who were subjects?
How much like my participants?
Where was study conducted?
How much like where I work?
What measures were used?
Do I have similar data?
What outcomes were achieved?
Are expected outcomes similar
 Effectiveness Logic
Significance (believe)
Likelihood of same effect by chance
Effect Size (strength)
Size of effect relative to business as
usual
Consequential Validity (meaning)
Contextually meaningful
SWPBS/PBIS
 Tertiary Prevention:
CONTINUUM OF Specialized
SCHOOL-WIDE Individualized
INSTRUCTIONAL & Systems for Students
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR ~5% with High-Risk Behavior
SUPPORT
Secondary Prevention:
~15%
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Primary Prevention:
School-/Classroom-
Wide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings

~80% of Students
 Supporting Social Competence &
Basics: 4 Academic Achievement
PBS
Elements OUTCOMES

MS
Supporting

DA
Supporting

E
Decision

TA
ST
Staff Behavior Making
SY

PRACTICES

Supporting
Student Behavior
 Team
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS Agreemen
ts

Data-
based
Action
Plan

Implement
Evaluation
ation
 SWPBS
d e Subsystems
w i
l-
o o Classroom
h
Sc

Non-classroom Family

Student
 School-wide
1. Common purpose & approach to discipline
2. Clear set of positive expectations & behaviors
3. Procedures for teaching expected behavior
4. Continuum of procedures for encouraging
expected behavior
5. Continuum of procedures for discouraging
inappropriate behavior
6. Procedures for on-going monitoring &
evaluation
 Non-classroom

Positive expectations & routines

taught & encouraged
Active supervision by all staff
Scan, move, interact
Precorrections & reminders
Positive reinforcement
 Classroom
Classroom-wide positive expectations taught
& encouraged
Teaching classroom routines & cues taught &
encouraged
Ratio of 6-8 positive to 1 negative adult-
student interaction
Active supervision
Redirections for minor, infrequent behavior
errors
Frequent precorrections for chronic errors
Effective academic instruction & curriculum
 Individual Student
Behavioral competence at school & district
levels
Function-based behavior support planning
Team- & data-based decision making
Comprehensive person-centered planning &
wraparound processes
Targeted social skills & self-management
instruction
Individualized instructional & curricular
accommodations
 Family

Continuum of positive behavior

support for all families
Frequent, regular positive contacts,
communications, &
acknowledgements
Formal & active participation &
involvement as equal partner
Access to system of integrated
school & community resources
PBS Systems Implementation Logic
Politi
Fundi Visib
cal
ng ility
Supp
ort
Leadership Team
Active & Integrated
Coordination

Evaluatio
Training Coaching
n

Local School Teams/Demonstrations

 PBIS
Evidence
Base
 VIOLENCE PREVENTION?
Surgeon Generals
Positive, predictable school-wide Report on Youth
climate Violence (2001)
Coordinated Social
High rates of academic & social Emotional &
success Learning
(Greenberg et al.,
Formal social skills instruction 2003)
Center for Study &
Positive active supervision & Prevention of
reinforcement Violence (2006)
White House
Positive adult role models Conference on
Multi-component, multi-year School Violence
(2006)
school-family-community effort
 90-School RCT Study
Horner et al., in press

Schools that receive technical assistance from

typical support personnel implement SWPBS
with fidelity

Fidelity SWPBS is associated with

Low levels of ODR
.29/100/day v. national mean .34
Improved perception of safety of the school
reduced risk factor
Increased proportion of 3rd graders who meet state
reading standard.
 RCT Project Target
Bradshaw & Leaf, in press
PBIS (21 v. 16) schools reached & sustained high
fidelity
PBIS increased all aspects of organizational health
Positive effects/trends for student outcomes
Fewer ODRs (majors + minors)
Fewer ODRs for truancy
Fewer suspensions
Increasing trend in % of students scoring in advanced &
proficient range of state achievement test
4J School
District
Eugene, Oregon

Change in the
percentage of
students meeting
the state
standard in
reading at grade
3 from 97-98 to
01-02 for
schools using
PBIS all four
years and those
that did not.
 05%
20%
11%

22%

84% 58%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

 04%
14%
08%

17%

88% 69%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

 National ODR/ISS/OSS July
2008

K-6 6-9 9-12

# Sch 1756 476 177 2409
# Std 781,546 311,725 161,182 1,254,453
# ODR 423,647 414,716 235,279 1,073,642
ISS # Evnt 6 38 38
avg/100 # Day 12 49 61
OSS # Evnt 6 30 24
avg/100 # Day 10 74 61
# Expl 0.03 0.29 0.39
July 2, 2008

ODR rates vary by level

July 2, 2008

A few kids get many ODRs

 SWIS summary 07-08 July 2, 2008
2,717 sch, 1,377,989 stds; 1,232,826 Maj ODRs
Grade Range # Schools Mean Mean ODRs/100/ sch day
Enroll. (std dev.)

K-6 1,756 445 ..35 (.45)

1/300 day

6-9 476 654 .91 (1.40)

1/100 /day

9-12 177 910 1.05 (1.56)

1/105/day

K-(8-12) 308 401 1.01 (1.88)

1/100 /day