Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions http://pbi.sagepub.com/

Sustaining School-Based Individualized Positive Behavior Support : Perceived Barriers and Enablers Linda M. Bambara, Stacy Nonnemacher and Lee Kern Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2009 11: 161 originally published online 5 February 2009 DOI: 10.1177/1098300708330878 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pbi.sagepub.com/content/11/3/161 Published by: Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pbi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pbi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - May 29, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 5, 2009 What is This?

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at LEHIGH UNIV on May 12, 2012

Sustaining School-Based Individualized Positive Behavior Support

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions Volume 11 Number 3 July 2009 161-176 © 2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities 10.1177/1098300708330878 http://jpbi.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Perceived Barriers and Enablers Linda M. Bambara Lehigh University

Stacy Nonnemacher Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare

Lee Kern Lehigh University This qualitative interview study investigates the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing and sustaining individualized positive behavior supports (IPBS) by school-based team members across five stakeholder groups. The findings reveal specific factors across five broad themes: (a) school culture, (b) administrative leadership and support, (c) structure and use of time, (d) ongoing professional development, and (e) family and student involvement. The findings offer insight into the interconnectedness of factors that can interfere with or support IPBS in schools and suggest implications for practice and future research. Keywords: individualized positive behavior support; tertiary interventions; school teams; systems change; sustainability; qualitative research

P

ositive behavior support (PBS) is a value-based intervention approach that integrates research-based practices in behavioral, social, educational, and biomedical sciences, with systems change strategies to enhance individuals’ quality of life and to reduce or prevent their problem behaviors (Carr et al., 2002; Sugai & Horner, 2006). In an effort to broadly prevent and change patterns of problem behaviors exhibited by students in schools, schoolwide PBS (SWPBS) applies these features to the whole school context following a three-tiered prevention model: primary prevention, universal strategies applied to all students in all school settings; secondary prevention, targeted strategies applied to groups of students at risk for developing chronic problem behaviors; and tertiary prevention, highly individualized and extensive supports applied to address the needs of students who present pervasive behavioral challenges (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005). Applied at the individual student level, tertiary prevention strategies or individualized PBS (IPBS) is characterized by the use of functional assessment to identify environmental determinants of problem behaviors and the development of comprehensive, assessment-based behavior support plans aimed at altering

environments and teaching the student alternative skills (Bambara & Kern, 2005; Carr et al., 1999). In individual cases where a student’s behavior interferes with the student’s learning or that of others, The Individuals with Disabilities Education and Improvement Act Amendments of 2004 (PL 108-446) requires individualized education program teams to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the behaviors of students with disabilities. The use of school-based teams is viewed as an essential feature of PBS, both at the schoolwide level (i.e., school leadership teams; Horner et al., 2005) and at the individual student level (i.e., student-centered teams; Bambara & Kern, 2005). Composed of the people most likely to be involved in the behavior support of the student (e.g., teachers, administrators, support specialists, Authors’ Note: The preparation of this article was supported by grant H324C020033-04 from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP); however, the opinions and positions are those of the authors, and no endorsement by OSEP should be inferred. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Ailsa Goh, Kristin Tester, and Gabriell Sacks, who assisted with data analysis and thank the participants and nominators for generously giving their time, insight, and support.


161

162

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

family members, students), student-centered IPBS teams are individually constructed. Through shared partnership and collaboration, the role of IPBS teams is to problemsolve and coordinate practices around five steps of the IPBS process: (a) defining and prioritizing problem behaviors; (b) conducting a functional assessment; (c) developing data-based hypotheses that explain problem behaviors; (d) generating a comprehensive behavior support plan; and (e) implementing, evaluating, and modifying the plan as needed (Bambara & Kern, 2005; Janney & Snell, 2008). Evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of PBS practices in school settings is increasingly mounting (e.g., Dunlap & Carr, 2007; Safran & Oswald, 2003); however, essential to all research-based practices implemented in school settings, a question of sustainability remains largely unexplored: Can school-based teams sustain PBS practices over time? More specifically, what are the factors that impede or facilitate sustained adoption such that PBS becomes an integral part of daily school routines and results in successful outcomes for students? A myriad of factors can affect sustainability. Drawing from the sustainability research conducted on other research-based educational practices, these factors could be categorized into three areas (Vaughn, Klingner, & Hughes, 2000): (a) practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes about intervention effectiveness, including their beliefs about how practices can benefit them directly and their own ability to implement practices; (b) opportunities for practitioners to integrate their experiential knowledge with research-based practices, as well as opportunities to acquire a deep understanding of research-based practices; and (c) contextual or systems variables that place demands on practitioners’ daily functioning in school such as school policies, schedules, organization, and resources (e.g., Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006; Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000; Klingner, Ahwee, & Pilonieta, 2003; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006). The body of research on the sustainability of educational practices in general can inform PBS, but focused investigations on the specific factors that directly affect PBS teams are also needed if we are to influence durable PBS practices. Recently, researchers who have led the implementation of SWPBS, particularly at the universal or primary prevention tier, have recommended a number of supportive systems features and other practical considerations based on their first-hand, and often extensive, school experiences (Handler et al., 2007; Sugai & Horner, 2006; Warren et al., 2006; Warren et al., 2003). For example, Sugai and Horner (2006) propose

that school leadership teams coordinate SWPBS training, coaching, and evaluation activities, as well as promote funding, visibility, and the political supports needed to sustain PBS efforts at the schoolwide level. Central to understanding factors contributing to sustainability is understanding the perceptions and experiences of those who directly implement researchbased practices in schools (Vaughn et al., 2000). Several outstanding questions remain: What are the beliefs and attitudes experienced by PBS team members? What challenges do they face when implementing PBS? What do they believe are critical factors that must be in place to support and sustain their efforts? PBS research efforts in this area are in the formative stage. Several initial qualitative studies (Bambara, Gomez, Koger, LorhmannO’Rourke, & Xin, 2001; Hieneman & Dunlap, 2000; Ruef, Turnbull, Turnbull, & Poston, 1999) and one survey study (Hieneman & Dunlap, 2001) obtained the perspectives of various stakeholders (e.g., direct service providers, administrators, family members) about their experiences supporting children and adults with challenging behaviors using IPBS practices. Although some participants in these studies worked in schools, their experiences with providing individualized supports were largely in community-based settings (e.g., residential, vocational, natural home). Few studies have obtained the perspectives of PBS stakeholders or team members in schools. Kincaid, Childs, Blase, and Wallace (2007) used a nominal group process to have 70 participants from school leadership teams across 26 schools identify barriers and facilitators to implementing SWPBS in their schools. Twenty-one theme barriers (largely around concerns related to buy-in, use of data, consistency of implementation, and time) and 12 facilitator themes (largely around the importance of district support, use of PBS project support, use of data, administrative support, and school-level team trainings) were rated as highly important. Lohrmann, Forman, Martin, and Palmieri (2008) interviewed school technical assistant consultants to gain their perspectives about factors that influence school personnel’s resistance toward implementing SWPBS primary prevention strategies. Their findings identified a number of social contextual variables (e.g., too many school initiatives, lack of administrative direction) and personal belief barriers (e.g., lack of perceived need for PBS, infringement on personal autonomy, philosophical differences about behavior management) believed to have contributed to staff resistance. They also identified several strategies perceived by the participants to be helpful in overcoming resistance.


