Running head: PBIS AND HIGH-RISK STUDENTS

Positive Behavior Intervention Support and Its Impact on High-Risk Elementary School Students
Tracy Young
Saginaw Valley State University

PBIS and High-Risk Students

2
Abstract

This paper discusses literature that supports the use of Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) in
elementary schools to reduce office discipline referrals (ODR) and create a more positive
environment. Research shows that students are more successful academically when they are in
the classroom, rather being sent out due to behavior problems. If all 7 components of PBS are
used with fidelity, PBS will reduce ODRs and improve the safety of a school by preventing
problem behaviors. PBS has 3 tiers. Tier 1 includes universal supports, tier 2 targets at-risk
students, and tier 3 is for students who do not respond to tier 1 or tier 2. Researchers recommend
school counselors join the PBS committee and assist with tier 2 and tier 3 supports. For PBS to
be successful the entire staff must be trained and believe that it will improve the teaching and
learning in their classroom. School administrators must support and participate in the PBS
interventions as well.

PBIS and High-Risk Students

Positive Behavior Intervention Support and its Impact on High-Risk Elementary School
Students
It is difficult for any teacher to teach when students are disrupting continuously or
neglecting to follow expectations. Warren, Bohanon-Edmonson, and Turnbull (2006) cited a
2004 national study by Public Agenda that reported:
Seventy-six percent of teachers indicated that they would be better able to educate students
if discipline problems were not so prevalent, and over a third of teachers reported having
seriously considered quitting the teaching profession because student discipline and
behavior was such a problem. (p. 188)
Structure was critical to a well-run classroom, but there were many different approaches to
creating a structured classroom through classroom management practices. H. Wong, R. Wong,
Rogers, and Brooks (2012) stated, Effective teachers view classroom management as a process
of organizing and structuring classroom events for student learning (p. 60).
Reglin, Akpo-Sanni, and Losike-Sedimo (2012) stressed that classroom management
professional development should focus on developing a positive and warm classroom climate
and culture (Reglin et al, 2012, p. 13). They also reported that administrators who have
implemented schoolwide positive behavior supports have experienced a reduction in the amount
of suspensions. Better classroom management skills had also increased the quality of education
that students have experienced (Reglin et al., 2012).
According to Carr et al. (2002):
The primary goal of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is to help an individual change his or
her lifestyle in a direction that gives all relevant stakeholders (e.g., teachers, employers,
parents, friends, and the target person him- or herself) the opportunity to perceive and to

PBIS and High-Risk Students

enjoy an improved quality of life. (p. 5)

Carr et al. (2002) further explained that a secondary goal of PBS was to end problematic
behavior and allow an individual to reach his or her goals in a socially accepted way. Carr et al.
(2002) further stated that a defining assumption of PBS was that if an individuals needs are
met, then quality of life will improve, and problem behavior will be reduced or eliminated
altogether (p. 6). The greatest difference between PBS and many traditional approaches was the
proactive nature of PBS to prevent problem behaviors, rather than the harsh reactive procedures
of other strategies (Carr et al., 2002).
Chitiyo and Wheeler (2009) described three levels to a PBS approach. The first level was
the schoolwide level or universal support. All students in the school were targeted for preventive
behavior management techniques through teaching behavior expectations and the use of positive
reinforcement. Second, was group support. This included targeting specific subgroups that were
at risk for developing problematic behaviors. These students were unresponsive to universal
supports. Third, individual supports were used for students with chronic behavior problems that
were unresponsive to universal supports. For these students, individual behavior plans and more
intensive supports that were based on functional behavioral assessments (FBA) were usually
required (Chitiyo & Wheeler, 2009).
Furthermore, McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, and Zumbo (2009) suggested school staff use
office discipline referrals as a method to determine which level of PBS was appropriate for each
student. McIntosh et al. (2009) cautioned that school staff must complete the referrals accurately
and have clear policies set to determine which behaviors were reported on a an office referral
form and which were handled by the staff member observing the behavior.

