Response to Intervention:
What’s Behavior Got to Do
with It?
George Sugai
OSEP Center on PBIS
Center for Behavioral Education & Research
University of Connecticut
May 25 2011
www.pbis.org
www.scalingup.org
www.cber.org
“BIG PICTURE”
RESEARCH & THEORY to
* Responsiveness
to intervention
* Positive
behavioral
interventions &
supports
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT to
* Evidence-based
practice
* Classroom
management
* School discipline
* Disability &
diversity
PRACTICE
* Implementation
fidelity
* Evaluation
“Notes to Self”
Describe how PBIS got start
Review PBIS & RtI definition & features
Link outcomes, data, practices, & systems
Describe examples
Model evidence-based approach
Stress importance of implementation fidelity
Remember IHE audience
Emphasis on
punishment
Poor
implementation
fidelity
Nonconstructive
Reactive
1980s
SW
Discipline
Problem
Limited
effects
“Abbreviated” SWPBS History
1980s RTC
2001 OR Beh
Res Ctr
2002 PBIS-II
2011
Implementation
Sustainability &
Scaling
1988 PBS
2000 PBIS TA
Guide
2004 PBS Impl
Blue
May 2010
SWPBS Train
Blue
1991 Proj
PREPARE
1998 PBIS-I
2007 SISEP
Mar 2010
SWPBS Impl
Blue
1997 EBS Demo
1997 IDEA-r
2008 PBIS-III
Jan 2010
SWPBS Eval
Blue
SWPBS Foundations
Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1992). School-wide discipline: A behavior
instruction model. 1992 Oregon conference monograph. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior
problems in general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and
solutions. In J. Marr, G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.). The Oregon conference
monograph (Vol. 6) (pp. 102-120). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). School-wide and
classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and
management of students with behavior problems in general education.
Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361-381.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R.,
Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to
preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and
youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193-256.
“Big Ideas” from Early Years
Teach & recognize behavior directly, school-wide
• Colvin & Sugai (1992)
Focus adult behavior in team-based SW action planning
• Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai (1993)
Consider ALL as foundation for some by establishing local
behavioral expertise
• Sugai & Horner (1994)
Integrate evidence-based practices in 3-tiered prevention
logic
• Walker, Horner, Sugai, Bullis, Sprague, Bricker, & Kaufman (1996)
“Early
Triangle”
(p. 201)
Walker, Knitzer,
Reid, et al., CDC
Prevention Logic for All
Walker et al., 1996
Decrease
development
of new
problem
behaviors
Prevent
Eliminate
Teach,
worsening of
triggers &
monitor, &
existing
maintainers of acknowledge
problem
problem
prosocial
behaviors
behaviors
behavior
Redesign of teaching environments…not students
Changing Adult Behavior
1.
“Change is
slow,
difficult,
gradual
process
for
teachers
Guskey, 1986, p. 59
2.
“Teachers
need to
receive
regular
feedback
on student
learning
outcomes”
3.
“Continued
support &
follow-up
are
necessary
after initial
training”
SWPBS Logic!
Successful individual student
behavior support is linked to
host environments or school
climates that are effective,
efficient, relevant, durable,
salable, & logical for all students
(Zins & Ponti, 1990)
Host Environment Features
Effective
• Achieve desired outcome?
Efficient
• Doable by real implementer?
Relevant
• Contextual & cultural?
Durable
• Lasting?
Scalable
• Transportable?
Logical
• Conceptually Sound?
