ABSTRACT
PBIS STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT AFTER TRAINING: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY
by Abbey Louise Mauch As PBIS, or Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, use increases in schools across the country, so has the need for effective professional development on PBIS. Unfortunately, research suggests most traditionally delivered training sessions for educators result in minimal changes to their actual practice in schools. The current study examined (a) to what degree training attendees have subsequently applied the PBIS concepts learned in the training they attended, (b) to what degree implementation supports have been received by training attendees following their initial training (e.g., coaching, consultation, performance feedback), and (c) what additional supports attendees feel are needed to increase use of PBIS. Results revealed that frequency of PBIS use after training was significantly related to support received from an administrator or other personnel. Results also indicated that participants perceived administrator support, team member support, feedback, outside support, continued education, and planning time as additional supports necessary to increase their use of PBIS. Implications for future PBIS trainings and increasing training effectiveness are discussed.
PBIS STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT AFTER TRAINING: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY
Thesis Report
Submitted to the
Faculty of Miami University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Educational Specialist (Ed.S.)
by
Abbey Louise Mauch
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2019
Advisor: Dr. Amity Noltemeyer
Reader: Dr. Dawna Cricket Meehan
Reader: Dr. Anthony James
©2019 Abbey Louise Mauch
This thesis report titled
PBIS STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT AFTER TRAINING: A FOLLOW-UP STUDY
by
Abbey Louise Mauch
Has been approved for publication by
The School of Education, Health and Society
and
Department of Educational Psychology
______________________________________________________ Dr. Amity Noltemeyer
______________________________________________________ Dr. Dawna Cricket Meehan
______________________________________________________ Dr. Anthony James
iii
Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures............................................................................................................................. v
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Present Study and Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 4
Sample .................................................................................................................................... 4
Materials ................................................................................................................................. 5
Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 5
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 5
Protection of Human Subjects ..................................................................................................... 6
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 10
Implications for Practice and Future Research ....................................................................... 11
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 12
References ................................................................................................................................ 14
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 17
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Position of Participants………………………………………………………………...10 Figure 2: Percentage of Those Providing Support……………………………………………….14
1
Introduction
PBIS is a proactive framework demonstrated to be effective in reducing student
behavioral problems over time. According to Sugai and Horner, PBIS enhances student academic
engagement and achievement by preventing problem behavior, actively teaching desired
behaviors, and responding quickly to patterns of problem behavior (Sugai & Horner, 2014). This
framework teaches students the tools to solve problems and confrontations appropriately. When
used correctly, schools teach students appropriate behavioral actions and observe and praise
behavioral actions seen (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports OSEP Technical
Assistance Center , 2019).
Rather than using disciplinarian strategies or punishing students for bad behavior, PBIS
strives to teach students appropriate behavior and give them the tools to problem solve before
consequences might be needed. PBIS is associated with positive outcomes, such as a reduction in
problem behaviors and increased educational effort (Bradshaw, Mitchell & Leaf, 2010). A 2012
study also found that when implementing school-wide PBIS, there is a reduction in behavior
problems and improvements in emotion regulation among students. The study supports the use of
PBIS in schools and found it was effective after training (Bradshaw, Waasdorp & Leaf, 2012).
PBIS has also been found to decrease the number of office discipline referrals in schools that
implement it with fidelity (Flannery, Fenning, Kato & McIntosh, 2014). Not only does PBIS
benefit students, but teachers as well. According to a 2012 study across 40 elementary schools,
school-wide implementation of PBIS was associated with lower levels of teacher burnout. (Ross,
Romer & Horner, 2012).
Professional development on PBIS is increasingly needed, as about 20,000 schools
nationwide are attempting to use PBIS and it is now required in certain states, such as Ohio
(Horner, 2014). However, according to the Ohio Department of Education (2016), there has been
inconsistent implementation of PBIS due to varied interpretation of the law. Professional
development is defined as an experience to enhance professional growth. These experiences
allow professionals, such as teachers, to gain knowledge about a new curriculum or strategies to
use in classrooms. A 2016 study about professional development relative to Response to
Intervention (RTI), a similar multi-tiered framework implemented in the schools, found that
educator skill development serves a critical role to effectively implement RTI (Castillo et al.,
2016). This study also discovered the effectiveness of job-embedded coaching, meaning
2
educators who received this coaching had an increase in RTI skills, suggesting that coaching is a
necessary tool for skill development (Castillo et al., 2016). Similar research is needed to examine
the effectiveness of professional development and coaching efforts with regards to PBIS
implementation.