PBIS and High-Risk Students

5
Tier 1 Schoolwide Strategy

Bradshaw, Mitchell, and Leaf (2010) defined Schoolwide Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) as a universal prevention strategy that aims to alter the
school environment by creating improved systems (e.g., discipline, reinforcement, data
management) and procedures (e.g., office referral, training, leadership) that promote positive
change in staff behaviors, which subsequently alter student behaviors (p. 134).
A successful SWPBIS model had seven steps. First, schools formed a team of six to ten
staff members that included one administrator to provide leadership within the school. The team
met twice monthly to plan training for staff, develop related materials, and discuss the
effectiveness of the school program. Secondly, a guidance counselor or social worker joined the
team and worked as a coach to help implement the program. Thirdly, three to five positively
stated behavior expectations were written and posted throughout the school so they were known
by all staff and students. Fourth, the behavior expectations were taught to students in the
beginning of the year and reviewed monthly thereafter. Fifth, the entire school staff used rewards
to reinforce positive behaviors shown by individual students. Sixth, appropriate consequences
were determined for students who violated school rules. Seventh, appropriate forms were created
and distributed to track behaviors. The SWPBIS team used the data from the forms to make
decisions regarding implementation of the program (Bradshaw et al., 2010).
Both school staff members and students had to be educated on the principles of PBS.
After studying 11 teachers who taught at-risk elementary students that continuously exhibited
disruptive behaviors that interfered with the learning in their classrooms, Reglin, Akpo-Sanni,
and Losike-Sedimo (2012) concluded , A proactive and preventative intervention is effective in

PBIS and High-Risk Students

curbing discipline problems and suspension when implemented in individual classrooms after
intensive teacher professional development (p. 13).
Accordingly, schools needed a method to evaluate their implementation of these seven
components of PBS. Several evaluation tools existed, but Horner et al. (2004) proposed that
schools use a method called Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) to evaluate the implementation
of schoolwide PBS procedures in schools. The SET was a questionnaire that included 28 items
related to all seven components of the PBS procedures. It provided valuable information about a
schools PBS program. Another benefit of the SET was that administrators used it to assess
training needs.
Oswald, Safran, and Johanson (2005) stated that PBS was an effective method for
improving student behavior in common areas outside of classrooms. Oswald et al. (2005)
focused on four intervention strategies to improve student behaviors in common areas. These
included reminders or pre-corrections, corrections, incentive techniques, and active supervision.
Pre-corrections involved the classroom teachers reminding students of behavior expectations
before leaving the classroom and transitioning into other areas of the building. Corrections
focused on preventing problem behaviors by using techniques such as shadowing a student who
needed more direct supervision, moving the student to another area with less distractions, or
asking the student to try an activity again and show the proper behavior expectations. Incentives
included verbal praise, reward tickets, and a high five or thumbs up. Finally, active supervision
meant having an adult interact with students by having brief conversations while monitoring the
entire group of students to prevent behavior problems. Using PBS procedures schools have
improved the safety of students in hallways, playgrounds, lunchrooms, and other areas with large
groups of students by making them more orderly (Oswald et al., 2005).

