Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap: Improving ... - SAGE Journals

3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 130

Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap: Improving Hallway Behavior Using Positive Behavior Supports Amanda Leedy, Perianne Bates, and Stephen P. Safran Ohio University ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a positive behavior support (PBS) intervention in a rural elementary school. Through this use of clear, consistent behavioral expectations, gradelevel assemblies, and complimentary reinforcement, there was a substantial improvement in hallway behavior, with an overall increase of 134.9% for compliance across six positive behaviors. These results demonstrate that, through the implementation of appropriate interventions and consistent reinforcement of established rules and expectations, the use of PBS can be applied in all schools, even those with limited resources. Based on these and related findings, research-validated practices exist to transform schools into safer and more favorable learning environments. The current challenge is for public schools to demonstrate a commitment to preventative practices to help bridge the research-to-practice gap.

Disruptive and challenging behaviors in America’s schools have become not only more common, but also more extreme (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). To combat this ever-growing problem, many schools are implementing strict disciplinary and zero-tolerance policies. These punitive procedures create a behaviorpunishment environment, which typically leads to reactive responses by teachers and administrators. However, traditional disciplinary practices such as suspension and expulsion may actually increase the rate of negative behaviors (Lewis & Garrison-Harrell, 1999), which indicates that preventative options to the use of aversive consequences are needed. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate an alternative approach, the use of positive behavior supports (PBS) to improve student hallway behavior in a rural elementary school. The application of school-based PBS is increasingly becoming an option for dealing with problem behaviors (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998). PBS is defined as “a teambased, comprehensive, and proactive system for facilitating and maintaining student success across settings” (Scott, 2001, p. 88). By using this method, professionals can recognize the factors that contribute to inappropriate conduct and develop a system to foster prosocial behavior. Using researched-based data 130 / February 2004

and school-wide implementation, this teambased approach can be an effective method and valuable addition to public school practices (Kartub, Taylor-Greene, March, & Horner, 2000; Safran & Oswald, 2003). The PBS team typically recognizes the need for behavioral change, develops a complementary intervention, and collects efficacy data to ensure improvement. These elements, combined with continued reinforcement of student behavioral improvement, can facilitate maintenance and generalization of program goals. Depending on intervention priorities chosen within individual schools, PBS interventions can concentrate on any of four distinct levels. First, school-wide PBS focuses on the entire student body across all settings, such as with a violence prevention program (LewisPalmer, Sugai, & Larson, 1999). Second, within specific classrooms, PBS is tailored to the unique population of students and their behavioral needs. Teachers may designate rules that are generated from their students and, for instance, have the pupils sign a “class contract” to promote classroom ownership. Third, in specific nonclassroom settings such as cafeterias or hallways, school professionals might use guided practice, active monitoring, and reinforcement to teach students prosocial skills in less structured environments (Lewis & Garrison-Harrell, 1999). Fourth, when PBS is

Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 130–139

3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 131

implemented at the individual student level, professionals create an intensive behavior intervention plan that addresses specific goals and targeted behaviors for a student exhibiting more chronic problems (Safran & Oswald, 2003; Turnbull et al., 2002). Accounting for approximately 50% of all problem behavior (Colvin, Sugai, Good, & Lee, 1997), nonclassroom settings such as hallways, cafeterias, and playgrounds particularly are trouble areas in many schools because of a lack in structure and active supervision (Lewis & Garrison-Harrell, 1999). Due to their informal nature, these common areas are often neglected or ignored by education professionals. However, can school-based teams successfully implement PBS in these unstructured settings? Initial research suggests that PBS has been applied successfully in several nonclassroom settings. For example, the staff in a rural middle school in western Oregon identified excessive hallway noise levels during lunch as a major problem (Kartub et al., 2000). The intervention consisted of a 7-minute instructional session for each lunch period. During this session, students role-played in order to indicate both appropriate and inappropriate noise levels for lunch transition periods. The staff also used visual cues, dimming the hall lighting and displaying a blinking light as a reminder of the transition motto “When you see the light, lips stay tight.” Finally, they implemented a reward system in which students in individual lunch periods received five additional minutes of lunchtime for each 3 days they remained quiet in the hallways. The results showed that the intensity and variability of noise decreased and were maintained over a 10-day maintenance period when the noise-reduction procedures were used. The noise decreased an average of approximately 10% from baseline to the follow-up phase. The teachers expressed satisfaction with the outcome and observed students informally taking on the role as peer monitors to remind others to remain quiet in the hallways. A second study, in an Oregon elementary school, focused on efforts to teach appropriate recess behavior (Todd, Horner, Anderson, & Spriggs, 2002). In this investigation, office disciplinary referrals (ODRs) indicated that fully 47% of all reported problem behaviors occurred during this time. The intervention had three basic features: data-based decision making, team-driven management, and a sys-