Research has described the importance of continuous professional development in the
workplace (Boyle, While & Boyle, 2004). However, there is a gap in professional development
literature in regards to PBIS professional development. Professional development is key to
increase teacher knowledge of classroom interventions, and when teachers work together in
groups, more improvements in professional development occur (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman & Yoon, 2001). However, while professional development is extremely important, it is
also important to understand how teachers can realistically implement topics learned at
professional development sessions. For example, coaching can be provided in classrooms to
support teachers and help them learn how to improve (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan & Powers, 2010).
A 2007 study also found that increasing the time teachers are given to plan for implementation of
techniques learned at professional development training led to increased implementation and
fidelity (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi & Gallagher, 2007).
Currently, the Ohio Department of Education and Ohio’s 16 State Support Teams (SST)
are providing PBIS professional development trainings to educators. This study is a continuation
of Katelyn Palmer’s (2018) research, which focused on the effectiveness of these PBIS trainings.
Specifically, Palmer’s study identified six factors which contribute to the effectiveness of PBIS:
knowledge, staff support, duration, coherence, active learning, and timing. Palmer examined
whether there is a relationship between these six factors and the effectiveness of training, and the
combination of factors that best predicts effectiveness. Palmer collected data through a survey
sent to educators who had attended professional development training. Ultimately, the
effectiveness of the trainings was found to be significantly related to incorporation of active
learning, level of coherence between activities at the training and structures in place at
participants’ schools, increase in knowledge, and date of training (Palmer, 2018). While Palmer’s
study determined the effectiveness of PBIS training in Ohio, participants were surveyed directly
after sessions. Therefore, there is a need to examine whether and for how long PBIS strategies
are used after training, and if there is a decrease in use over time, why this occurs.
3
Through Palmer’s (2018) research, it was noted that additional research is also needed
regarding administrator support. Increased support was related to training effectiveness, but the
research did not determine what types of support are effective in producing change. A 2016
study found job-embedded professional development effective (Castillo et al., 2016), but this has
not been examined with PBIS professional development specifically. There is a lack of literature
regarding how coaching can increase the use of PBIS and what additional coaching is needed.
Districts are the main providers of professional development opportunities and more research
needs to be done regarding how districts are involved and keep up with new practices used in
classrooms. (Whitworth & Chiu, 2015). Possible solutions include coaching, further training, and
classroom observations. Palmer (2018) also noted the lack of research in regards to PBIS use
over time. Studies about how often PBIS strategies are used and why are essential to fully
understand and incorporate these strategies in schools.
Present Study and Hypotheses
Altogether, these gaps in the literature reveal the need for increased research regarding
PBIS use, PBIS professional development effectiveness, and additional supports needed in
regards to PBIS implementation in schools. The current study examined the degree to which
PBIS training attendees have subsequently applied the PBIS concepts learned in the training they
attended, supports received by training attendees following their initial training (e.g., coaching,
consultation, performance feedback), and what additional supports attendees felt were needed to
increase use of PBIS. In general, three research questions were developed for the purposes of this
study.
Using a training follow-up survey, this study examined how frequently PBIS strategies
were implemented in classrooms within the first four weeks following training, and the four
weeks prior to filling out the survey. It also examined support participants received in
implementation, and whether this support was positively or negatively associated with level of
PBIS implementation.
It was hypothesized that PBIS strategies would be implemented initially following the
training but decrease over time. Information from the literature review supported the theory that
coaching and additional guidance lead to increased knowledge in educators. Thus, it was
hypothesized that level of implementation support after training would be positively associated
4
with level of implementation of PBIS strategies following the training. Meaning, the more
support teachers and other educators receive after training will lead to an increase in PBIS
strategy use. The final hypothesis was that administrator support would be most crucial in
regards to additional supports needed to implement PBIS.
Methodology
Sample
This sample consisted of 121 participants who attended an Ohio PBIS training during the
2017-2018 school year. The majority of participants were teachers (n = 71), followed by
administrators (n = 27), related service personnel (n = 13), and other educational professionals (n
= 10). See Figure 1 for a breakdown of participants. Trainings were conducted in all 16 SST
regions of Ohio, and participants represented rural, urban, and suburban schools and populations.
On January 22nd 2018, 319 email surveys were sent (to people who primarily completed training
between August and November 2017) and 244 emails were sent on May 7th 2018 (to people who
primarily completed training between December 2017 and March 2018). The response rate for
the study was 21.5%.