PBIS and High-Risk Students

Sugai, and Horner (2006) argued, These interventions are not innovations. Social skills
instruction, function-based support, token economies, and positive reinforcement, for example,
have an extensive empirical history (p. 256). The researchers explained that PBS provided the
tools and systems for educators to organize resources and supports to maximize the effectiveness
of implementation and sustainability of the program (Sugai & Horner, 2006).
McIntosh, Horner, Chard, Boland, and Good (2006) argued that interventions needed to
start early in order to have a great impact on student behavior and academics. The researchers
found that students who required intervention came to school with either a social or academic
deficit. Students with social deficits generally came to school with behavior problems and were
likely to continue their problem behaviors without intervention. Those behaviors may have led to
academic trouble as well due to the time those students spent out of class for behavior reasons.
Students with academic deficits came to school with academic deficits, but no pattern of problem
behavior. Repeated academic failure lead to problem behaviors. In situations where the academic
work was removed to calm the student, the student learned to continue his or her aggressive
behavior to avoid aversive academic tasks. To prevent this problem the researchers urged school
staff to use PBS along with academic interventions targeted at students who were not proficient
in reading at the kindergarten level. The researchers argued, Academic and behavioral success
may be symbiotic, as an effective behavior system allows effective academic instruction to take
place. Likewise, early academic instruction is an important method of preventing significant
behavior problems later in school (McIntosh et al., 2006, p. 288).
Implementation in Elementary Classrooms
Reinke, Herman, and Stormont (2012) studied 33 elementary teachers to find the
relationship between their perceived efficacy related to classroom management and the fidelity to

PBIS and High-Risk Students

which they are implementing PBIS standards in their classrooms. After studying classroom PBIS
practices, Reinke et al. (2012) found teachers reports of emotional exhaustion were positively
related to harsh reprimands and student disruptions (p. 46). The researchers also learned
teachers with lower rates of positive than negative interactions with students reported feelings
of emotional exhaustion (Reinke et al., 2012, p. 46).
In the classrooms studied, Reinke et al. (2012) found a low level of specific praise was
being given to students. Only 1 out of 33 teachers had a favorable positive to negative ratio for
praise. Specific praise was an important component of PBIS because it communicated classroom
expectations to students. Similarly, Simonsen, MacSuga, Fallon, and Sugai (2012) conducted a
study at a school where teachers had reported difficulty in implementing PBS strategies. These
researchers targeted the use of specific praise as an area for improvement. The researchers taught
teachers to use self-monitoring strategies to record and evaluate their use of specific praise with
students as an effort to increase the consistency of its use (Simonsen et al., 2012). Simonsen et
al. (2012) argued, Studies have found that self-management interventions are related to desired
behavior changes in adults (p. 5).
Another area for improvement was found to be in teachers opportunities for students to
respond during instruction. Increasing students engagement led to less off task and disruptive
behaviors (Reinke et al., 2012).
Marchant et al. (2009) studied office discipline referral (ODR) data and found
noncompliance was the most frequent schoolwide problem behavior (p. 138). Based on their
findings, the researchers suggested three schoolwide strategies that may be selected to address
these issues include (a) posting rules and expectations in every classroom, (b) teaching the social

PBIS and High-Risk Students

skill of how to follow the teachers directions and (c) implementing a reinforcement system of
acknowledgement for following the teachers directions (Marchant et al., 2009, p. 138).
In contrast, most classrooms studied had positively stated rules and expectations posted,
expectations were clear, teachers gained students attention before teaching, over 70% of class
time was used for instruction, teachers allowed for groups and individuals to respond, and
teachers employed a variety of consequences for inappropriate behavior. As a result of the study,
the researchers recommended that schools provide coaches to assist teachers in improving their
use of PBIS in their classrooms, which could result in increased skills and confidence by the
teachers which would reduce teacher burnout and teacher turnover (Reinke et al., 2012).
Challenges in Adopting PBS in Schools by Teachers
Chitiyo and Wheeler (2009) argued, Time constrains, availability of resources to
teachers, and getting family collaboration appear to be some of the most challenging factors for
teachers (p. 62). Moreover, Other areas of notable difficulty include how to teach alternative
or replacement behaviors and collaboration with other staff (Chitiyo and Wheeler, 2009, p. 62).
Most notably, teachers rated not knowing what to do with data collected as a major obstacle to
adequately implementing PBS. Likewise, many teachers reported needing more training on data
collection (Chitiyo and Wheeler, 2009).
Accordingly, Fallon, McCarthy, and Sanetti (2014) studied schools to find the largest
barriers for teachers in implementing PBS practices into their classrooms. They found that for
three practices related to matching instructional materials to students ability, ensuring
academic success, and aligning expected behavior with school-wide practice, a considerable
number of respondents (33-41%) reported that implementation is somewhat of a challenge to
implement (Fallon, McCarthy, & Sanetti, 2014, p. 19). Furthermore, for three practices related