tems-oriented approach. The PBS team used the information from the ODRs to formulate an instructional plan that could be implemented quickly and effectively. The entire school was divided into three groups, and recess workshops were developed and delivered to each group. These workshops included outlining, practicing, and reviewing appropriate recess behavior. The overall results of the workshops indicated a substantial decrease of 80% in the ODRs the first year and 76% the following year, indicating an overall 78% decrease from the original collection of baseline data. A third investigation described implementing PBS at an elementary school located in a low-socioeconomic area in the Pacific Northwest (Nelson, Colvin, & Smith 1996). The school staff specified a need to establish rules and regulations during two periods in the common areas of the school: (a) the entrance of a group of students prior to school breakfast and (b) the arrival of the remainder of the student body before the academic day. The intervention program was designed to help students maintain more appropriate peer interactions while lowering the incidence of problem behavior requiring staff involvement. Several dependent variables were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention: positive interaction with another student, negative interaction with another student, isolation, positive interaction with an adult, negative interaction with an adult, a nonspecific category labeled Other, and ODRs. The intervention included an explanation of the importance of behavior change, a detailed description and demonstration of appropriate behaviors, and a guided practice session. Furthermore, students were given continuous cues and reminders when they failed to display appropriate behaviors. Results demonstrated a 39% increase in positive behavior in the designated areas and a 33% decrease in ODRs, indicating successful implementation of PBS. Although initial research provides support for the use of PBS in nonclassroom settings, this represents only a preliminary database to ascertain intervention efficacy. Therefore, this study was designed to determine whether a combination of guided practice and the posting of expected behaviors resulted in improved hallway behavior. Furthermore, to determine the effectiveness of PBS with diverse populations, our investigation extendFebruary 2004 / 131

3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 132

ed the current literature by including a lowersocioeconomic-status school serving students in a rural, small-town community.

Method Participants and Setting The study took place in a neighborhood elementary school serving students in kindergarten through fifth grade that included 12 classes. The school, located in a small town in southeastern Ohio approximately 40 miles from any major metropolitan area, has 283 students, 99% of them Caucasian. The community lacks any major industry and employer and, according to school records, 50.5% of students receive free or reduced-price lunch. This indicates a high proportion of students who live at or below the poverty level established by government standards. In addition, given the use of property taxes as the primary funding source for Ohio school districts, the participating school receives less financial assistance than more affluent areas.

Intervention The faculty and staff of the elementary school participated in a series of workshops designed by university faculty to introduce and implement a PBS program. During these sessions, 22 participants completed a needs assessment survey, the Effective Behavior Supports Survey (EBS Survey; Lewis & Sugai, 1999). The EBS Survey was created as an action-planning document to solicit input from educators about their views on PBS. (Readers are referred to Lewis & Sugai [1999] for a copy of the instrument.) The four sections of this instrument contain items that represent one PBS level: Schoolwide, Nonclassroom, Classroom, or Individual Student systems. Each item directs respondents to rate the Current Status of a specific support (i.e., in place, partial in place, not in place) and its Improvement Priority (i.e., high, medium, low). For example, Individual Student Systems Item 2, “A simple process exists for teachers to request assistance” (Lewis & Sugai, 1999, p. 22), is rated by educators according to their view of its Current Status and Improvement Priority. For an analysis of the validity of the EBS Survey, see Safran (2004). After data analysis, findings indicated that the individual student level was rated the high132 / February 2004

