Reflection

need help with a 1 page reflection 

School-widePBIS: An Example of Applied Behavior Analysis

Implemented at a Scale of Social Importance

Robert H. Horner 1 and George Sugai2

Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract
Behavior Analysis in Practice is focused on practical demonstrations of behavior analysis in
school, community, work, and home contexts. One current example is the emergence of school-
wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) as a framework for improving the
academic and social outcomes for students. In this paper, we describe PBIS, the contributions of
behavior analysis to defining, evaluating, and implementing PBIS, and initial lessons learned
from the past 20 years of implementing PBIS across over 21,000 schools in the USA. Our goals
are to both frame the strong tie between PBIS and ABA and suggest lessons learned that may
influence both research and large-scale implementation efforts with other examples of behavioral
intervention.

Go to:

School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

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

The impact of behavior analysis on PBIS is most clear in (a) the emphasis on operational
definitions of behavior and intervention elements, (b) the logic model used to select
environmental manipulations designed to alter student and staff behavior, and (c) an unrelenting
commitment to measurement of both implementation fidelity and the impact of PBIS on student
outcomes. Two themes that define PBIS are a focus on the whole-school as the unit of
intervention (Biglan 1995; Mayer 1995; Mayer and Butterworth 1979), and the simultaneous
development of interventions tied to at least three tiers of support intensity (Fuchs and
Fuchs 2006). Figure 1 presents the frequently referenced multi-tiered prevention approach
borrowed from community health and first introduced to education by Hill Walker (Walker et

al. 1996). The logic from this approach starts with defining an organization’s most highly valued
outcomes (e.g., reading, math, writing, and social behavior), and then selecting the smallest set
of research-validated procedures needed to deliver these outcomes with at least 80 % of the
target population. In schools, this “Tier I” level focuses on establishing a school-wide positive
social culture that includes (a) defining and teaching a small set of behavioral expectations (e.g.,
be respectful, be responsible, and be safe), (b) establishing a ubiquitous system for reinforcing
performance of these expectations, (c) implementing a consistent system for interrupting,
correcting, and redirecting behavioral errors, and (d) building an efficient system to collect,
summarize, and use data for decision-making (Horner et al. 2010; Putnam et al. 2002; Sugai and
Lewis 1999; Sugai et al. 2014).

Fig. 1

Multi-tiered prevention model

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

Tier II (secondary prevention) practices focus on moderate intensity supports that address the
most common needs of students with ongoing problem behavior. As indicated in Fig. 1, Tier II

supports are added to Tier I supports and are designed for the 10–15 % of students who benefit
from additional structure, more overt, and frequent antecedent prompts, a higher rate of positive
recognition, and elevated training in both behavioral expectations and self-regulation skills
(Crone et al. 2010; Sugai et al. 2014). The elevated level of risk experienced by these students is
matched not only by elevated support intensity, but also by the frequency and specificity with
which progress monitoring data are collected. Tier II supports typically are packaged and
standardized for highly efficient implementation across multiple students (e.g., first step to
success Walker et al. 2009; check-in/ check-out Hawken et al. 2006).

Tier III (tertiary prevention) practices are characterized by individualized assessment,
individualized support plan design, comprehensive support plan implementation, and the
management of support by a team uniquely organized to meet the preferences and needs of
individual student (Scott et al. 2008). The establishment of Tier III supports is an overt
commitment by the system to include a full range of students in the school. An important
addition to Tier III support practices is a formal process for monitoring both if a support plan is
being implemented as well as if it is being effective (Pinkelman 2014). Tier III supports are not
new to schools. Special education expectations for individualized support have been required
since 1975. The value of this approach, however, now extends beyond special education to all
students requiring higher intensity supports. When implementing Tier III behavior supports,
teams consider behavioral, academic, mental health, physical, social, and contextual variables
(Crone et al. 2010). This is a high-intensity approach to support, intended for 5 % or fewer
students within a school. As symbolized within Fig. 1, Tier III supports are expected to be (a)
needed less often than Tier I and Tier II supports and (b) more effective when they are
implemented within schools that simultaneously offer Tier I and Tier II supports.

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

Go to:

Lessons Learned

A worthy question is why PBIS has been so widely adopted over the past 20 years when so many
other examples of behavior analysis have offered impressive research outcomes with limited
societal adoption. We offer the following as “lessons learned” that may guide future research and
dissemination efforts.