Bambara et al. / Barriers and Enablers

Research has not yet explored the perceptions of team members who implement IPBS in typical school settings. Because of the complex support needs of students with pervasive problem behaviors and the specialized skills required to implement IPBS, the experiences of stakeholders involved in PBS student-centered teams are likely to differ from those on PBS schoolwide teams or any other school-based team focused on academic support or inclusion. Exploring the perspectives of team members who implement IPBS is likely to yield important information about the factors that interfere with or support sustainability unique to their circumstances. In addition, exploring the perspectives of IPBS team members creates opportunities to compare their perspectives with sustainability factors previously identified in other research. Such comparisons may yield a strong database that can enhance the sustainability of IPBS and improve outcomes for students. In this study, we used a qualitative design involving semistructured interviews to describe the perceptions of well-informed and experienced PBS team members who design and implement PBSs for individual students with disabilities in public school settings. Although IPBS is being increasingly applied to students without disabilities, we focused on students with disabilities, because team members are more likely to have greater experiences implementing individualized supports for this group. Specifically, our primary research questions were: What do team members perceive to be the primary barriers to implementing IPBS in school settings? Conversely, what enablers or facilitators do they perceive to be essential in supporting IPBS practices in schools?

Method Participants Using purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990), we selected 25 participants from five distinct stakeholder groups to represent the diverse perspectives of individuals most likely to be involved in school-based IPBS teams. These groups included classroom teachers, school administrators, and parents, all of whom served as active participants on student teams. The two additional groups were external facilitators, who were used by a regional-level or statelevel technical assistance organization and provided training and technical assistance to school-based PBS teams, and internal facilitators, who were school district employees responsible for leading PBS efforts in their district. Both external and internal facilitators led student-centered IPBS teams by coordinating and guiding team activities.

163

We sought participant nominations by contacting directors of state-level PBS technical assistance organizations or state-level PBS consultants in six states in the eastern United States; all directors and consultants had ties to national PBS training initiatives through federal grants. Nominators were given written participant selection criteria and were asked to nominate individuals from each stakeholder group who, in their opinion, were well informed about PBS and had substantial experience participating on IPBS teams according to the criteria. If nominators were unable to make individual nominations, we asked them to recommend a contact person in a school district with a 3 year or longer history implementing IPBS to make the nominations. Minimum criteria for participant selection included: u

u

u

Intensive training in designing IPBS plans that consisted of a series of guided practice training sessions provided by a state-level technical assistance agency, school district, or university; Current participation on a IPBS team with current and/or prior experience with participating in all five phases of support plan development (i.e., problem identification, functional assessment, hypothesis development, support plan development, and implementation and evaluation); and A minimum of 2 years experience leading IPBS teams for facilitators; 2 years experience for administrators and 1 year for teachers and parents participating on an IPBS team.

In addition to these minimum criteria, we sought nominations for parents with IPBS experiences that extended beyond support for their child. Also, we sought to obtain a balanced representation of participants across stakeholder groups and include participants with a range of experiences across disability specific groups and grade levels. Table 1 provides demographic information (e.g., gender, position title, years experience with IPBS) on the participants interviewed. As shown, 4 to 6 participants were included in each stakeholder group. The majority of the sample was female (22 females, 3 males). All school personnel and parents were associated with different schools, although those from Florida and Virginia came from the same county school district. The external PBS facilitators consisted of two training supervisors and two resident teachers on loan from their school district to provide technical assistance to school districts in their state. Collectively, they had a mean of 3.75 years’ experience (range: 3 to 6) implementing


164


School psychologist Special education cadre Education and behavior specialist Behavior specialist Behavior specialist Principal Director of special education Principal Mental health and school psychology coordinator Director of special services Special education teacher Special education teacher Special education teacher Special education teacher Special education teacher Reading specialist Parent and parent advocate Parent and parent advocate Parent and parent advocate Parent Community partner coordinator

F F F F F

M F M F

F F F F F F

F F F F F

F

Resident teacher Resident teacher Training program supervisor Social worker, training coordinator

Position

F F F M

Gender

Disability advocacy organization Training and technical assistance County school district County school district Training and technical assistance

Virginia County School District Township school district County school district County school district City school district County school district

Township school district

Township school district County school district County school district County school district

County school district County school district County school district County school district County school district

Training and technical assistance Training and technical assistance Training and technical assistance Training and technical assistance

Agency

Pennsylvania New Jersey Virginia Florida West Virginia

Virginia New Jersey Florida West Virginia New Jersey Virginia

New Jersey

Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Florida

Florida Delaware Florida Virginia Virginia

Delaware Delaware West Virginia New Jersey

State

11 4 6 4 7

6 5 7 1 4 3

7

3 12 15 10

4 4 3 13 10

4 2 6 3

Years

All DD All DD (autism) DD (autism)

All DD DD DD (autism) DD (autism) All, Gen. Ed.

DD, EBD

EBD All All DD, EBD

DD All, Gen. Ed. DD All, Gen. Ed. All, Gen. Ed.

All, Gen. Ed. All DD (autism) All

Disability Focus

K-12 PreK-Elementary K-12 Elementary Elementary, Middle

Middle Elementary Middle Middle Middle Elementary

PreK-Middle

Middle PreK, K-12 Elementary K-12

PreK-Elementary K-12 Elementary, Middle Elementary Middle, High School

K-12 K-12 K-12 Pre-K-Elementary

Grade-Level Focus

Experience with PBS

Note: PBS positive behavior support; All nonspecific disabilities; Gen. Ed. general education students; DD developmental disabilities; EBD emotional behavioral disorders.