est-priority area. However, because a valid use of the EBS Survey is to facilitate staff collaboration for planning PBS (Safran, 2004), university facilitators emphasized that these findings represented only general suggestions and the staff could decide to focus their efforts on any of the four PBS levels. Despite survey results, the staff unanimously agreed to focus on nonclassroom systems. Using a procedure designed to generate staff consensus, the group ranked hallways as most in need of intervention. In small groups, the staff next developed behavioral expectations for each nonclassroom setting, ensuring that they corresponded with the preexisting school-wide rules. The staff then used an example from Lewis and Garrison-Harrell (1999) to develop a grid displaying the school-wide rules, prioritized settings, and related behavioral expectations (see Figure 1). The hallway instructional plan was devised using the University of Oregon’s Project Prepare (Colvin, Sugai, & Kameenui, 1993) as a model. Grade-level instructional assemblies were held to model and teach the expected hallway behaviors. Classroom teachers were encouraged to reteach and reinforce appropriate behaviors in both structured and opportunistic situations. In addition, the building principal provided daily reminders of expected behaviors during morning announcements, and “Rising to Expectations” posters were displayed in the specific hallway used in the data collection, from the lunchroom to the recess area. (See Figure 2 for the complete instructional plan.) Using a quasiexperimental AB design, there was a 4-week practice period established between the baseline phase (A) and the postintervention datacollection period.

Targeted Behaviors The behaviors of concern that applied to the specific setting of the hallway were running, walking out of line, invading another’s space, walking on the wrong side of the hallway, and yelling. The respective expected behaviors were posted visually and reinforced in order to meet the following behavioral objectives: 1. Students will use walking feet in the lunchroom hallway. 2. Students will walk in a single-file line in the lunchroom hallway.


3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 133

Mission Statement We, the staff of ______ Elementary, are committed to providing children with a successful learning environment. The students will: 1. Accept responsibility for their academic achievement. 2. Develop the necessary skills for lifelong learning. 3. Become responsible, productive citizens within the school and community.

School-Wide Rules and Behavioral Expectations for Specific Settings

Slow Down, Stop, and Think! Be Considerate and Respectful

Setting

Be Safe

Hallways

I use walking feet I walk in a single-file line

I keep hands, feet, and belongings to myself I stay on the right-hand side of the “road”

I practice self-control I am quiet

Recess

I keep hands and feet to myself I keep my eyes and ears open I line up in single file

I am a good sport I use appropriate school language I use an appropriate tone of voice when speaking to others I take turns

If I take it out, I bring it in I play fair and follow the rules I line up when called

A.M.

I use walking feet

I stay in my bus line/ grade-level line I respect property

I follow directions I use problemsolving skills I use an inside voice

Restrooms

I keep hands, feet, and belongings to myself I use restroom equipment properly I use an inside voice I always wash my hands with soap before leaving

I wait quietly for my turn I use appropriate language I stay in my personal space

I report problems to staff immediately I flush the toilet I keep the area clean I use paper wisely

Cafeteria Lunch

I use walking feet I keep my hands and feet to myself I keep and eat my own food

I use a polite inside voice I stay in my personal space I raise my hand for assistance

I keep the eating area clean I remain quiet when dismissed

P.M.

Arrival/ Dismissal

Be Responsible

FIGURE 1. Sample of school-wide rules, prioritized settings, and related behavioral expectations Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 130–139

February 2004 / 133

3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 134

Goal: To increase appropriate student hallway behaviors during the transition from the lunchroom to the playground and the following transition from the playground through the lunchroom hallway.

Objectives: Given instruction and the subsequent implementation of school-wide behavioral expectations during the transition from the lunchroom to the playground and the following transition from the playground through the lunchroom hallway: 1. Students will use walking feet in the lunchroom hallway. 2. Students will walk in a single-file line in the lunchroom hallway. 3. Students will keep their hands, feet, and belongings to themselves in the lunchroom hallway. 4. Students will walk on the right-hand side of the lunchroom hallway. 5. Students will move quietly in the lunchroom hallway. 6. Students will practice self-control in the lunchroom hallway.

Preparatory Procedures: 1. Determine the baseline data for inappropriate student behaviors (e.g., running, out of line and/or walking on the left side, hitting, pushing, bumping, yelling, talking loudly) in the designated hallway at the specified transition times. 2. Behavior Support Team (BST) determines timeline for implementation. 3. BST meets with the entire faculty and staff. • Address misconceptions and clearly define expected behaviors and procedures. • Develop specific instructional procedures and activities to teach students the expected lunchroom hallway behaviors at grade-level assemblies and in the specific setting. • Determine what rewards/corrective procedures will be utilized and the schedule and procedures for reinforcement.