Figure 1. Position of Participants.
58.7%22.3%
10.7%
8.3%
Position
Teachers
Administrators
Related Service Personnel
Other EducationalProfessionals
5
Materials
A follow-up survey was developed for this study and used three or more months after
participants’ PBIS professional development. (see Appendix A for items). The survey asked
demographic items about the participant’s professional role and years of professional experience.
The survey also asked participants to rank the frequency of their use of PBIS strategies within
the first four weeks after training, and again within the prior four weeks. Participants also
answered items regarding what support, if any, was given to them after training and what
additional support they believed was needed. The survey was hosted online using Qualtrics
software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT).
Procedures
Participant names and school districts were collected as part of training registration
records from the Ohio Department of Education, and were provided in a spreadsheet to a faculty
member at Miami University involved with evaluating PBIS training effectiveness in the state of
Ohio. The researcher searched for participant email addresses on school district websites. A
January 22nd 2018 email was sent individually to anyone who completed training from August to
November 2017. In early April 2018, this process was repeated and a list of participant email
addresses was created. On May 7th 2018, an individual email was sent to anyone who completed
training from December 2017 to March 2018. The email, which included language approved by
the IRB, described the study, invited the individual to participate, and provided them with a link
to the Qualtrics survey. A reminder email was sent one week after the initial email, to non-
responders. Survey results were obtained anonymously through Qualtrics and exported to SPSS
for data analysis. Participant email addresses were not attached to or associated in any way with
the survey results. All procedures were approved by the Miami University IRB before data
collection began.
Data Analysis
To analyze the survey results, the answers were coded and descriptive statistics were used
to analyze the results. Specifically, measures of central tendency, frequency, and measures of
variability were used to analyze the data. A paired samples t-test was used to examine whether
there were changes over time (from first four weeks after training as assessed by item 5, to prior
four weeks before survey as assessed by item 6) in the degree to which participants implemented
6
PBIS strategies. An independent samples t-test was used to examine whether a participant
received support (item 8) significantly impacted PBIS use in the first four weeks after training
(item 5) and the prior four weeks (item 6). A correlation was also conducted to examine the
association between the degree of support participants received after the training and their degree
of implementation of PBIS strategies (a) in the first four weeks after the training (item 5), and (b)
in the prior four before the survey was sent (item 6). Finally, a thematic analysis was
implemented to examine what additional supports are needed to increase PBIS use in schools
(item 13). Codes were created to identify important features of the data (such as administrators,
professional development, etc.) and themes were discovered among these codes to analyze the
results.
Protection of Human Subjects
The survey results remained anonymous as individual names and emails were not
reported on the survey. Participants’ responses remained confidential and anonymous during data
collection and analysis. The IRB also approved the survey, email, and study prior to data
collection in order to ensure confidentiality and protection of participants’ rights.
Results
Responses to items 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 are summarized in Table 1 below. The vast
majority of participants (over 80%) reported that they occasionally, often, or very often applied
information they learned at the training within the first four weeks after the training. Similarly,
the vast majority of participants (over 80%) reported that they occasionally, often, or very often
applied training information within the past four weeks prior to the survey administration.
Overall, the results indicate frequent use of PBIS training information in the initial four weeks
following training, and the four weeks prior to the survey, although it is also important to note
that a small percentage (less than 7%) of participants reported that they never applied
information from the training either in the first four weeks after the training or the prior four
weeks before survey administration. The results also indicate that the majority of participants
(nearly 90%) used PBIS strategies more after attending training and also received some type of
support in implementation (over 70%). For those who reported receiving support, this support
7
was mostly (over 65%) provided by a building administrator or a SST staff member according to
participants. Figure 2 provides a more detailed breakdown of who provided support. While over
70% of participants reported receiving support, 45% reported receiving this support only
occasionally. More than two-thirds of participants (over 70%) also reported that additional
support would increase their use of PBIS.
Table 1
Item Responses
Variable Frequency Percentage
Item 5: Within first four weeks after training, how
frequently did you apply information?
Never
Infrequently
Occasionally
Often
Very Often
9
17
47
50
26
6.04
11.41
31.54
33.56
17.45
Item 6: In the past four weeks, how frequently are you
applying information learned?
Never
Infrequently
Occasionally
Often
Very Often
10
16
42
53
27
6.76
10.81
28.38
35.81
18.24
Item 7: Are you using PBIS strategies more or less after
attending training?