Positive
• Surgeon General’s
predictable
Report on Youth
school-wide
Violence
(2001)
climate
Multi-component,
High rates
• Coordinated
Social
multi-year schoolacademic &
Emotional
& Learning
family-community
social success
effort
(Greenberg
et al.,
PREVENTION
2003)
VIOLENCE
SCIENCE
• Center for Study & PREVENTION
Prevention of
LITERATURE
Formal social
Violence
(2006)
Positive
adult
skills instruction
roleHouse
models
• White
Conference on
Positive active
School Violence
supervision &
(2006)
reinforcement
SWPBS (aka PBIS/RtI) is
Framework for enhancing
adoption & implementation of
Continuum of evidencebased interventions to
achieve
Academically & behaviorally
important outcomes for
All students
Integrated
Elements
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
Implementation
Fidelity
Comprehensive
screening
Early &
timely
decision
making
Databased
decision
making
Support for
nonresponders
Need
for
better
Instructional
accountability
& justification
Assessment
-instruction
alignment
Resource
& time
use
RtI: Good “IDEA” Policy
Approach or framework for redesigning &
establishing teaching & learning environments that
are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable for all
students, families & educators
NOT program,
curriculum,
strategy,
intervention
NOT limited to
special
education
NOT new
Precision
Teaching
CBM
Early
Screening &
Intervention
Applied
Behavior
Analysis
Behavioral &
Instructional
Consultation
Prereferral
Interventions
Diagnostic
Prescriptive
Teaching
Teacher
Assistance
Teaming
IMPLEMENTATION
W/ FIDELITY
CONTINUUM OF
CONTINUOUS
EVIDENCE-BASED
PROGRESS
INTERVENTIONS
MONITORING
UNIVERSAL
SCREENING
RtI
DATA-BASED
DECISION MAKING
& PROBLEM
SOLVING
CONTENT
EXPERTISE &
FLUENCY
TEAM-BASED
IMPLEMENTATION
Quotable Fixsen on Policy
“Policy is
Allocation
of limited
resources
for
unlimited
needs”
Opportunity,
not
guarantee,
for good
action”
Training does not
predict action”
“Manualized treatments
have created overly rigid
& rapid applications”
Curricular &
instructional
decisions
Families &
community
interactions
Implementation
accountability
Measurement,
assessment, &
evaluation
Special
education
functioning
General
education
functioning
Questions to Ponder
What is “scientifically/evidence-based” intervention/practice?
How do we measure & ensure “fidelity of
implementation?”
How do we determine “non-responsiveness?”
Can we affect “teacher practice?”
Do we have motivation to increase efficiency of “systems”
organization?
???
RtI Application Examples
EARLY READING/LITERACY
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
TEAM
General educator, special
educator, reading specialist, Title I,
school psychologist, etc.
General educator, special educator,
behavior specialist, Title I, school
psychologist, etc.
UNIVERSAL
SCREENING
Curriculum based measurement
SSBD, record review, gating
PROGRESS
MONITORING
Curriculum based measurement
ODR, suspensions, behavior
incidents, precision teaching
EFFECTIVE
INTERVENTIONS
5-specific reading skills: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, comprehension
Direct social skills instruction, positive
reinforcement, token economy, active
supervision, behavioral contracting,
group contingency management,
function-based support, selfmanagement
DECISION
MAKING RULES
Core, strategic, intensive
Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers
Academic-Behavior Connection
Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between
academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral
Interventions, 13, 3-16.
Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based
interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained
problem behavior: Preliminary results from a single case study. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 26, 15-25.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of combined
efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and
behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral
Interventions, 8, 146-154.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., and Braun, D. H. (2008). Reading
skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special
Education, 42, 131-147.
Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction,
cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of
students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62.
Wang, C., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior
in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100-109.
Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
Circa 1996
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Behavioral Systems
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Behavior
Continuum
Academic
Continuum
RTI
Integrated
Continuum
Mar 10 2010
Responsiveness to
Intervention
Social
Sciences
Specials
SWPBS
Etc.
Literacy &
Writing
Numeracy
&
Sciences
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL &
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
FEW
~5%
~15%
SOME
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
ALL
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
Intensive
Targeted
Universal
Few
Some
All
Dec 7, 2007
Continuum of
Support for
ALL
Math
Intensive
Science
Continuum of
Support for ALL
“Theora”
Targeted
Spanish
Reading
Soc skills
Universal
Soc Studies
Basketball
Label behavior…not
people
Dec 7, 2007
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
~5%
~15%
TERTIARY
TERTIARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
•• Function-based support
•• Wraparound
•• Person-centered planning
••
••
SECONDARY
SECONDARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
•• Check in/out
•• Targeted social skills instruction
•• Peer-based supports
•• Social skills club
••
~80% of Students
PRIMARY
PRIMARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
•• Teach SW expectations
•• Proactive SW discipline
•• Positive reinforcement
•• Effective instruction
•• Parent engagement
••
Student
Behavior
Teacher
Practice
Continua of
Responsiveness
& Support
CONTEXT
or
SETTING
School
Reform
District
Operations
Systemic Application of RtI by Level
Level
RtI Feature
Teacher
Administrator
District
State
National
1. Content
expertise &
fluency
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
2. Data-based
team-driven
decision making
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
3. Integrated
continuum of
evidence-based
practices
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
4. Universal
screening
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
5. Implementation
fidelity
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
6. Continuous
progress
monitoring
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Ö
Message
Apply RtI Logic to School Improvement
- Current Practice • Large # priorities
• Large # interventions
• Large professional
development plan
• Large data collection
plan
+ Rti Logic +
• Screening for
unresponsiveness
• Small # priorities
• Continuous progress
monitoring
• Continuous implementation
fidelity
• Increase priority teaching &
learning time
Problem Statement
“We give schools strategies &
systems for improving practice &
outcomes, but implementation is
not accurate, consistent, or
durable, & desired outcomes aren’t
realized. School personnel & teams
need more than exposure, practice,
& enthusiasm.”