1. Emphasize Core Features and Evidence-based Strategies. Behavioral theory focuses on
the behavioral mechanism(s) by which core features of an environment alter behavior.
Core features are the “kernels” or “smallest functional units” needed to produce valued
outcomes (Embry and Biglan 2008). Within PBIS, consistent attention has been given to
operational descriptions of the core features needed to achieve academic and social gains

for students. The focus on core features allows the separation of the strategy being
employed (e.g., second step Frey et al. 2005) and the feature being established (e.g.,
increased instruction of pro-social behavior). Students behave differently when core
features are in place, and core features are more likely to be in place when research
validated programs are implemented. Too often, however, programs and core features are
combined, and users emphasize adoption of the program or package without confirming
implementation of functional core features. Emphasizing core features, rather than the
practices that are used to achieve the core features, allows school personnel to tailor new
strategies and packages to the local cultural and context. For example, while schools
using PBIS are expected to define and teach school-wide behavioral expectations, the
specific expectations and the method for teaching the expectations are left to match the
culture, resources and organizational demands of the local school.

The focus on core features also has direct relevance for the implementation process.
Because adoption of a package or intervention strategy is not adoption of PBIS, school
teams need a formal way to assess if core features are in place. This is done through
formal fidelity assessment. Implementation of PBIS is not determined by participation in
a training workshop, employment of a “certified trainer,” or purchasing an instructional
product. Implementation of PBIS is assessed by measuring if the core features of Tier I,
Tier II, and Tier III support are in place in a school (c.f. Algozzine et al. 2010).

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

Fig. 2

Role of Systems in PBIS

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

3. Collect and Use Data for Decision-making. Among the great contributions of behavior
analysis has been a consistent emphasis on operational measurement (Cooper et al. 2007).
Within PBIS, behavioral measurement is central at two levels. The first level focuses on
the extent to which adopted procedures have been successful in establishing the core
features of PBIS (e.g., measurement of fidelity or intervention integrity; Fryling et
al. 2012). Investing in valid, reliable, and efficient measures of implementation fidelity
led to over 11,524 schools in 2014 systematically measuring PBIS fidelity with 81 %
meeting Tier I fidelity criteria during the year. The second, and more traditional,

emphasis is on continuous measurement of student behavior. Within PBIS, school teams
monitor student discipline patterns to assess not just the frequency of problems, but the
type of problem behavior, locations where problems are most and least likely, time of
day, students engaging in problem behavior, and the perceived maintaining behavioral
function of problem behavior. By asking every staff member in a school to record not just
who and what a student did that was problematic, but the perceived function of the
problem behavior, PBIS builds a system that extends function-based behavior support
from Tier III, high-intensity, individual support plans to the Tier II and Tier I levels of
school-wide prevention. The key is that data are used not just for policy levels reports to
state and district administrators, but for local decision-making at the school and
classroom level. Effective use of data by school teams has been demonstrated to improve
educational outcomes (Newton et al. 2012), and the repeated use of data at the school
level has been associated with improved sustainability of PBIS implementation (McItosh
et al. 2014).

4. Implementation Process

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

Figure 3 integrates the lessons learned from implementation of PBIS. First,
implementation of PBIS in schools requires a district or regional implementation team.
Students are the unit of impact, schools are the unit of intervention, but districts are the
unit of implementation. Teams are the mechanism for comprehensive and sustained
implementation. The district leadership team is more than advisory or informative they
actively manage and guide the implementation process. Second, there is a tendency for
implementation efforts to both start and end with initial demonstrations. This is
ineffective. Effective implementation processes build district and school capacity while
establishing initial demonstrations. As initial schools in a district adopt PBIS the
leadership team needs to be improving district capacity to (a) conduct PBIS training
without reliance on external trainers, (b) provide active coaching of trained skills to
ensure that they are applied under natural conditions, at high fidelity, and with the
adaptation to local culture needed to achieve the core features, (c) establish the behavioral
expertise in behavior analysis needed for moving from the foundational knowledge
needed for Tier I practices to the more sophisticated knowledge needed for
implementation of Tier II and Tier III supports, and (d) development of the evaluation
capacity to assess both school-level and district-level outcomes. Failure to invest in the
implementation elements needed to move from “demonstration” to “full implementation”
too often results in major fiscal and organizational loss (Horner et al. 2014).