More
Less
127
15
89.44
10.56
Item 8: Following training, did you receive support to
help implement PBIS?
Yes
No
106
40
72.60
27.40
8
Item 10: Who provided this support?*
Building Administrator
District Administrator
SST Staff Member
External Consultant
Other
59
20
34
6
22
41.84
14.18
24.11
4.26
15.60
Item 11: How frequently was support provided?*
Very Infrequently
Infrequently
Occasionally
Often
Very Often
5
16
45
29
5
5.00
16.00
45.00
29.00
5.00
Item 12: Do you believe additional support following your
training would increase your use of PBIS?
Yes
No
103
39
72.54
27.46
*Only answered if responded “Yes” to item 8
Figure 2. Percentage of Those Providing Support.
42%
14%
24%
4%
16%
Support Provided
Building administrator
District administrator
SST staff member
External consultant
Other (e.g. PBIS team,staff, etc.)
9
A paired samples t-test was conducted to examine whether there were changes over time
(from first four weeks after training as assessed by item 5, to prior four weeks before survey as
assessed by item 6) in the degree to which participants implemented PBIS strategies. The results
showed there was not a significant difference in PBIS implementation between the first four
weeks after training (M = 3.44, SD = 1.054) and the prior four weeks before the survey (M =
3.49, SD = 1.064); t(116) = -1.00, p = 0.319. These results suggest that there were no significant
changes over time in the degree to which participants implemented PBIS from the first four
weeks after training to the prior four weeks before the survey.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare how frequently participants
used PBIS information learned at the training in those that received support from administration
or other personnel and those that did not receive support conditions. There was a significant
difference in frequency of training use for participants that did receive support after training (M
= 3.71, SD = 0.857) and those that did not receive support (M = 2.87, SD = 1.306) conditions;
t(113) = 3.985, p = 0.000. These results indicate that there was a significant difference between
participants who did receive support and those who did not. Specifically, the results suggest that
those who received support from administration or other personnel following PBIS training used
strategies learned at training more frequently.
Additionally, a correlation was conducted to examine the association between the degree
of support participants received after the training and their degree of implementation of PBIS
strategies (item 11) (a) in the first four weeks after the training (item 5), and (b) in the prior four
weeks after training (item 6). The researcher found a significant, positive correlation found
between Items 5 and 11, r = .388, n = 83, p = <.01. Meaning, increases in frequency of PBIS
implementation initially following training were correlated with increases in frequency of
administrator support. A significant, positive correlation was also found between Items 6 and 11,
r = .374, n = 83, p = <.01. Therefore, frequency of support was positively correlated with
frequency of PBIS use in the 4 weeks directly prior to the survey.
A qualitative analysis was conducted for Items 9 and 13. Item 9 asked participants to
describe the type of support received following PBIS trainings. Three themes emerged among
participant responses. One theme that emerged was team member support. For example, one
participant stated, “Our principals formed a PBIS team and conduct monthly meetings along with
activities to promote PBIS building-wide.” Participants described team member support from
10
both school teams and State Support Team members. In addition to school teams, another
important theme identified was administrator support. One participant stated, “We have had a
great amount of respect from administration with planning, giving resources, meeting times
during school, and giving out surveys to families, teachers, and community members.” In
addition, a theme of feedback also emerged. For example, a participant stated that they received,
“Assistance with answering questions and feedback from administrators.”
Item 13 asked participants what additional support is needed to improve PBIS
implementation school-wide. Three themes emerged among participant responses. The first
theme that emerged was outside support, for example, one participant stated, “Someone coming
in to help design a program” would be beneficial. Participants generally described outside
support as additional training, coaching, and school-wide instruction from State Support Team
members. The second theme that emerged was the need for refreshers and/or continued
education. For example, one participant stated a need for, “Continuing education related to
effective positive behavior incentives.” Finally, the third theme that emerged was additional
planning time among school teams. A participant described his or her school’s need for, “A
consistent time for a monthly meeting.” Many other participants also stated a need for additional
meetings among teams to further improve PBIS implementation.
Discussion
Based on the analysis of the results, two out of the three original hypotheses were
supported. A significant positive correlation was found between reported frequency of
implementation support received after the training and frequency of PBIS use in the four weeks
before the survey. A significant positive correlation was also found between reported frequency
of PBIS implementation following training and frequency of administrator support for PBIS
implementation. Therefore, the hypothesis that level of implementation support after training
would be positively associated with level of implementation of PBIS strategies following the
training was supported. Significant differences also existed in reported frequency of using
information learned at training between participants who did and did not receive support after the
training both within the first four weeks after the training and the four weeks before the survey.