P14 Teacher P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P 20 Parent P21 P22 P23 P24 P25

External PBS facilitator P1 P2 P3 P4 Internal PBS facilitator P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 Administrator P10 P11 P12 P13

Participant

Table 1 Participant Information


IPBS across diverse disability groups, including general education students and across grade levels K-12. The facilitators had been involved in a mean number of 25 (range: 8 to 37) student cases. The internal PBS facilitators consisted of two districtwide behavior support specialists, two special education specialists, and a school psychologist who supported educational teams around both academic and behavior interventions. Facilitators had a mean of 6.7 years’ experience (range: 3 to 13) implementing IPBS across a mean of 47.7 (range: 6 to 100) student cases. Collectively, their experiences spanned across disability groups, including students in general education, and across grade levels PreK-12. The administrators consisted of two building principals and three special services program administrators (e.g., special education, mental health and school psychology). Their mean years of experience with IPBS was 9.4 years (range: 3 to 15), across a mean of 22 (range: 6 to 50) student cases. Their experiences spanned across disability groups and grade levels from PreK-12. The teachers consisted of five special educators and one general education teacher (reading specialist) at the elementary and middle school level. Three teachers also served as IPBS team leaders in their school for students outside of their classrooms. Their mean experience with IPBS was 4.3 years (range: 1 to 7), across a mean of 2.5 (range: 1 to 6) student cases. Four teachers’ IPBS experiences were limited to students with developmental disabilities, whereas two had experiences implementing IPBS across a range of disabilities; one teacher also developed PBSs for general education students. Four of the five parent participants served as parent advocates, supporting other parents through the process of securing appropriate educational or behavior supports for their children. Their mean experience with IPBS was 6.4 years (range: 4 to 11), involving a mean of 40.2 student cases (range: 1 to 100), across grade levels PreK-12. Two parents had experience working with families with children across all disability groups, whereas three parents’ experiences were limited to developmental disabilities.

Data Sources and Procedures State PBS technical assistance directors and consultants contacted potential participants and asked for their consent to share their names and contact information with us. Once consent was obtained, one of two interviewers contacted the participants via

165

e-mail to briefly explain the purpose of the study and the criteria for participation and to ascertain their willingness to participate in a screening interview over the telephone. Out of 30 nominated participants, 4 did not respond to or follow through with this initial invitation to participate and were eliminated from further screening. During the screening interview, the interviewer obtained informed verbal consent to participate in the study, gathered general demographic information (e.g., position, title, school district, years involved in education), and asked participants to describe their training and experiences implementing IPBS in school settings. The interviewer recorded information on a form to ensure that all selection criteria were met. One nominated school administrator with experience implementing SWPBS at the universal level, but not at the individual level, was excluded from participating. For the 25 participants who met the criteria, a mutually agreeable time was scheduled for the primary interview. Primary interviews were conducted over the telephone by one of two interviewers (first two authors) over a 12-month period. Participants were interviewed in-depth, using a semistructured approach. Interviews ranged from approximately 50 to 160 minutes, with an average of about 90 minutes per interview. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcriptionist. Interviewers followed a topical interview guide (Patton, 1990) to ask participants questions around three broad categories. Questions were sent to the participants in advance of the interview to give them time to reflect on their experiences. First, participants were asked to describe the general process or steps that were typically used for developing IPBS plans for students (e.g., “What is the typical process used by you, school, or team for developing and carrying out an IPBS plan for students?”). This was asked as an additional way to verify that participants had sufficient experience developing IPBS plans and to orient the participants to their experiences for the remainder of the interview. Second, participants were asked to describe the primary barriers to successfully implementing the process of developing and carrying out PBS for individual students (e.g., “What are the major barriers or impediments to implementing the process you have just described?”). After participants were given the opportunity to respond in an open-ended fashion, the interviewer probed by asking them to elaborate on their responses (e.g., “How is that a barrier?”), to consider broad categories of potential factors (e.g., “Have you experienced barriers


166


pertaining to school organization?”) and to give specific examples of barriers wherever possible. Third, the participants were asked to provide their perspectives on what enablers must be in place to fully support the IPBS process in schools (e.g., “In your experience, what factors must be in place to design and carry out successful positive supports for students who engage in challenging behaviors?”). In addition to requesting participants to elaborate on their responses, follow-up probes asked them to consider ways to address the barriers previously described (e.g., “In your experience, what factors are helpful in addressing this particular barrier?”). Throughout the interview, interviewers frequently summarized and paraphrased the participants’ responses so that the participants had an opportunity to verify their responses and correct any misinterpretations. The interview ended by asking the participants to summarize the top barriers and enablers to the IPBS process.

Data Analysis We used a modified Consensual Qualitative Research (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997) method for data analysis. Consensual Qualitative Research uses a research team for gaining consensus about the meaning of data across multiple jurors or researchers. It provides a forum to garner multiple researcher perspectives about the data (i.e., triangulation) and a process for continual peer debriefing and data auditing to reduce individual bias and ensure consistency throughout the data analysis process. Two primary researchers (the first two authors who were also the interviewers) and three graduate research assistants made up the research team. The entire team met regularly throughout data collection and analysis to discuss interview procedures, coding, and preliminary findings; however, only the primary researchers met to develop the final themes. Data analysis progressed in stages; each stage was applied to a set of about five transcripts at a time. Team members rotated responsibilities throughout the data analysis process. Developing domain codes. After each research team member read through the first five transcripts and independently identified domains or broad topic areas based on the participant responses to the interview questions, the entire team met to come to consensus on a set of domain codes for categorizing all text (raw data) in the transcripts related to the topic areas. The process involved all team members applying an initial “start list” of codes to the first five transcripts, coming to consensus on the categorization of text, and modifying or creating new

domain codes to categorize all data across the five transcripts. This resulted in a list of 20 domain codes that were applied to the remaining sets of transcripts. Coding into domains. Two rotating team members independently coded the remaining transcripts and then met to come to consensual agreement on the categorization of the data for each transcript. Any coding disagreement that could not be resolved by the pair was brought back to the entire team for resolution and consensus. In addition, after consensus was achieved by the pair, a third team member audited the coded transcripts to check if the raw data were accurately coded. Lack of agreement between the auditor and the pair was also brought back for team discussion and consensus. As needed, domain codes were modified or new ones created as new concepts emerged from the interviews. Abstracting core ideas within domains. In the third stage, one rotating team member read the raw data within each domain and abstracted the core ideas of the domain by summarizing and remaining as close as possible to the participant’s words and meaning. The purpose of abstracting was to capture the content of the interview data within a domain in succinct manner in preparation for the cross-analysis. A second team member audited the abstracts, and the pair came to consensus on the wording to make them as clear and representative of the participant’s words and ideas as possible. Cross-analysis. The purpose of this stage was to identify patterns of responses across participants within and eventually across domains to create themes. The two primary researchers reviewed all the abstracted data across participants in each domain and met to break large domains into smaller subcategories by looking for similarities of ideas within domains across all the participants. These subcategories were then presented to the entire team for discussion and were added as additional codes, which were applied to all transcripts as described in the second step. Once all the abstracted data were categorized in domains and subcategories, the first author read through this entire data and grouped similar domains and subcategories together to create themes for a higher level of abstraction. This resulted in a final cross-analysis document that was audited by the second primary researcher who checked to see that the abstracted data within domains and subcategories fit the overall themes. She then discussed and agreed on any necessary changes with the first author. Finally, once the cross analysis was completed, a simple frequency count of the number of participants



contributing to each theme and subcategory was made to assess the relative occurrence of topics discussed by participants. Using the criteria suggested by Hill et al. (1997), categories with only 1 to 2 participants were not reported in the findings.