Procedures: • Step One Students attend grade-level assemblies for instruction in the expected behaviors during lunchroom hallway transitions to and from lunch recess. Upon dismissal from the assembly, students will practice the learned hallway behaviors as they return to class. Class line leaders will be given “Bee” hallway posters of behavioral expectations to place in the hallway near their classroom door. Designated students will also place “Bee” posters in the cafeteria and the lunchroom recess hallway.

• Step Two Students will be engaged in guided practice focusing on expected lunchroom hallway behavior for 1 to 2 weeks (specific length of time to be determined). Classroom teachers will teach and reinforce appropriate lunchroom hallway during daily student behavioral practice/discussion sessions for approximately 10 minutes. Faculty and staff will monitor, remind, reinforce, reward, redirect, and correct student lunchroom hallway transition behavior. Principal will include daily lunchroom hallway behavioral expectations reminder with the morning announcements. • Step Three Data-collection procedures are to be reimplemented for 1 week. Students will be engaged in independent practice. Faculty and staff will utilize precorrection, correction, and reinforcement measures. continues

FIGURE 2. Instructional plan for teaching appropriate hallway behaviors

134 / February 2004


3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 135

• Step Four Data collected will be analyzed by the BST. The class or classes meeting the preset criteria for lunchroom hallway behavior success will be acknowledged and/or rewarded (specifics to be determined). Data on classes not meeting the preset criteria will be analyzed for specific behaviors in need of improvement. • Step Five After analyzing the second group of data derived from the intervention phase, the BST, with input from all involved faculty and staff, will determine specific classes/behaviors in need of further intervention. The discussion will be focused upon points of success and those needing further development. Consideration for future generalization of expected student behaviors across all hallway settings may also be included.

LUNCHROOM HALLWAY BEHAVIOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS 1. Hallway Behavioral Expectations • Walking. • Single-file line. • On right-hand side of hallway. • Hands, feet, and belongings to self. • Quiet voices. • Practicing self-control and awareness of others. 2. Specific Time and Setting • Transition from the lunchroom to the playground. • Transition from lunch recess to class. • Lunchroom hallway. 3. Explanation Times • Individual grade-level assemblies. • Whole-group instruction by classroom teachers. • Prior to dismissal from lunchroom to recess. • Prior to admittance to building and lunchroom hallway at the end of lunch recess. 4. Practice Times and Procedures • Upon dismissal from grade-level assemblies. • Whole-group instructional activities led by classroom teachers (explain, discuss, model, role play). • Prior to dismissal from lunchroom recess. • Prior to admittance to building and lunchroom hallway at the end of lunch recess.

5. Reminder Times and Procedures • During principal’s daily morning announcements. • Prior to dismissal from lunchroom recess. • Prior to admittance to building and lunchroom hallway at the end of lunch recess (explain, discuss, model expected hallway behaviors). 6. Reinforcers • Faculty and staff praise, acknowledgment. 7. Correction Procedures • Reinforce students performing expected lunchroom hallway behaviors. • Remind students of expected hallway behaviors. • Identify specific students not exhibiting expected hallway behaviors and confer with them individually to clarify expectations. 8. Review of Procedures and Evaluation • Data collection reimplementation. • Analysis of individual class performance. • Analysis of research design and implications for future interventions.

FIGURE 2. Continued


February 2004 / 135

3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 136

3. Students will keep their hands, feet, and belongings to themselves in the lunchroom hallway. 4. Students will walk on the right side of the lunchroom hallway.

method to determine interrater reliability, it represents a practical approach that resulted in 100% agreement between the two staff members responsible for all data collection.