Fig. 3

Implementation framework
Go to:

Summary

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

First, use current science to isolate the smallest number of core features needed in a context to
produce valued outcomes. Identify multiple strategies and practices for establishing these core
features allows different implementers to select the strategy or practice that best fits their social
and cultural context.

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

Go to:

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Office of Special Education Programs US Department of
Education (H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the position of the US Department of Education, and such endorsements
should not be inferred.

Go to:

References

• Abernathy WB, Lattal D. Organizational behavior management. In: McSweeney FK, Murphy
ES, editors. Handbook of operant and classical conditioning. Oxford: Wiley; 2014. [Google
Scholar]

• Algozzine, B., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Barrett, S., Dickey, C. R., Eber, L., et al.
(2010). Evaluation blueprint for school-wide positive behavior support. Eugene, OR:
National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support.
Retrieved from www.pbis.org.

• Anderson, C., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Applying behavior analysis to school violence and
discipline problems: schoolwide positive behavior support. The Behavior Analyst, 28, 49–
63. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

• Baer D, Wolf M, Risley T. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis. 1968;1:91–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Biglan A. Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior into a lower
prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1995;28:479–492. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1995.28-479. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Bradshaw, C., Koth, C., Bevans, K., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. (2008). The impact of school-
wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of
elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462–473.

• Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2009). A social disorganization
perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors: the influence of school
context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3-4), 204–220. [PubMed]

• Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of school-wide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: results from a

randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 12, 133–148.

• Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems and
adjustment. Pediatrics, e1136–e1145. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

• Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., McLaughlin, D. M., McAtee, M.
L., et al. (1999). Positive behavior support for people with developmental disabilities: A
research synthesis. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation
Monograph Series.

• Catalano RF, Hawkins JD, Berglund ML, Pollard JA, Arthur MW. Prevention science and
positive youth development: competitive or cooperative frameworks? Journal of Adolescent
Health. 2002;31:230–239. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00496-2. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Coffey, J., & Horner, R. H. (2012). The sustainability of school-wide positive behavior
support. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 407–422.

• Cooper JO, Heron TE, Heward WL. Applied behavior analysis. 2. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall; 2007. [Google Scholar]

• Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner, R. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools:
The Behavior Education Program (2nd ed.). The Guilford Practical Intervention in the
Schools Series. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

• Dickinson AM. The historical roots of organizational behavior management in the private
sector: the 1950s – 1980s. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 2000;20:9–58.
doi: 10.1300/J075v20n03_02. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Dunlap G, Carr E, Horner R, Zarcone J, Schwartz I. Positive behavior support and applied
behavior analysis: a familial alliance. Behavior Modification. 2008;32:682–698. doi:
10.1177/0145445508317132. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Eber L, Hyde K, Rose J, Breen K, McDonald D, Lewandowski H. Completing the continuum
of schoolwide positive behavior support: Wraparound as a tertiary-level intervention. In:
Sailor W, Dunlap G, Sugai G, Horner R, editors. Handbook of positive behavior
support. LLC: Springer; 2009. pp. 671–704. [Google Scholar]

• Embry DD, Biglan A. Evidence-based kernels: Fundamental units of behavioral
influence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2008;11:75–113. doi:
10.1007/s10567-008-0036-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F.
(2005). ImplementationResearch: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231), 11, 247–266.

• Fixsen DL, Blase K, Metz A, Van Dyke M. Statewide implementation of evidence-based
programs. Exceptional Children (Special Issue) 2013;79:213–230. [Google Scholar]

• Frey KS, Nolen SB, Edstrom LV, Hirschstein MK. Effects of a school-based social-
emotional competence program: linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2005;26:171–200. doi:
10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Fryling M, Wallace M, Yassine J. Impact of treatment integrity on intervention
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2012;45:449–453. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2012.45-449. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Fuchs D, Fuchs L. Introduction to response to intervention: what, why, and how valid is
it? Reading Research Quarterly. 2006;41:93–99. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Gordon RSJ. An operational classification of disease prevention. In: Steinberg JA, Silverman
MM, editors. Preventing mental disorders. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; 1983. [Google Scholar]

• Hawken, L. S., Pettersson, H., Mootz, J., & Anderson, C. (2006). The Behavior Education
Program: A check-in, check-out intervention for students at risk. Video or DVD. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.