Findings Our focus was on understanding the specific barriers and enablers to implementing IPBS in school settings as perceived by the participants. Because barriers and the perceived solutions for overcoming obstacles often mirrored one another, our discussion of the barriers and enablers are grouped under five broad thematic areas for a cohesive presentation. Each theme suggests five essential practices for supporting the implementation of IPBS in school settings. Table 2 presents the percentage (and number) of participants who contributed to each of the five major themes and subcategories within the themes. Given the open-ended nature of the interview questions, these figures provide an indication of the relative occurrence of similar topics discussed by the participants as the topics emerged during the interviews. Unlike in a questionnaire that contains predefined responses to standard questions posed to all participants, the percentages do not indicate the proportion of respondents who agreed or disagreed with a particular idea; nor do they represent the proportion of barriers or enablers experienced by the participants.

School Culture The most pervasive theme, supported by almost all (92%) of the participants, was the importance of establishing a school culture in which all members of a school community share a common understanding and appreciation for IPBS. The general view was that the absence of a supportive school culture, characterized by a general lack of knowledge or awareness of IPBS activities, as well as long-held conflicting beliefs, values, and practices of school personnel, made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for team members to carry out PBS for individual students with any impact or sustainability. As expressed by one school district behavior specialist, an unsupportive school culture is like a “lack of oxygen”; there is no air to feed or sustain the process. Most participants (84%) talked about a number of conflicting beliefs and practices held by school personnel that interfered with the general acceptance of IPBS. Chief among them, as noted by 72% of the participants, was a general misperception of what IPBS is and what constitutes

167

effective behavior management practices. Participants reported that many school personnel viewed IPBS practices as being unfair to other students, because the targeted child receives special treatment that differs from standard discipline practices. Moreover, attempts to understand environmental influences of problem behaviors and to prevent problem behavior through proactive means were often viewed as “making excuses for the child” and “spoiling,” “being soft,” or “giving into the child” by providing the student what he or she wants. As suggested by the participants, these misperceptions of IPBS were inexorably related to core beliefs about effective behavior management practices—that a uniform approach that emphasizes strong consequences for misbehavior and is applied consistently to all students is most effective. In fact, many participants explained that school personnel often have great difficulty understanding how preventative strategies could work, because of their entrenched beliefs and experiences implementing punitive consequences. In addition to beliefs about behavior management, the lack of school inclusion—both in philosophy and practice— was viewed as a major impediment to IPBS by more than half (56%) of the participants. As explained by several participants, within a noninclusive school culture, students with disabilities, especially those who engage in challenging behaviors, are neither well understood nor viewed as valued members of the school community worthy of the effort it takes to address their needs. One parent advocate commented, Some people hold disrespectful attitudes toward people with disabilities. They fail to see people with disabilities as belonging; see them as a “drain on society” rather than capable of being productive citizens. With this negative view, it doesn’t matter if you teach PBS; they will not get it.

Coupled with the lack of understanding that the goal of behavior management should be inclusion, some participants shared that a view held by many school personnel is that “these students” are better served elsewhere when traditional behavior management practices have been tried and failed. In an unsupportive school culture, participants explained that those committed to using IPBS experienced enormous difficulties implementing and sustaining the process. Difficulties included getting other school personnel invested enough to make an initial commitment to learn about IPBS or participate on a student team when needed. When teams did form, behavior support plans were implemented inconsistently across settings or school personnel, with some teachers failing to follow


168


Table 2 Key Themes and Subcategories Key Themes

Percentage

School culture Barriers Lack of schoolwide understanding of IPBS Conflicting beliefs and school practices Misperception of IPBS and effective behavior management practices Lack of inclusion Enablers Establish a supportive school culture Educate school community about IPBS Share team success with school Establish schoolwide practices: SWPBS and inclusion Administrative (principal) support Barrier Lack of building principal understanding, acceptance or support Enablers Principal provides cultural leadership Principal participates in and acknowledges team efforts Principal secures and provides needed resources Structure and use of time Barriers Lack of time to meet IPBS created extra burdens IPBS is time-consuming Enablers Principal adjusts schedules and provides release time (also see administrative support) Align IPBS process within existing school teams Adopt IPBS procedures to match classroom settings and teacher skills (contextual fit) Professional development and support for professional practice Barriers School personnel inadequately trained and prepared Lack of adequate technical assistance provided to teams Enablers Provide ongoing skill building training in IPBS (i.e., workshops, in-service) Provide highly trained district-level or school-based IPBS facilitators Opportunities for collaborative teaming Family and student involvement Barrier Schools do not promote or support regular parent involvement (e.g., scheduling difficulties, poor communication, lack of parent understanding of IPBS) Enablers Family involvement enhances IPBS effectiveness and sustainability Student involvement enhances effectiveness

n

92

23

80 84 72 56

20 21 18 14

92 80 40 68 84

23 20 10 17 21

44

11

52 36 76 88

13 9 19 22

48 48 76

12 12 19

72 20 32 92

18 5 8 23

76 48

19 12

64 64 76 72

16 16 19 18

48

12

56 24

14 6

Note: IPBS individualized positive behavior supports; SWPBS schoolwide positive behavior supports; percentages indicate the proportion of participants who discussed themes or subcategories.

through and others defiantly refusing to implement positive strategies. Several participants also expressed that, with a lack of supportive colleagues, committed team members experienced feelings of isolation working against the mainstream culture, which led them to “wear out” or resent taking on added responsibilities that their colleagues refused to assume. Isolation also made team

members feel vulnerable to the misjudgment of others. One external facilitator stated, “When others do not understand what the team is doing, they think the team is not doing their job. ‘Why aren’t you yelling at him?’ Teams felt misunderstood a lot of the times.” By contrast, the vast majority of participants (92%) expressed that establishing a supportive school culture



was an important enabler to the IPBS process and could be achieved through a number of strategies. First and foremost, most participants (80%) stressed the importance of educating the entire school community (e.g., teachers, administrators, related school personnel, support staff) about the basic tenets and processes of IPBS. Although participants believed that specific procedural details, such as how to conduct a functional assessment are not necessary at the awareness level, they stressed that schoolwide trainings should include sufficient information to explain what IPBS is, how it is carried out, and how it can benefit all students. Specifically, they suggested that general schoolwide training should include information on understanding environmental influences of problem behavior, prevention strategies, the importance of individualization, and the ultimate goals of IPBS, especially achieving quality of life and inclusion, not exclusion, for students with a history of challenging behaviors. Second, sharing the work of IPBS teams and their successes with the greater school community was viewed as an important enabler, not only to reduce feelings of team isolation but also to provide evidence that individualized IPBS does work. As discussed by 40% of the participants, experiencing, sharing, and seeing success creates a snowball effect in which school personnel are more willing to be involved and try new strategies and in turn experience success themselves. One district administrator said, “The best way to open up the doors that we found was literally providing folks with what they call ‘transformative’ experiences; seeing something really happen and then realizing how powerful [PBS] can be.” Third, a strong consensus shared by a majority (68%) of participants was that IPBS was well supported when two schoolwide practices were in place: SWPBS and inclusion. Both practices were viewed as providing a contextual foundation for shared values and commonly accepted practices, making it easier for school personnel to adopt IPBS practices. The predominant view was that SWPBS at the universal level promoted a common understanding about effective behavior management practices; mainly prevention, skill building, and databased decision making as essential elements for success. Inclusive school practices promoted the understanding that all children belong, despite their disability or challenging behaviors, and that it is the school’s responsibility to create a positive climate in which all students can succeed. Because of the focus on individualization, several participants stated that IPBS and inclusion “go hand in hand.” Two facilitators expressed that IPBS training in inclusive schools is