PBIS and High-Risk Students

10

to problem behaviors (i.e., problem behaviors receive consistent consequences, procedures for
problem behaviors are consistent with school-wide procedures, and classroom instruction
continues when problem behavior occurs), somewhat challenging was the most common answer
(47-50%) (Fallon, McCarthy, & Sanetti, 2014, p. 19). This study implied that teachers needed
more support related to students who did not respond to universal PBS supports.
PBIS with Elementary School Students
Horner et al. (2009) designed a study in which an effectiveness analysis was conducted
with elementary schools in Hawaii and Illinois where training and technical assistance in
schoolwide positive behavior support was provided by regular state personnel over a 3-year
period (p. 140). Accordingly, Horner et al. (2009) found the results provide statistically
significant documentation that schools implementing SWPBS were perceived as safer
environments (p.140). Based on their findings, Horner et al. supported SWPBS by declaring,
SWPBS may be one approach for helping schools become more effective learning
environments (p. 141).
Likewise, Bradshaw et al. (2010) studied the effectiveness of PBIS on elementary schools
that were determined to have used the strategy with fidelity and found that those schools showed
a reduction in the number of suspensions and office disciplinary referrals. Bradshaw et al. (2010)
credited partial success to the comprehensive training on SWPBIS that the school teams received
prior to implementing the program. Effective training for school staff members was essential for
a successful PBS intervention.
PBIS with At-Risk Students
Simonsen and Sugai (2013) urged that both traditional and alternative education settings
need to shift toward the use of more positive and preventative practices that are constructive,

PBIS and High-Risk Students

11

effective, and less likely to result in ethical violations and abuse in schools (p. 4). A common
misconception that Simonsen and Sugai (2013) reported was that all at-risk students require tier
3 interventions. All three tiers were necessary. Researchers explained that all interventions
needed to be intensified through more explicit and frequent social skills instruction, active and
frequent monitoring, frequent reinforcement for appropriate behavior, and appropriate responses
to problem behaviors (Simonsen and Sugai, 2013, p. 4).
Additionally, Warren et al. (2003) studied an inner city school where 90% of the students
qualified for free or reduced lunch when the states average was 31%. During the first year the
researchers found that office referrals decreased by 20% and short-term suspensions decreased
by 57%. Conversely, the following year office referrals went up 32% (Warren et al., 2003).
Researchers found two main reasons for the negative changes. First, the school implemented a
new dress code policy that students were not eager to follow. When students routinely did not
dress in uniform, they received an office referral. Second, one administrator responsible for
honoring students who demonstrated positive behavior took on other responsibilities and
frequently was unable to do daily drawings for rewards. Without the daily reinforcement and
positive attention, the program was no longer as effective for students (Warren et al., 2003).
Thus, researchers urged schools to be consistent in PBS practices when implementing the
program in order for the results to last.
Through this study the researchers discovered that the several components of every PBS
program were essential to its success with at-risk students. Establishing buy-in for staff was
incredibly important and difficult. Many times schools have unsuccessfully tried many programs
promised to work; therefore, teachers were skeptical of new programs. Ensuring sustainability
was often a problem. Schools needed to find a way to continue funding for strategies to remain in