• Horner RH, Sugai G, Smolkowski K, Eber L, Nakasato J, Todd A, Esperanza J. A
randomized, waitlist-controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior
support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2009;11(3):133–
144. doi: 10.1177/1098300709332067. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Horner RH, Sugai G, Anderson CM. Examining the evidence-base for school wide positive
behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2010;42:1–14. [Google Scholar]

• Horner, R. H., Kincaid, D., Sugai, G., Lewis, T., Eber, L., Barrett, S., et al. (2014). Scaling
up school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: the experiences of seven
states with documented success. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. Advance
online publication. doi: 10.1177/1098300713503685.

• Kincaid, D., Knab, J. T., & Clark, H. B. (2005). Person-centered planning. Mental Health
Law & Policy Faculty Publications. Paper
702. http://schoalrcommons.usf.edu/mhlp_facpub/702

• Mayer GR. Preventing anti-social behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 1995;28:267–278. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-467. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Mayer GR, Butterworth T. A preventive approach to school violence and vandalism: an
experimental study. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1979;57:436–441. doi: 10.1002/j.2164-
4918.1979.tb05431.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• McIntosh K, Filter K, Bennett J, Ryan C, Sugai G. Principles of sustainable prevention:
designing scale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to promote durable
systems. Psychology in the Schools. 2010;47:5–21. [Google Scholar]

• McItosh, K., Kim, J., Mercer, S., Strickland-Cohen, M.K. & Horner, R., (2014). Variables
associated with enhanced sustainability of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and
supports. Assessment for Effective Intervetnion, November, 1–8.
doi:10.1177/1534508414556503.

• Newton JS, Horner RH, Algozzine B, Todd AW, Algozzine KM. A randomized wait-list
controlled analysis of team-initiated problem solving. Journal of School
Psychology. 2012;50:421–441. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.002. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Pinkelman, S. (2014). Effects of Self-delivered Performance Feedback and Impact
Assessment via the Individual Student Information System (ISIS-SWIS) on Behavior Support
Plan Treatment Fidelity and Student Outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eugene,
OR: University of Oregon.

• Putnam RF, Luiselli JK, Sunderland M. Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support
intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions. 2002;4:182–188. [Google Scholar]

• Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 747–759. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

• Ross, S. W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2012). Teacher well-being and the implementation
of school-wide positive behavior interventions and support. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 14, 118–128. doi:10.1177/1098300711413820.

• Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: can schools reshape
disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children, 69(3), 361–373.

• Scott TA, Anderson CM, Spaulding SA. Strategies for developing and carrying out
functional assessment and behavior intervention planning. Preventing School
Failure. 2008;52:39–49. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.3.39-50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Sugai G, Lewis TJ. Developing positive behavioral support systems. In: Sugai G, Lewis TJ,
editors. Developing positive behavioral support for students with challenging
behavior. Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders; 1999. pp. 15–
23. [Google Scholar]

• Sugai G, Simonsen B, Bradshaw C, Horner R, Lewis T. Delivering high quality school wide
positive behavior support in inclusive schools. In: McLeskey J, Waldron NL, Spooner F,
Algozzine B, editors. Handbook of research and practice for inclusive schools. New York,
NY: Routledge; 2014. pp. 306–321. [Google Scholar]

• Waasdorp, T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and support (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: a randomized
control effectiveness trial. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 166, 149–156.
[PubMed]

• Walker HM, Horner RH, Sugai G, Bullis M, Sprague JR, Bricker D, Kaufman MH.
Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children
and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 1996;4:194–209. doi:
10.1177/106342669600400401. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

• Walker, H. M., Seeley, J. R., Small, J., Severson, H. H., Graham, B., Feil, E. G., et al. (2009).
A randomized controlled trial of the first step to success early intervention: demonstration of
program efficacy outcomes in adverse, urban school district. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 17, 197–212. doi:10.1177/1063426609341645.

• Wehemeyer, M. (2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: re-
examining meanings and misconceptions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 30, 113–120.