169

enhanced, because school personnel are already accustomed to problem solving and making changes for individual students.

Administrative Support Although some participants indicated the importance of district-level administrative commitment, the vast majority (84%) stressed the pivotal role that the building principal plays in promoting the overall acceptance of IPBS and making it possible for IPBS teams to carry out their work. The absence of building principal support, acceptance, or even understanding of IPBS was viewed as a major impediment by many (44%), not only because of their lack of leadership to promote new practices but also because principals’ own conflicting views about behavior management or inclusion can actively set up roadblocks that prevent IPBS activities from occurring in their school. For example, several parents, facilitators, and teachers reported instances in which building principals impeded the work of team members by refusing to participate on student teams, preventing technical assistance consultants from entering the school, being inflexible with regard to relaxing school discipline rules for individual students, and failing to agree to provide teacher release time for training. One teacher explained that her building principal did not want to participate in team meetings because she felt that “everything was coming to a standstill just because of this one child . . . she just didn’t feel it was right.” The building principal’s role was viewed as being so central to the support of IPBS activities that one district behavior support specialist expressed frustration that “even if the superintendent is behind the behavior specialist 100%,” if the building principal is not supportive of IPBS, then “it is rarely worth being in the building.” Participants identified three forms of administrative support as important enablers to the IPBS process. The first form of support, indicated by approximately half of the participants (52%), was the building principal assuming school cultural leadership by demonstrating a strong philosophical stance in support of IPBS and inclusion. Several participants, including the two building principals, emphasized that the principal must convey a positive “can do” attitude through both words and action. One building principal stated, “Administrators have to set the stage for success by being prepared proactively [to make] decisions that benefit the kid, no matter the inconveniences caused.” As expressed by several participants, a positive attitude exhibited by the building principal sets the tone for the entire school building. But


170


some participants noted that building principals themselves must be involved in district and school trainings on IPBS and actively participate on student teams to change their own views or strengthen their convictions in support of it. The second form of administrative support, identified by 36% of the participants, was the building principal participating in team decision making and praising and acknowledging team efforts. Teachers, facilitators, and parents expressed strong feelings of appreciation when building principals were available to listen to their concerns, collaborate in team decisions, and were physically present at team meetings when needed. Knowing that the building principal valued and supported team efforts seemed especially vital in a culture of change where not all school personnel accepted IPBS practices. One building principal said, I don’t necessarily have to be involved in every meeting or every step of the process, but they [team] need to know that I support it, that I value what they’re doing. If they don’t believe that, they may not continue to do it [PBS]. I need them to understand where their successes are, even when something doesn’t work.

Sentiment for this form of administrative support was echoed by one teacher who feared being judged on her lack of success. She said, We don’t need to worry that our principal’s going to lower his eyes, and we’re gonna’ have to worry ‘Oh, he thinks I can’t handle this on my own.’ He was there, he knew, he KNEW what was going on. Your level of tolerance [for difficulty] is going to be different if you know you’ve got some back up. You can go and talk to [him] about what’s happened. ‘What do you think?’

The third and most frequently mentioned form of administrative support, expressed by the vast majority of participants (76%), was the building principal securing and providing resources needed for IPBS activities. Perceived resource needs included money, opportunities for staff training, and release time, including the provision of substitute teachers so that school personnel can attend trainings and PBS meetings. Also, extra personnel, such as paid paraprofessionals or volunteers, to assist teachers with data collection were viewed as important resources. The most critical and frequently voiced resource need requiring administrative support was building in sufficient time in the school day for planning and for regularly participating in PBS team meetings.

Structure and the Use of Time Issues related to time were identified as a key concern by nearly all participants (88%). The general sentiment was that successful implementation of IPBS requires careful attention to how time for IPBS activities is allocated, structured, and used by team members. Participants identified three time-related barriers. Limited or lack of available time for IPBS team members to meet regularly was the first barrier. Nearly half (48%) of the participants from all stakeholder groups expressed that typical school schedules provided few opportunities for school personnel and parents to plan and collaborate together during the school day. Many participants expressed difficulties with getting all key team players together at one time, which they noted severely compromised the integrity behavioral supports for students. Finding time to meet was especially difficult in secondary schools or when team membership spanned across different disciplines. Although several participants noted that successful teams created time by volunteering to meet before or after school hours, others reported that in some schools, teachers were prohibited by their teachers’ union from meeting outside of the regular school hours or from using their preparation time for meetings. The perception that IPBS activities created extra burdens for school personnel, especially teachers, was the second time-related barrier discussed by 48% of the participants. Because often few or no adjustments were made to teachers’ schedules or daily responsibilities to engage in IPBS practices (i.e., participate in team meetings, attend trainings, implement behavior support plans), participants explained that teachers frequently felt “overburdened,” “overstretched,” and sometimes “put upon,” especially when they perceived themselves as assuming added responsibilities not required by other teachers. The third time-related barrier was that the IPBS process itself was often viewed as too time consuming or labor intensive, which, according to a large majority of participants (76%), created a major deterrent to sustained teacher and administrative involvement. Although some participants reported that teachers struggled most often with the time involved with collecting data, given their other classroom responsibilities, others explained that the entire process from gathering functional assessment data, to analyzing the data, to generating team-based solutions, to implementing and evaluating support plans, was viewed as long and involved, spanning more than half the school year for some students. Both the amount