Dean Fixsen
Karen Blase
UNC
Funding
Visibility
Political
Support
Policy
SWPBS
Implementation LEADERSHIP TEAM
Blueprint
(Coordination)
www.pbis.org
Training
Coaching
Evaluation
Local School/District Implementation
Demonstrations
Behavioral
Expertise
GENERAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS:
“Getting Started”
Team
Agreements
Data-based
Action Plan
Evaluation
Implementation
# WI Trained School Jul 2009 - Jan 2011
700
614
600
473
500
400
300
182
200
100
0
96
Jan-00
Jul
‘09
Jan-00
Jan
‘10
JulJan-00
‘10
• 614 trained schools (149 districts)
• 448 (73% of 614) implementing (SAS/TIC/BoQ)
• 129 (28.8% of 448) implementing w/ fidelity (SAS/TIC/BoQ)
Jan-00
Jan
’11
44
# WI Trained Schools Jan 2011 by Level
350
316
300
250
200
150
102
100
50
86
76
22
12
0
PreK
Elementary
Middle
High
Alternative Multilevel
# WI Schools by Year & Level 2009-2011
700
600
500
Multilevel
400
Alternative
High
Middle
300
Elementary
PreK
200
100
0
JulJan-00
‘09
Jan-00
Jan
‘10
JulJan-00
‘10
Jan-00
Jan
’11
Where are you in implementation process?
Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005
EXPLORATION &
ADOPTION
INSTALLATION
• We think we know what we need, so we
ordered 3 month free trial (evidence-based)
• Let’s make sure we’re ready to
implement (capacity infrastructure)
INITIAL
IMPLEMENTATION
• Let’s give it a try & evaluate
(demonstration)
FULL
IMPLEMENTATION
• That worked, let’s do it for real
(investment)
SUSTAINABILITY &
CONTINUOUS
REGENERATION
• Let’s make it our way of doing business
(institutionalized use)
SWPBS Implementation “Infidelity”
“SWPBS is intervention”
“Let’s schedule Rob Horner for our in-service day”
“Let’s do SWPBS during morning advisory”
“Can I visit your school & see SWPBS in action?”
“SWPBS is about giving kids tangible rewards”
“She’s a tier 3 kid; give her 2 day suspension”
“Shut up, & show me some respect”
Nondata-based
decision making
Insufficient
resources
Lacking
implementation
framework
Limited
differentiation
Competing
initiatives
Lack of
expert
capacity
No theory of
action or
change
Start
w/
What
Works
Focus
on
Fidelity
Detrich, Keyworth, & States (2007). J. Evid.-based Prac. in Sch.
PRACTICE
“Making a
turn”
Effective
IMPLEMENTATION
Effective
Maximum
Student
Benefits
Not
Effective
Fixsen & Blase, 2009
Not Effective
RCT & Group Design PBIS Studies
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J. (2009). Altering school climate
through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a
group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100-115
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P.J. (2008). The impact of
school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the
organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462473.
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., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K.B., & Leaf, P.J. (2008).
Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in
elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of
Children, 31, 1-26.
Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & 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, 133-145.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for
school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14.
SWPBS
Practices
Classroom
Non-classroom
• Smallest #
• Evidence-based
Family
• Biggest, durable effect
Student &
Family
SCHOOL-WIDE
CLASSROOM
1.1. Leadership team
1.All school-wide
2.Behavior purpose statement
3.Set of positive expectations & behaviors
4.Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide
expected behavior
5.Continuum of procedures for encouraging
expected behavior
EVIDENCEBASED
INTERVENTION
PRACTICES
6.Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule
violations
INDIVIDUAL STUDENT
2.Function-based behavior support planning
3.Team- & data-based decision making
4.Comprehensive person-centered planning &
wraparound processes
5.Targeted social skills & self-management
instruction
6. Individualized instructional & curricular
accommodations
3.Positively stated expectations posted, taught,
reviewed, prompted, & supervised.