PBIS and High-Risk Students

12

place long enough to see lasting results. Lastly, acquiring community support was necessary to
assist needy families. Schools needed to work to assist families in gaining access to available
community resources. In order for a student to come to school prepared to learn, he or she must
have his or her basic needs met (Warren et al., 2003).
In one particular study by Stichter et al. (2009), The data indicated that more verbal
negatives were coded in classrooms within buildings designated Title I as compared to their
higher SES counterparts (p. 78). However, the Title 1 schools did not show an increased
number of ODR as expected (Stichter et al., 2009).
Tier 2
Carter, Carter, Johnson, and Pool (2012) cited a study by Sugai et al. (2010) that reported
that 80% of all students responded to tier 1 behavior interventions. Students who did not respond
to tier 1 interventions may benefit from tier 2 interventions. About 15% of students should
receive tier 2 supports (Carter et al., 2012). One research proven intervention for tier 2 students
was known as Check-In, Check-Out. This intervention may be handled by a school counselor
instead of the classroom teacher. Martens and Andreen, K. (2013) argued that, School
counselors knowledge and expertise on student issues, including mental health challenges that
affect learning, make them an ideal component to the implementation of CICO (p.319). As part
of the CICO procedure students were assigned to an adult to conference with each morning and
set goals for the day. Then the student carried a checklist throughout the day to each class for
their teachers to rate their behavior related to their goals. At the end of the day the student
reported to his or her assigned adult to review the checklist and determine whether he or she met
his or her goals for the day. The form was then taken home for parents to review. One important
component of this intervention was that students must willingly participate (Carter et al., 2012).

PBIS and High-Risk Students

13

According to a study by Martens and Andreen (2013), research is reasonably conclusive that
students with attention-maintained behaviors respond well to CICO (p. 316). CICO helps a
student to build a positive relationship with a supportive adult at school.
Carter et al. (2012) cited an article by Crone et al. (2010) that argued that the Check-In,
Check-Out intervention was an effective intervention for tier 2 students for five reasons. First, it
was easy to implement. Second, it was used with several students at the same time. Third, it
included built-in progress monitoring. Fourth, it did not rely on only one staff member for
completing the work. Fifth, it wa supported by research (Carter et al., 2012). Since the CICO
procedure was carried out by a staff member other than the students classroom teacher, the
student had an adult on his or her side, someone who was not in the classroom to see what
transpired. It was important that the adult focused on the positive aspects of the students day and
not get caught up in judging the behavior of the student. The CICO adults role was to support
and acknowledge positive behavior choices, not punish negative choices (Martens & Andreen,
2013).
Tier 3 Resistance to IPBS
Not all educators supported using the third tier of PBIS, an Individual Positive Behavior
Support (IPBS) strategy in schools. This even occurred in schools that largely supported a
schoolwide PBIS strategy. When it came to the individual PBIS plans for students with severe
misbehaviors, the process could get more complicated. Bambara, Nonnemacher, and Kern
(2009) completed a study to understand the specific barriers and enablers to implementing IPBS
in school settings as perceived by the participants (p. 167). For data collection participants were
interviewed and asked open ended questions. That allowed researchers to see how frequently
specific barriers were mentioned.

PBIS and High-Risk Students

14

In 92% of the responses it was determined that the largest barrier to implementing an IPBS
program was lack of support or awareness for the program by the school community. For IPBS
to be effective, the entire school staff had to support and implement a PBIS program. Moreover,
72% of respondents reported finding a lack of understanding of the IPBS program. Teachers said
that they felt IPBS was encouraging unfair treatment towards problem students that lead to
making excuses for problem behaviors rather than addressing them. Rather than accepting IPBS
as a preventative strategy, school facilitators trusted their traditional beliefs that a strong
management strategy should punish misbehaviors equally for all students. Furthermore, 80% of
respondents felt that school staff was not well trained on the strategy. They suggested that
schools provide training for the entire school community on the basic principles of IPBS. In
addition, many teachers felt that implementing an IPBS strategy is too time-consuming. Teachers
reported that they did not have time during the school day to collaborate with others on the IPBS
team, collect data, and implement change. Finally, the building principal must support the IPBS
initiative if it was to be successful in a school (Bambara et al., 2009).
A Case Study
In one particular case study researchers used PBIS strategies to help improve the behaviors
of a twelve year old girl with special needs and severe behavior problems. This study
demonstrated the value of using multiple measures to evaluate outcomes related to PBIS
strategies (Clarke, Worcester, Dunlap, Murray, & Bradley-Klug, 2002, p. 140). Basically, researchers
advocated using several different methods to evaluate the success of a PBIS strategy. Both a
students school and home behavior needed to be evaluated. Clark et al. (2002) found that what
proved to be effective for this particular child was including functional assessment (O'Neill et
al., 1997), curricular modifications (Dunlap & Kern, 1996), and an infusion of preferred stimuli