of time required to participate in the process and the time it takes to realize positive student outcomes were identified as a major source of frustration to many IPBS team members and other school personnel. In addition to the struggle of finding time to meet, some participants speculated that the negative perceptions about the timeconsuming nature of IPBS was tied to “quick-fix” expectations for behavioral interventions or the lack of understanding that effective interventions take time to develop. Some acknowledged that sometimes the process was indeed unduly long, especially when skill-building activities for untrained team members were built into team meetings. Perceived solutions or enablers to address these time barriers were not as forthcoming as the participants’ discussion of the problems, although most participants (72%) underscored the importance of the building principal’s role in creating common times for people to meet by adjusting schedules and periodically releasing teachers from classroom instruction. Aligning the IPBS process within other existing or standing school teams was identified as a possible solution by some (20% of the participants). One middle school principal reported that the IPBS process was infused in his school’s grade-level teams that met weekly. A few others noted the process working well when the school’s instructional support or teacher assistance teams were trained to implement IPBS procedures. The two behavior support specialists from the same Virginia county school district explained how schools in their district created school-level teacher assistance teams with expertise in inclusion, instructional support, and IPBS. When IPBS was needed, some members of the standing team formed a core team involving key players in the student’s support (e.g., teachers, parents, building principal) and then led the team process. Several other participants (32%), representing every stakeholder group, emphasized contextual fit—adapting PBS procedures and interventions to match the demands of classroom settings and the skills and needs of team members implementing the procedures—as helpful in making IPBS more time efficient (Albin, Lucyshyn, Horner, & Flannery, 1996). One administrator stated, “You have to be able to take PBS into the classroom and respect the limits of what that classroom teacher can handle.” A teacher explained that when she first implemented IPBS, she thought she had to “go by the book . . . the assessment, the data, and all of that, it was so overwhelming.” She iterated that it is important to choose procedures that will work for a particular team and not use standard procedures for all.

171

Professional Development and Support for Professional Practice Discussed by the vast majority of participants (92%), adequate and ongoing training opportunities and continuous support for professional practice emerged as the fourth essential practice needed to successfully implement and sustain IPBS. The net perception was that ongoing support for professional development was critical, because IPBS requires a specific skill and mindset that differ radically from those involved in traditional behavior management or classroom practices. Reported by 76% of the participants, a chief barrier to the IPBS process was that few school personnel were adequately trained or prepared to implement IPBS or participate on student teams once their direct involvement was needed. As described by the participants, not only are many school personnel unfamiliar with the basic procedures of IPBS, but they also tend to lack prerequisite knowledge and skills, such as in applied behavior analysis, data collection, and writing behavioral objectives, needed to facilitate their learning of IPBS strategies. Teachers’ lack of experience with data collection, which many participants reported to be as a great source of frustration to teachers, was viewed as especially problematic. Both internal and external facilitators reported that they trained team members as they led teams through the process, but that the situation was not ideal when team members had limited background knowledge. Several facilitators expressed frustration with the added time involved with having to start at “ground zero” with every new team that formed. Another barrier, noted by nearly half (48%) of the participants, was the lack of adequate technical assistance made available to support team members as they applied IPBS. In the participants’ experience, few schools had a sufficient number of highly trained personnel (if any) who could readily lead teams through the process or consult with team members when they experienced difficulty. The consensus was that general training was not enough; guided technical assistance is needed to help team members apply the process and solve problems. Without it, teachers were easily frustrated and overwhelmed, even with previous training. As expressed by one district administrator, “Some aspects of PBS can be quite sophisticated.” Participants reported that the teachers often need assistance with data interpretation, matching interventions to the function of behavior, and implementing prevention strategies. Perceived solutions to overcoming these barriers were straightforward, but seemed to require substantial resources


172


and district-level commitment to training. First, participants (64%) recommended that school districts provide ongoing opportunities for school personnel involved in implementing IPBS to attend skill-building workshops, especially with regard to functional assessment, data collection, and prevention strategies. They suggested establishing a basic knowledge and skill set among key personnel to make guided application within teams more efficient. Second, participants (64%) from all constituency groups stressed the importance of having a sufficient number of highly trained district-level or school-based PBS facilitators to provide ongoing technical assistance and leadership to student-centered teams, hands-on training, and individual coaching as needed. Last, teaming itself was viewed as a strong enabler of the IPBS process despite expressed difficulties with finding time to meet. For most participants (76%), the problem solving and collaborative aspects of teaming provided an important source of continuous support for team members as they adopted new perspectives about behavior interventions, developed new skills, and coordinated activities among team members. Specifically, participants described that group problem solving helped to establish like-mindedness, consistency, and accountability among team members. Participants also emphasized that the camaraderie involved in teaming helped to reduce feelings of isolation and provided motivation for team members to persist through times of difficulty. One administrator stated, “We’re talking about tough kids here. Sometimes teachers feel self-pity and they start thinking, ‘Why am I doing this?’” Another administrator stated, “It’s important not just to make the child ok, but also to make sure the staff is ok. Sometimes, you’re not just doing a support plan for the student; you are doing one for the staff to get over their hurt feelings . . . and frustration.” A teacher added, “When time is made for teaming, people end up being in the same spirit with one another, which creates the motivation to continue through difficulties and crisis.” Participants also voiced that teaming can open up team members to new perspectives about the student and intervention practices as well as build their confidence to seek solutions to problems and try new strategies. Several participants commented that it is not easy for some teachers to see “triggers” to behaviors; they need to be walked through the process and given the time to put the pieces together to understand reasons for problem behaviors and eventually realize success. Others commented that when working with difficult students, some teachers are afraid to take risks and fear being judged for their mistakes. One teacher described how

going through the problem-solving process in teaming enabled her to grow. She stated, “It really helps. It causes you to look at every area. It caused me to look at my consequences, my reinforcers. It caused me to look at my curriculum and my instruction . . . now I’m not so quick to call in the behavior specialist.” Participants pointed to a number of elements that should be in place to promote positive teaming outcomes. These included the following: u u u u u

Regularly occurring and structured meetings; A strong facilitator with expertise in PBS as well as people or team leadership skills to motivate team members and resolve team conflicts; Strategies to promote good working and interpersonal relationships among team members; Frequent opportunities for team members to experience and celebrate success; and Opportunities for team members to communicate with one another outside of meetings for additional team support.

Family and Student Involvement Active family and student involvement in the IPBS process was the fifth essential practice theme supported by most (72%) participants. More than half of the participants (56%), representing all stakeholder groups, viewed family participation as a critical enabler to for several reasons. Participants voiced that parents can help the team gain insight on the student’s behavior as well as provide other critical information needed to develop effective supports. Parent involvement was also viewed essential for establishing consistency between home and school interventions and fostering continuity across time. One parent stated, “If you are going to change the behavior of the kid, but don’t have parent support, how far are you going to get?” Regarding long-term continuity, another parent said, “It’s important for the family and the student to be part of the team, because it’s their life. School teams come and go, but the family is going to be involved year after year.” Finally, some participants explained that family participation on student teams can offer an important source of support to families just like for other team members. One parent advocate explained that it is difficult to support students unless families themselves feel supported. Despite these views, nearly half of the participants (48%) expressed that schools were not doing well with getting parents regularly involved in the IPBS process. One building principal captured the general sentiment when he said,



Involving parents is a weakness of ours. We’ll talk to the parent at parent–teacher conferences and we’ll let the parents know that we obviously are not ignoring problems; we’re working on [them]. But we generally don’t involve the parent in the process here at school . . . . Lack of parent involvement is our fault, not the parents. Parents aren’t reluctant to do it. We just haven’t been aggressive enough in getting them here.