5. Students will move quietly in the lunchroom hallway.

Results

6. Students will practice self-control in the lunchroom hallway.

To determine whether the intervention was effective across all classes and behaviors, several procedures were followed. First, the six behavioral objectives previously identified as dependent measures were combined into one measure of appropriate hallway behavior. Second, classes were observed as individual units of analysis. Because there were two classes at each grade level, data collectors recorded whether all students in individual classes demonstrated each of six appropriate behaviors. Results per grade level therefore reflect a combining of data from two classes observed as separate units. Third, to determine both the percentage of positive behaviors displayed in the hallway and the percentage increase from the baseline to the postintervention phase, the frequency of positive behaviors was divided by the total number of expected behaviors and the percentage was recorded. Overall findings demonstrated a substantial increase in appropriate hallway behavior across all grade levels, with a 134.9% increase from the baseline phase (28.9% compliance rate) to the postintervention phase (67.9% compliance rate) for full class compliance across each of six behaviors (see Figure 3). There was a 66.0% increase in positive behavior at the kindergarten level, with a preintervention to postintervention percentage of positive behavior increasing from 25% to 41.5%. For first grade, the increase was from 23.0% to 45.5% (97.8%); for second grade, from 21.5% to 79.0% (267%); for third grade, from 45.0% to 72.0% (60%); for fourth grade, from 38.0% to 100.0% (167%); and for fifth grade, from 21.0% to 69.5% (230.9%). The greatest percentage increases in positive behavior in the hallway were found in both second and fifth grades, although it should be acknowledged that these levels began with the lowest baseline levels (21.5% and 21%, respectively). Interestingly, the only grade level achieving a 100% level of appropriate hallway behavior was the fourth grade. One of the two teachers at this grade level was an active member of the school’s behavior support team.

These objectives focused on decreasing inappropriate behaviors and increasing the occurrence of stated expected behaviors.

Data-Collection Procedures With assistance from university faculty, the team developed a baseline and postintervention data-collection method and form. Using an event-recording system, interval occurrence and nonoccurrence data collection was used contingent upon entire class performance; all students were required to be in compliance. The data were collected during the transition during lunch dismissal from the cafeteria to the playground entry door in what is referred to as the primary hallway of the school. This transition took place during an interval period lasting approximately 2 to 3 minutes. Both data collectors, the school principal and an educational assistant, were present approximately 53% of the data-collection sessions and, although visible to the children, did not participate in any aspect of the intervention during these times. These two individuals assumed this role because all other staff members had responsibilities during this time, a practical scheduling consideration in this school. The different classes and grade levels were identified and differentiated visually by the two data collectors, who were familiar with each student, his or her grade level, and class placement within the building. When a positive behavioral expectation for an entire class was met, data collectors used a (+) to record it. During intervals when expectations were not met for an entire class, they recorded a (–). Because this was a fieldbased project designed collaboratively with a field-based behavior support team, a nontraditional approach in determining interrater reliability was used whereby the data collectors gave an informal look and nod, indicating that they had observed a behavior in question. Although this does not constitute a typical 136 / February 2004


3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 137

Baseline

Postintervention

FIGURE 3. Percentage of appropriate hallway behavior during baseline and postintervention phases

Discussion The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a PBS intervention in a rural elementary school. Through the use of clear, consistent behavioral expectations, grade-level assemblies, and complimentary reinforcement, there was a substantial improvement in hallway behavior for all grades, kindergarten through grade 5. With an overall increase of 134.9% for full class compliance across six positive behaviors, it is evident that this combination of intervention was effective. These results contribute to the growing body of PBS literature in such nonclassroom settings as recess (Lewis, Colvin, & Sugai, 2000; Todd, Horner, Anderson, & Spriggs, 2002), hallways (Kartub et al., 2000), and entry into school (Nelson et al., 1996). Particularly heartening is that this study can be easily replicated, with some technical assistance, in all schools with limited resources because it is both cost-effective and practical (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). Despite these dramatic positive results, there are several limitations of this field-based study worth noting. First, treatment fidelity measures concerning teachers’ behaviors and their reinforcement of student expectations (i.e., Do staff members actually implement the intervention?) were not monitored or recorded. It would be beneficial to directly measure teacher implementation behavior and to incorporate a peer mentoring system that would


allow faculty pairs to monitor and support consistent instruction and practice activities (Safran & Oswald, 2003). Second, there was no maintenance phase during the course of the study because the postintervention data were taken at the end of the academic year. This is highly recommended to determine long-term intervention effectiveness. Third, the interrater reliability of the data collection, although practical, is not the scientific method. It would be preferable to use two independent raters as is generally recommended to ascertain interrater reliability (Alberto & Troutman, 2003). Fourth, there also exists the possibility that the data collectors changed student behavior by their mere presence, a potential reactive effect due to observation confounding the presumed impact of the intervention. All four of these qualifications should be addressed in future field-based PBS studies. Despite these limitations, these findings offer additional support for the effective application of PBS in nonclassroom settings. Moreover, it is our contention that an intervention program planned collaboratively by schoolbased and university teams dramatically increases the external validity of these results. It is clearly in our best interests to develop public school ownership of this process and technical capacity to develop PBS programs. Despite several qualifications, it is in the spirit of weaning schools from university technical February 2004 / 137