4.Maximum engagement through high rates of
opportunities to respond, delivery of evidencebased instructional curriculum & practices
5.Continuum of strategies to acknowledge displays
of appropriate behavior.
6.Continuum of strategies for responding to
inappropriate behavior.
7.Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring &
evaluation
1.Behavioral competence at school & district levels
2.Maximum structure & predictability in routines &
environment
NONCLASSROOM
1.Positive expectations & routines
taught & encouraged
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
1.Continuum of positive behavior support for all
families
2.Frequent, regular positive contacts,
2.Active supervision by all staff (Scan, communications, & acknowledgements
move, interact)
3.Formal & active participation & involvement as
3.Precorrections & reminders
equal partner
4.Positive reinforcement
4.Access to system of integrated school &
community resources
School-wide
1. Leadership team
2. Behavior purpose statement
3. Set of positive expectations & behaviors
4. Procedures for teaching SW & classroom-wide
expected behavior
5. Continuum of procedures for encouraging expected
behavior
6. Continuum of procedures for discouraging rule
violations
7. Procedures for on-going data-based monitoring &
evaluation
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
~5%
~15%
TERTIARY PREVENTION
• Function-based support
• Wraparound
• Person-centered planning
•
•
SECONDARY PREVENTION
• Check in/out
• Targeted social skills instruction
• Peer-based supports
• Social skills club
•
~80% of Students
PRIMARY PREVENTION
• Teach SW expectations
• Proactive SW discipline
• Positive reinforcement
• Effective instruction
• Parent engagement
•
Classroom Management: Self-Assessment
Teacher__________________________
Rater_______________________
Date___________
Instructional Activity
Time Start_______
Time End________
Tally each Positive Student
Contacts
Total #
Tally each Negative
Student Contacts
Ratio of Positives to Negatives: _____ to 1
Total #
Classroom Management Practice
Rating
1.
I have arranged my classroom to minimize crowding and distraction
Yes
No
2.
I have maximized structure and predictability in my classroom (e.g., explicit classroom
routines, specific directions, etc.).
Yes
No
3.
I have posted, taught, reviewed, and reinforced 3-5 positively stated expectations (or rules).
Yes
No
4.
I provided more frequent acknowledgement for appropriate behaviors than inappropriate
behaviors (See top of page).
Yes
No
5.
I provided each student with multiple opportunities to respond and participate during
instruction.
Yes
No
6.
My instruction actively engaged students in observable ways (e.g., writing, verbalizing)
Yes
No
7.
I actively supervised my classroom (e.g., moving, scanning) during instruction.
Yes
No
8.
I ignored or provided quick, direct, explicit reprimands/redirections in response to
inappropriate behavior.
Yes
No
9.
I have multiple strategies/systems in place to acknowledge appropriate behavior (e.g.,
class point systems, praise, etc.).
Yes
No
Yes
No
10. In general, I have provided specific feedback in response to social and academic behavior
errors and correct responses.
Overall classroom management score:
10-8 “yes” = “Super”
7-5 “yes” = “So-So”
# Yes___
<5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”
Non-Classroom Management: Self-Assessment
Name______________________________
Date_____________
Setting □ Hallway □ Entrance □ Cafeteria
□ Playground □ Other_______________
Time Start_________
Time End _________
Tally each Positive Student Contacts
Total #
Tally each Negative Student Contacts
Total #
Ratio of Positives to Negatives: _____: 1
1. Did I have at least 4 positive for 1 negative student contacts?
Yes
No
2. Did I move throughout the area I was supervising?
Yes
No
3. Did I frequently scan the area I was supervising?
Yes
No
4. Did I positively interact with most of the students in the area?
Yes
No
5. Did I handle most minor rule violations quickly and quietly?
Yes
No
6. Did I follow school procedures for handling major rule violations?
Yes
No
7. Do I know our school-wide expectations (positively stated rules)?
Yes
No
8. Did I positively acknowledge at least 5 different students for
displaying our school-wide expectations?
Yes
No
Overall active supervision score:
7-8 “yes” = “Super Supervision”
5-6 “yes” = “So-So Supervision”
<5 “yes” = “Improvement Needed”
# Yes______
Data Decision Making
Educationally relevant outcomes
Implementation fidelity
Clearly defined & relevant indicators
System for easy input & output
Data rules for decision making
Team-based mechanism for action planning