Although some participants noted that not holding meetings at times when parents can attend is a primary barrier, others explained that school professionals are not always welcoming of parent input, and as a result, parents feel unvalued, judged, or blamed for their child’s problems. This unwelcoming attitude was illustrated by a remark made by one external facilitator: It impedes the process when you’re trying to implement positive supports and the parents won’t even come to the meetings to know what you are doing, especially because parents are supposed to be part of the team and have agreed to support and help us. Often, meetings have to be rescheduled or repeated to get parents there.

On the other hand, a few participants noted other possible reasons for the lack of parent involvement, including parents’ own conflicting beliefs about behavior management, lack of understanding of IPBS, and difficulties with implementing suggested strategies at home. Regardless of the reason, several participants commented that perceived parental reluctance to participate causes frustration within the team. Finally, about one quarter (24%) of the participants identified student involvement in the IPBS process as an important enabler, not only to help teams gain insight into the student’s problem behaviors but also to foster student self-determination and responsibility for his or her own behavior change. However, participants did not offer additional comments on the barriers to student involvement or how to best involve students in the PBS process.

Discussion In asking participants about perceived barriers and enablers to implementing IPBS in schools, five broad themes emerged that suggested five general but essential practices needed to support and sustain team members’ efforts and produce positive outcomes for students. Within each theme, participants identified specific factors viewed as particularly problematic and offered potential solutions based on their experiences.

173

Overall, the findings reflect the multidimensional and interrelated nature of the factors perceived to either impede or enhance the implementation of IPBS. No factor appeared solely responsible for greatly impeding or enhancing the implementation of IPBS, and all factors, to a certain extent, were interconnected. For example, consistent with other studies that investigated the perceptions of school personnel who have implemented research-based practices (e.g., Klingner et al., 2003), lack of time was identified as a barrier. However, the perception that IPBS was “too time-consuming” could be explained by a number of factors such as the lack of opportunity to meet and plan during the school day, the belief that behavioral interventions should result in a “quick fix,” the relative inexperience and lack of training of team members, and perhaps the lack of fit between the steps of the IPBS process and the daily demands of busy school personnel. The point is that understanding the barriers and enablers of IPBS must be understood within the context of the whole. School change to support and sustain innovative practices at the individual student level must be considered at multiple system levels (e.g., school culture, school organization, administrative support, support for teacher practice, procedures for designing support plans), because one system affects the other (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2001). The five major themes found in this study include (a) establishing a supportive school culture (b) establishing administrative leadership and support, (c) attending to the structure and use of time, (d) providing ongoing support for professional development, and (e) facilitating family and student involvement). These themes are similar to the factors identified in other research for overcoming barriers to implementing research-based practices in schools (e.g., Sindelar et al., 2006), including research conducted on SWPBS at the primary prevention level (e.g., Kincaid et al., 2007). Relevant to the purpose of this study is attending to those specific factors within these broad themes that are particular to IPBS. In the next sections, we identify several critical areas in need of attention and discuss related implications for research and practice based on the findings. The most pervasive finding that seemed to cut across all five themes is that the adoption of IPBS requires a substantial shift in thinking about behavioral interventions and about the students who present very difficult problem behaviors. As indicated by the participants, the acceptance of IPBS requires letting go entrenched beliefs and practices and accepting those that emphasize prevention rather than consequences, individualization rather than standard disciplinary interventions, and inclusion rather


174


than the exclusion of students. These tenets must be understood, shared, and practiced by members of the general school community for team members to feel supported (i.e., reduce feelings of isolation going against the mainstream culture) and to implement and coordinate IPBS practices with others in the school community. Two strategies identified by the participants for promoting a schoolwide understanding of IPBS—strong principal leadership and documenting and sharing the successes of IPBS with the entire school community— are supported by research (Klingner et al., 2003; Lohrmann et al., 2008). In addition, the participants identified universal SWPBS practices as an important enabler for promoting the value of preventive interventions for all students. At the same time, however, participants emphasized the critical role that inclusive school practices play in promoting the acceptance of individualized behavior interventions. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest that in our effort to promote SWPBS practices for all students, we do not lose sight of the need to promote the inclusion and the individualized support needs of the students with the most pervasive behavioral challenges largely to counterbalance their long history of segregation and exclusion. Moreover, these findings support the argument advanced by Sailor, Zuna, Choi, Thomas, and McCart (2006) that SWPBS on the whole be infused in other whole-school interventions, such as inclusion, so that the bifurcation of SWPBS, universal level of supports for general education students, and tertiary supports for special education students does not occur. In short, in the absence of a strong inclusive value base, it may be difficult to promote the individual needs of challenging students. Our findings also revealed a number of other critical challenges that need to be addressed to support the implementation and sustainability of IPBS. First, participants reported numerous issues around the fit of IPBS within the school organization and teacher routines. These issues largely centered on the lack of time built into the school day for meeting and collaborating with others, the time involved in carrying out the IPBS process, and difficulties collecting data (particularly with regard to functional assessment). As suggested by the participants, these issues call for a greater alignment and infusion of IPBS activities within existing studentcentered, school-based teams, such as instructional support teams or the creation of new ones at the school level to create an infrastructure of support. In addition, these issues call for research to take a closer look at the components and practices of IPBS to determine their feasibility of being reliably and efficiently implemented

in typical school settings. Crimmins and Farrell (2006) note that reports on the time involved in conducting a functional assessment in schools vary but could involve as many as 18 to 20 days in some studies. Yet reasons for the variation and often lengthy time involvement for this one component of IPBS are unclear (Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004). Research is needed to provide practitioners with guidelines about selecting the most effective and efficient procedures given their classroom context and the needs of the student. We wonder, for example, whether positive student outcomes can be achieved for some students without going through the full five-step process (Bambara & Kern, 2005), or whether functional assessment can be abridged for some students by relying on indirect measures of assessment. We need better answers about what works and what is doable in schools to influence sustainable practice. Second, ongoing training and support for professional development also emerged as a critical need. This includes adequate preparation to participate on studentcentered teams, ongoing training opportunities for school personnel to develop their skills and update their knowledge, and school-based experts trained specifically in IPBS (e.g., behavior specialists, school psychologists, consulting teachers) who can lead and consult with teams as they implement supports for students. These intensive training requirements reflect the specialized skills required to implement IPBS as well as the support needs required by team members as they face the inherent challenges of addressing the needs of difficult students in school cultures not wholly appreciative of their efforts. It is not surprising that teaming was identified as an important source of support by the participants. Research has shown that professional collaboration can greatly assist school personnel in developing, applying, and sustaining new skills (Brownell et al., 2006) and provide the emotional support needed for team members to stick with it during times of difficulties (Bambara et al., 2001), particularly when team members reflect and think deeply about their practices and are guided to see the results of their efforts (Brownell et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2000). The challenge is whether schools are willing to invest the time and resources needed for professional development for a small population of students. Research can help by acquiring a deeper understanding of the beliefs and struggles of team members as they implement IPBS and by evaluating training models that best fit school contexts and professional needs. A third area of critical need to emerge from the findings is identifying ways to successfully invite and support