3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 138

assistance that researchers should tolerate the inherent technical limitations of field-based PBS investigations.

Implications for Practice Throughout our collaborative university– school partnership, several personnel and systemic issues related to PBS implementation appear to have broad implications. First, to implement a school-wide system effectively, there must be total staff commitment and problem ownership, open communication, collaboration among all stakeholders, and administrative support (Colvin, et al., 1993). Without these critical factors, efforts become splintered and interventions that are designed to be implemented by entire staffs are delivered inconsistently. If students observe full staff commitment to the PBS process, then they will be more likely to change their behavior. Second, when designing nonclassroom setting-specific interventions it is advantageous to begin implementation at the beginning of the academic year. This allows sufficient time to complete a baseline, implement the intervention, and program a maintenance phase. When schools are prepared to extend the treatment to other settings such as the cafeteria or playground, there is also greater likelihood of generalization. Third, a strong core of teachers and other professionals must become active and committed PBS team members, open to collegial input and careful to develop interventions to ensure full staff participation (Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Colvin, 1999; Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Sprague, 1999).

Conclusion This study demonstrates that through the implementation of appropriate interventions and consistent reinforcement of established rules and expectations, the use of PBS can be applied in all schools, even those with limited resources. Nevertheless, we are still in the initial stages of research into school-based PBS, and further investigations are needed to expand our empirical knowledge base. In addition to evaluating intervention efficacy, future studies must also examine the role of leadership and decision-making processes. Based on an expanding database, researchvalidated practices clearly exist to transform schools into safer and more favorable learning 138 / February 2004

environments (Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Safran & Oswald, 2003). The challenge now is whether public schools can demonstrate a commitment to preventative PBS practices to help bridge the ever present research-to-practice gap.

References Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Reconceptualizing behavior management and school-wide discipline in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361–381. Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R .H., & Lee, Y. Y. (1997). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344–363. Kartub, D. T., Taylor-Greene, S., March, R. E., & Horner, R. H. (2000). Reducing hallway noise: A systems approach. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 9, 161–171. Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of pre-correction and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 109–121. Lewis, T. J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. (1999). Effective behavior support: Designing setting specific interventions. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 38–46. Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446–459. Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 24–47. Lewis-Palmer, T., Sugai, G., & Larson, S. (1999). Using data to guide decisions about program implementation and effectiveness: An overview and applied example. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 47–53. Nelson, J. R., Colvin, G., & Smith, D. J. (1996). The effects of setting clear standards on students’ social behavior in common areas of the school. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 3(1), 10–19. Safran, S. P. (2004). Using surveys to develop positive behavior support plans. Manuscript submitted for publication. Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children, 69, 361–373.


3Leedy.qxd

4/7/04

2:42 PM

Page 139

Scott, T. M. (2001). A schoolwide example of positive behavioral support. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 3(2), 88–94. Todd, A. W., Haugen, L., Anderson, K., & Spriggs, M. (2002). Teaching recess: Low cost efforts producing effective results. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 46–52. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Anderson, K., & Spriggs, M. (2002). Teaching recess: Low-cost efforts producing effective results. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 46–52. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 72–82. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Effective behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a teambased approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23–27.


Turnbull, A., Edmundson, H., Giggs, P., Wickham, D., Sailor, W., Freeman, R., et al. (2002). A blueprint for schoolwide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 68, 377–402.

AUTHORS: AMANDA LEEDY, Graduate Student; PERIANNE BATES, Instructor; and STEPHEN P. SAFRAN, Professor, Department of Teacher Education, College of Education, Ohio University, Athens. E-mail: [email protected] MANUSCRIPT: Initial Acceptance: Final Acceptance:

6/10/03 2/5/04

February 2004 / 139