PBIS and High-Risk Students

15

and activities (Foster-Johnson, Ferro, & Dunlap, 1994) (p. 144). After the researchers observed
this student and discovered when her behaviors escalated, they made changes to her assignments
and environment to make her more comfortable. The data supported using PBIS for students
with severe behaviors (Clark et al., 2002).
Conclusion
Lane et al. (2009) completed a study to assess the social validity of PBS programs before
onset with 617 teachers from 19 different schools. After a year of training on PBS, the
researchers found that PBS was largely supported by teachers. Of the 19 schools that participated
in the training, 14 of them implemented the plan. This was important because if teachers did not
believe in the intervention, they may not use it with fidelity (Lane et al., 2009).
Sailor, Stowe, Turnbull, and Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2007 supported using PBS practices in
schools to teach students responsible behavior by arguing that in order for schools to see
academic growth students must remain in the classroom rather than in the office for disciplinary
referrals or out of school due to suspensions. The researchers also stated that PBS helped
students by teaching them and having them practice the social skills they will need to be
successful as adults in the world (Sailor et al., 2007). Likewise, Sherrod, Getch, and ZiomekDaigle (2009) suggested the data from their study supported the premise that as students'
knowledge, attitudes, and skills increase, their behavior improves (p. 425). These researchers
agreed that teaching students appropriate social skills was important for their academic as well as
social development (Sherrod et al., 2009).
Wong et al. (2012) reported, Research shows that when we provide a place for our
students that is safe, predictable, consistent, and nurturing, we will see increased student

PBIS and High-Risk Students

16

achievement (p. 61) This statement supported the PBS intervention for managing student
behaviors through the use of teaching behavior expectations and reinforcing positive behaviors.

PBIS and High-Risk Students

17
References

Bambara, L. M., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-based individualized positive
behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 161-176. doi:http://0dx.doi.org.library.svsu.edu/10.1177/1098300708330878
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
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., . . .Fox, L. (2002).
Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4(1), 4. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.svsu.edu/docview
/218766782?accountid=960
Carter, D. R., Carter, G. M., Johnson, E. S., & Pool, J. L. (2012). Systematic implementation of a tier 2
behavior intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, (4)48, 223-231.
doi:10.1177/1053451212462879
Chitiyo, M., & Wheeler, J. J. (2009). Challenges faced by school teachers in implementing positive
behavior support in their school systems. Remedial & Special Education, 30(1), 58-63. doi:
10.1177/0741932508315049
Clarke, S., Worcester, J., Dunlap, G., Murray, M., & Bradley-Klug, K. (2002). Using multiple measures
to evaluate positive behavior support: A case example. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4(3), 131. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.svsu.
edu/docview/218792547?accountid=960
Fallon, L. M., McCarthy, S. R., & Sanetti, L. M. H. (2014). School-wide positive behavior support
(SWPBS) in the classroom: Assessing perceived challenges to consistent implementation in
Connecticut schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 37(1), 1-24. Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.library.svsu.edu/docview/1503121010?accountid=960