family participation in the IPBS process. Given the importance of family involvement emphasized in the literature (e.g., Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Albin, 2002) and by the participants in this study, the overall concern that families are not active participants was discouraging, although not unpredicted. Previous research (Turnbull & Ruef, 1997) documents that families of children with problem behaviors are the prime initiators of school collaboration, not the schools, and parents are often frustrated by teachers’ and administrators’ lack of receptivity to their ideas and understanding of their child’s problem behaviors. Clearly, the challenge to both research and practice is to figure out how to create opportunities for parent participation and collaboration around the support needs of students with problem behaviors. The findings should be interpreted with the following potential limitations in mind. First, although our study was designed to include the diverse perspectives of different stakeholders across various states, readers should not assume generality outside of the scope of these participants’ experiences. On the other hand, generality should not be entirely dismissed either, given the consistency of the themes found across participants and with the findings of other research highlighted in this study. Second, given the design of our study, we were unable to interpret the findings within the context of participants’ school or team experiences. For example, some participants served as team members in schools in which universal SWPBS practices were in place, some in inclusive schools, and some in schools in which only trained team members were familiar with PBS. In addition, although some participants spoke of barriers and enablers with regard to one school or with regard to one disability group, others spoke more broadly about their experiences across schools and students with or without disabilities. Because school context can differentially influence perceived barriers and enablers (Brownell et al., 2006; Kincaid et al., 2007), future research should consider the school context in which team members practice, as well as the skills and beliefs that team members bring to the PBS process, for a finer analysis. Third, although understanding team members’ perceptions is vital to our understanding of sustainability issues, perceptions alone do not reveal the extent to which barriers or enablers actually threaten or positively influence positive outcomes; more direct measures of critical factors on team and student outcomes would be needed. Addressing the individual needs of students with pervasive problem behaviors is one of the most difficult challenges that school personnel and families face. IPBS is an effective approach; yet as our findings indicate, given the mainstream culture and practices of schools,

175

sustained implementation will require change and support at multiple system levels. This study provides initial insight into the challenges and supports experienced by IPBS team members and raises numerous questions about the information needed to successfully implement and sustain IPBS so that students with challenging behaviors may succeed.

References Albin, R. W., Lucyshyn, J. M., Horner, R. H., & Flannery, K. B. (1996). Contextual fit for behavior support plans. In L. Koegel., G. Dunlap., & R. Koegel (Eds.), Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community (pp. 81-98). Baltimore: Brooks. Bambara, L. M., Gomez, O., Koger, F., Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S., & Xin, Y. P. (2001). More than techniques: Team members’ perspectives on implementing positive supports for adults with severe challenging behaviors. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 213-228. Bambara, L. M., & Kern, L. (2005). Individualized supports for student with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior support plans. New York: Guilford. Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72, 169-185. Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., & Sailor, W. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 4-16. Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., MagitoMcLaughlin, D., McAtee, M.L., et al. (1999). Positive behavior support for people with developmental disabilities: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Crimmins, D., & Farrell, A. F. (2006). Individualized behavioral supports at 15 years: It’s still lonely at the top. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 31-45. Dunlap, G., & Carr, E. G. (2007). Positive behavior support and developmental disabilities: A summary and analysis of research. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 467-482). New York: Guildford. Ferguson, D. L., Kozleski, E. B., & Smith, A. (2001). On transformed and inclusive schools: A framework to guide fundamental change in urban schools. Retrieved September 21, 2007, from ERIC database (ED460172). Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 445-457. Handler, M. W., Rey, J., Connell, J., Their, K., Feinberg, A., & Putnam, R. (2007). Practical considerations in creating schoolwide positive behavior support in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 29-39. Hieneman, M., & Dunlap, G. (2000). Factors affecting the outcomes of community-based behavioral support: I. Identification and description of factor categories. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 161-169. Hieneman, M., & Dunlap, G. (2001). Factors affecting the outcomes of community-based behavioral support: II. Factor category


176


importance. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3, 67-74. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517-572. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive behavior support. In L. M. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for student with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior support plans (pp. 359-390). New York: Guilford. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, PL 108-446; 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2008). Behavioral support (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brooks. Kern, L., Hilt, A., & Gresham, F. (2004). An evaluation of the functional assessment process used with students with or at risk for emotional behavior and behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 440-452. Kincaid, D., Childs, K., Blase, K. A., & Wallace, F. (2007). Identifying barriers and facilitators in implementing schoolwide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 174-184. Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., & Pilonieta, P. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429. Lohrmann, S., Forman, M., Martin, S., & Palmieri, S. (2008). Social context and personal belief barriers that impede the adoption of PBS at the universal level intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 256-259. Lucyshyn, J. M., Dunlap, G., & Albin, R. W. (Eds.). (2002). Families and positive behavior support: Addressing problem behaviors in family contexts. Baltimore: Brooks. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ruef, M., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., & Poston, D. (1999). Perspectives of five stakeholder groups: Challenging behaviors of individuals with mental retardation and/or autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 43-58. Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children, 69, 361-373.

Sailor, W., Zuna, N., Choi, J., Thomas, J., & McCart, A. (2006). Anchoring schoolwide positive behavior support in structural school reform. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 31, 18-30. Sindelar, P. T., Shearer, D. K., Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Liebert, T. W. (2006). The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72, 317-331. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245-259. Turnbull, A. P., & Ruef, M. (1997). Family perspectives on inclusive lifestyle issues of people with problem behavior. Exceptional Children, 63, 211-227. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163-171. Warren, J. S., Bohanon-Edmonson, H. M., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Wickman, D., Griggs, P., et al. (2006). School-wide positive behavior support: Addressing behavior problems that impede student learning. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 187-198. Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A., et al. (2003). Urban applications of school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues and lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 80-91.

Linda M. Bambara, EdD, is a professor of special education at Lehigh University. Her interests are in the areas of individualized positive behavior support, team training, and communitybased supports for individuals with developmental disabilities. Stacy Nonnemacher, PhD, is the senior clinical consultant for the Bureau of Autism Services at Lehigh University. Her current interests focus on behavioral support, self-determination, and bridging the research to practice gap. Lee Kern, PhD, is Iacocca Professor of Special Education and program coordinator at Lehigh University. Her interests are in the area of students’ social, emotional, and behavioral problems.