An important theme identified within the results of item 9 (see Appendix A) was
increased administrator support, which supported the hypothesis that administrator support
11
would be crucial in regards to additional supports needed to implement PBIS. Other themes
identified were team member support and additional feedback. The majority of participants
(72.54%) believed that additional support would increase their use of PBIS. Participants
identified outside support, such as further training, coaching, and instruction from the State
Support Team, continuing education, and planning time as necessary to improve school-wide
PBIS implementation. The final hypothesis of this study stated PBIS strategies would be
implemented initially following the training but decrease over time; however, the results do not
support this theory. According to survey results, there was no significant changes over time in
the degree of PBIS implementation within the first four weeks after training and the four weeks
prior to the survey. Therefore, participants reported implementing strategies at the same rate and
consistency initially after training until the time they took the survey. Although this final
hypothesis was not supported, these results are positive and suggest that implementation of PBIS
strategies did not decrease over time following the training.
While only two out of three hypotheses were reported, these results provide valuable
information. This study found that increased level of support following trainings was positively
associated with increased PBIS use in the classroom. This suggests implementation support may
help increase implementation. 89.44% of participants also reported using PBIS strategies more
after the training, therefore supporting the effectiveness of these Ohio trainings. Furthermore,
this study identified crucial support to help increase PBIS implementation, such as outside
support, continuing education, and planning time. Participants identified further training,
coaching, instruction from State Support Team, additional refreshers related to behavior
incentives, and increased time for teams to meet as important measures of support.
Implications for Practice and Future Research
Based on these results, future research is necessary regarding the importance of school
and district leaders’ role in PBIS professional development. For example, a 2012 study examined
the importance of principals and administrators in regards to PBIS implementation. This study
found that principals with a positive and supportive outlook regarding PBIS had increased PBIS
use in their schools (Richter, Lewis & Hagar, 2012). The results of this study indicated that
administrator support is important for classroom PBIS implementation, but future research could
examine if administrator buy-in is also associated with increased implementation. Directions for
future research also include disaggregating the analysis results by participants’ profession
12
(administrators, teachers, etc.). Furthermore, this study measured PBIS implementation over the
span of one or more months; however, future research could examine how frequently PBIS is
implemented for a year or more after training.
Educational professionals can use these results to identify strengths and weaknesses of
PBIS implementation in their schools. Specifically, schools should examine what support, if any,
is provided to teachers following PBIS professional development, who provides this support, and
how often. Schools should also examine how administrators can support implementation of
educational practices, such as PBIS. Administrators can provide support to teachers by attending
to basic team tasks and setting clear priorities, encouraging knowledge-based decisions through
problem solving, encouraging instructional flexibility, and developing strong professional bonds
among teachers (Boscardin, 2005). According to a 2016 study regarding factors that help and
hinder administrator support of PBIS, administrators were more likely to become supportive
after obtaining formal and informal knowledge of PBIS through multiple channels (McIntosh,
Kelm & Canizal Delabra, 2016). Administrators also reported that networking with
implementing schools, learning how PBIS aligns with personal values, experiencing its
effectiveness firsthand, observing a need for PBIS, attending PBIS trainings, connecting with a
PBIS coach, and attending team meetings helped participants support PBIS implementation in
their schools. In order to increase administrator support of PBIS, additional trainings specifically
tailored to administrators may be helpful, as well as developing a coaching network where
administrators can share their successes and areas of improvement (McIntosh, Kelm & Canizal
Delabra, 2016).
Limitations
This study provides specific insight about the frequency of PBIS implementation
following trainings and what support helps increase this implementation. However, there are
several limitations that need to be considered. First, it is important to consider participant
response bias. Those who responded to the survey may be more likely to be those who followed
through on PBIS implementation. Also, participants may not have answered each question
accurately. It is often difficult for individuals to accurately assess their own actions. Second, the
time between the participants’ PBIS training session and the follow-up survey ranged. Therefore,
those with longer time periods between training and survey completion may not have accurate
responses. On the other side, participants who attended trainings closer to the survey did not
13
have as much time to successfully implement PBIS strategies as other participants. Finally,
perceptions regarding what supports would increase participants’ use of PBIS were based
entirely on their opinions. It would be beneficial to collect this information in a different way so
it is not opinion-based for future research (e.g., external observer checks). It is also unclear
whether the methods of support participants’ identified would in fact improve their
implementation of PBIS, and whether their schools would have the capacity to provide such
support.