PBIS and High-Risk Students

18

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A
randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support
in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 133-144. doi: http://0dx.doi.org.library.svsu.edu/10.1177/1098300709332067
Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L. K., & al, e. (2004). The school-wide evaluation
tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3-12. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.
svsu.edu/docview/218787340?accountid=960
Lane, K., Kalberg, J., Bruhn, A., Driscoll, S. A., Wehby, J. H., & Elliott, S. N. (2009). Assessing social
validity of school-wide positive behavior support plans: Evidence for the reliability and structure of
the primary intervention rating scale. School Psychology Review, 38(1), 135-144. Retrieved from
http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&
AN=37331093&site=ehost-live
Marchant, M., Anderson, D. H., Caldarella, P., Fisher, A., Young, B. J., & Young, K. (2009). Schoolwide
screening and programs of positive behavior support: Informing universal interventions. Preventing
School Failure, 53(3), 131-143. Retrieved from http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=508056285&site=ehost-live
Martens, K., & Andreen, K. (2013). School counselors' involvement with a school-wide positive behavior
support intervention: Addressing student behavior issues in a proactive and positive manner.
Professional School Counseling, 16(5), 313-322. Retrieved from http://0search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&AN=91853454&site=ehostlive
McIntosh, K., Campbell, A. L., Carter, D. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Concurrent validity of office
discipline referrals and cut points used in schoolwide positive behavior support. Behavioral
Disorders, 34(2), 100-113. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.
svsu.edu/docview/219679599?accountid=960

PBIS and High-Risk Students

19

McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good III, R. H. (2006). The use of reading and
behavior screening measures to predict nonresponse to school-wide positive behavior support: A
longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 275-291. Retrieved from http://0web.a.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=07caba60-3ac748df-adf7-879f7de301cf%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4109#
Oswald, K., Safran, S., & Johanson, G. (2005). Preventing trouble: Making schools safer places using
positive behavior supports. Education & Treatment of Children, 28(3), 265-278. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.svsu.edu/docview/202664933?accountid=960
Reglin, G., Akpo-Sanni, J., & Losike-Sedimo, N. (2012). The effect of a professional development
classroom management model on at-risk elementary students' misbehaviors. Education, 133(1),

3-18. Retrieved from http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eax&AN=79776590&site=ehost-live
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C. & Stormont, M. (2012). Classroom-level positive behavior
supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions 15(1), 39-50. doi: 10.1177/1098300712459079
Sailor, W., Stowe, M. J., Turnbull, H., & Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. (2007). A case for adding a
social-behavioral standard to standards-based education with schoolwide positive behavior
support as its basis. Remedial & Special Education, 28(6), 366-376. Retrieved from
http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&AN=
27616052&site=ehost-live
Sherrod, M., Getch, Y. Q. & Ziomek-Daigle, J. (2009). The impact of positive behavior support
to decrease discipline referrals with elementary students. Professional School Counseling,
12(6), 421-427. Retrieved from http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=trh&AN=43892934&site=ehost-live

PBIS and High-Risk Students

20

Simonsen, B., MacSuga, A. S., Fallon, L. M., & Sugai, G. (2012). The effects of self-monitoring
on teachers' use of specific praise. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
15(1), 515. doi: 10.1177/1098300712440453
Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2013). PBIS in alternative education settings: Positive support for
youth with high-risk behavior. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(3), 3-14. Retrieved
from http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.svsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=trh&AN=89531113&site=ehost-live
Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Whittaker, T. A., Richter, M., Johnson, N. W., & Trussell, R. P.
(2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom
management strategies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 68-81.
doi:http://0-dx.doi.org.library.svsu.edu/10.1177/1098300708326597
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining schoolwide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245-259. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.library.svsu.edu/docview/219656206?accountid=960
Warren, J. S., Bohanon-Edmonson, H. M., & Turnbull, A. P. (2006). School-wide positive
behavior support: Addressing behavior problems that impede student learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 18(2), 187-198. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9008-1
Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H. M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., & al, e. (2003). Urban applications of
school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues and lessons learned. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 80. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.
com.library.svsu.edu/docview/218779228?accountid=960
Wong, H., Wong, R., Rogers, K., & Brooks, A. (2012). Managing Your Classroom for Success.
Science & Children, 49(9), 60-64. Retrieved from http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.

PBIS and High-Risk Students

svsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eax&AN=76592147&site=ehost-live

21