14
References
Boyle, B., While, D., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: what makes
professional development effective? The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45-68.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12(3),133-148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5),
1136-1145. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0243
Castillo, J. M., March, A. L., Tan, S. Y., Stockslager, K. M., Brundage, A., Mccullough, M., &
Sabnis, S. (2016). Relationships between ongoing professional development and
educators’ perceived skills relative to RtI. Psychology in the Schools, 53(9), 893-910.
Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., & Powers, E. (2010). Job-Embedded Professional
Development: What It Is, Who Is Responsible, and How to Get It Done Well. Issue
Brief. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Flannery, K. B., Fenning, P., Kato, M.M., & McIntosh, K. (2014). Effects of school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and supports and fidelity of implementation on problem
behavior in high schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 111-124.
Gaal, J. (2017). Does professional development matter? A follow-up pilot study. International
Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 24(1), 59-76.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
15
Horner, R. H. (July, 2014). Using PBIS to make schools more effective and equitable. Paper
presented at the Southern Region Student Wellness Conference, Indian Wells, CA.
McIntosh, K., Kelm, J.L., Canizal Delabra, A. (2016). In search of how principals change: A
qualitative study of events that help and hinder administrator support for school-wide
PBIS. Grantee Submission, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(2), 100-110.
Ohio Department of Education. (2016). Policy: Positive behavior interventions and
support and restraint and seclusion. Retrieved from
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/School-Safety/Building-Better-
Learning-Environments/Policy-Positive-Behavior-Interventions-and-Support
Palmer, K. (2018). Professional Development In Schools: Predictors Of Effectiveness And
Implications For Statewide PBIS Trainings. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation).
Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports OSEP Technical Assistance Center (2019). Tier I
supports. Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/school/tier1supports
Richter, M.M., Lewis, T.J., & Hagar, J. (2012). The relationship between principal leadership
skills and school-wide positive behavior support: an exploratory study. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(2), 69-77.
Ross, S., Romer, N., & Horner, R.H., (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation of
school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions. 14(2) 118-128.
16
Sugai, G. and Horner, R. H. (2014). Positive Behavior Support, School-Wide. In Encyclopedia
of Special Education (eds C. R. Reynolds, K. J. Vannest and E. Fletcher-Janzen).
doi:10.1002/9781118660584.ese1902
Whitworth, B. A., & Chiu, J. L. (2015). Professional development and teacher change: The
missing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 121-137.
17
Appendices
Appendix A: Follow-Up Survey
Q1 What was the date of the PBIS training you attended? If it was a multi-session training,
please put the date of the last session. If you are unsure of the exact date, please indicate the
month of the training.
Q2 What is your role?
• Administrator
• Teacher
• Related Services
• Parent/Community Member
• Paraprofessional
• Other
Q3 (Item shown only to those who respond “Teacher” “Administrator” “Related Services” or
“Paraprofessional” to item 3) How many years of educational or teaching experience do you
possess?
• 0-5 years
• 6-10 years
• 11-20 years
• 21+ years
• N/A
Q4 (Item shown only to those who respond “Teacher” to item 3) What do you teach?
• Special Education
• General Education
• Other
• N/A
18
Q5 Within the first four weeks after the PBIS training you attended, how frequently did you use
or apply information learned at the training?
• Never
• Infrequently
• Occasionally
• Often
• Very often
Q6 In the past four weeks, how frequently are you using or applying information learned at the
training?
• Never
• Infrequently
• Occasionally
• Often
• Very often
Q7 Are you using PBIS strategies more or less after attending the training?
• More
• Less
Q8 Following the PBIS training session you attended, did you receive support from
administrators or other professionals to help implement PBIS? Support could mean additional
instruction, technical assistance, modeling, feedback, and/or coaching.
• Yes
• No
Q9 Please describe the type of support received.
Q10 (Item shown only to those who respond “Yes” to item 8) Who provided this support? Please
check all that apply.
• Building administrator
19
• District administrator
• State Support Team staff member
• External consultant
• Other (please describe)
Q11 (Item shown only to those who respond “Yes” to item 8) How frequently was support
provided to you?
• Very infrequently
• Infrequently
• Occasionally
• Often
• Very often
Q12 Do you believe additional support following your PBIS training would increase your use of
PBIS?
• Yes
• No
Q13 What additional support would be beneficial to you and your school, to further improve
PBIS implementation?
Top Related