Positive behavior support

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Positive behavior support is a behavior management system used to understand what maintains an individual's challenging behavior. People's inappropriate behaviors are difficult to change because they are functional; they serve a purpose for them. These behaviors are supported by reinforcement in the environment. In the case of students and children, often adults in a child’s environment will reinforce his or her undesired behaviors because the child will receive objects and/or attention because of his behavior. Functional behavior assessments (FBAs) clearly describe behaviors, identify the contexts (events, times, and situation) that predict when behavior will and will not occur, and identify consequences that maintain the behavior. They also summarize and create a hypothesis about the behavior, directly observe the behavior and take data to get a baseline. The positive behavior support process involves goal identification, information gathering, hypothesis development, support plan design, implementation and monitoring.

In order for techniques to work in decreasing undesired behavior, they should include: feasibility, desirability, and effectiveness. Strategies are needed that teachers and parents are able and willing to use and that have an impact on the child's ability to participate in community and school activities. Positive behavior support is increasingly being recognized as a strategy that meets these criteria. By changing stimulus and reinforcement in the environment and teaching the child to strengthen deficit skill areas the student's behavior changes in ways that allow him/her to be included in the general education setting. The three areas of deficit skills identified in the article were communication skills, social skills, and self-management skills. Re-directive therapy as positive behavior support is especially effective in the parent–child relationship. Where other treatment plans have failed re-directive therapy allows for a positive interaction between parents and children. Positive behavior support is successful in the school setting because it is primarily a teaching method (Swartz, 1999).[full citation needed]

PBS in schools[edit]

Schools are required to conduct functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and use positive behavior support with students who are identified as disabled and are at risk for expulsion, alternative school placement, or more than 10 days of suspension. Even though FBA is required under limited circumstances it is good professional practice to use a problem-solving approach to managing problem behaviors in the school setting (Crone & Horner 2003).[1]

The use of Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) in schools is widespread (Sugai & Horner, 2002).[2] The program offers a primary, secondary, and tertiary level of intervention.[3] A basic tenet of the PBIS approach includes identifying students in one of three categories based on risk for behavior problems. Once identified, students receive services in one of three categories: primary, secondary, or tertiary. To help practitioners with differences in interventions used at each of the levels the professional literature refers to a three-tiered (levels) model (Stewart, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Benner, 2005; Sugai, Sprague, Horner & Walker, 2000;[4] Tobin & Sugai, 2005; Walker et al., 1996.)[5] Interventions are specifically developed for each of these levels with the goal of reducing the risk for academic or social failure. These interventions may be behavioral and or academic interventions incorporating scientifically proven forms of instruction such as direct instruction.[6] The interventions become more focused and complex as one examines the strategies used at each level.[7]

Primary prevention strategies focus on interventions used on a school-wide basis for all students (Sugai & Horner, 2002).[2] This level of prevention is considered "primary" because all students are exposed in the same way, and at the same level, to the intervention. The primary prevention level is the largest by number. Approximately 80–85% of students who are not at risk for behavior problems respond in a positive manner to this prevention level.[8] Primary prevention strategies include, but are not limited to, using effective teaching practices and curricula, explicitly teaching behavior that is acceptable within the school environment, focusing on ecological arrangement and systems within the school, consistent use of precorrection procedures, using active supervision of common areas, and creating reinforcement systems that are used on a school-wide basis (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998;[9] Martella & Nelson, 2003;[10] Nelson, Crabtree, Marchand-Martella & Martella, 1998;[11] Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002.[12])

Secondary prevention strategies involve students (i.e., 10–15% of the school population) who do not respond to the primary prevention strategies and are at risk for academic failure or behavior problems but are not in need of individual support (Nelson, et al., 2002).[full citation needed] Interventions at the secondary level often are delivered in small groups to maximize time and effort and should be developed with the unique needs of the students within the group. Examples of these interventions include social support such as social skills training (e.g., explicit instruction in skill-deficit areas, friendship clubs, check in/check out, role playing) or academic support (i.e., use of research-validated intervention programs and tutoring). Additionally, secondary programs could include behavioral support approaches (e.g., simple Functional Behavioral Assessments [FBA], precorrection, self-management training). Even with the heightened support within secondary level interventions, some students (1–7%) will need the additional assistance at the tertiary level (Walker et al., 1996).[5]

Tertiary prevention programs focus on students who display persistent patterns of disciplinary problems (Nelson, Benner, Reid, Epstein, & Currin, 2002).[13] Tertiary-level programs are also called intensive or individualized interventions and are the most comprehensive and complex.[7] The interventions within this level are strength-based in that the complexity and intensity of the intervention plans directly reflect the complexity and intensity of the behaviors.[14] Students within the tertiary level continue involvement in primary and secondary intervention programs and receive additional support as well. These supports could include use of full FBA, de-escalation training for the student, heightened use of natural supports (e.g., family members, friends of the student), and development of a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP).

Although comprehensive services are important for all students, a critical aspect of the three-tiered model is the identification of students at one of the three levels. One method of identifying students in need of interventions is to analyze office disciplinary referrals (ODR) taken at the school (Irvin et al., 2006).[full citation needed] ODRs may be a means of both identifying students' risk level for antisocial behavior and school failure (Walker et al., 1996). Researchers have advocated analyzing this naturally occurring data source as a relatively cheap, effective, and ongoing measurement device for PBS programs (Irvin et al., 2006;[full citation needed] Putnam, Luiselli, Handler, & Jefferson, 2003;[15] Sprague et al., 2001;[full citation needed] Sugai et al., 2000;[4] Tidwell, Flannery, & Lewis-Palmer, 2003;[16] Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum, 2005.[17]

ODRs have also been shown to be effective in determining where students fall within a three-leveled model (Sugai et al., 2000),[4] developing professional development as well as helping coordinate school efforts with other community agencies (Tobin & Sugai, 1997;[full citation needed] Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 2000,[18]) predicting school failure in older grades as well as delinquency (Sprague et al., 2001),[full citation needed] indicating types of behavior resulting in referrals (Putnam et al., 2003),[19] and determination of the effectiveness of precorrection techniques (Oswald, Safran, & Johanson, 2005).[full citation needed] Analyzing discipline referral data can also help school personnel identify where to improve ecological arrangements within a school and to recognize how to increase active supervision in common areas (Nelson, Martella, & Galand, 1998;[full citation needed] Nelson et al., 2002[full citation needed]). A limitation of only using ODRs to measure behavior problems is that they have been found to be ineffective at measuring internalizing behavior problems such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal.[20]

Functional behavior assessment[edit]

Functional behavior assessment (FBA) emerged from applied behavior analysis. It is the first step in individual and cornerstone of a Positive Behavior Support plan.[21] The assessment seeks to describe the behavior and environmental factors and setting events that predict the behavior in order to guide the development of effective support plans. Assessment lays the foundation of PBS. The assessment includes:

  • a description of the problem behavior and its general setting of occurrence
  • identification of events, times and situations that predict problem behavior
  • identification of consequences that maintain behavior
  • identification of the motivating function of behavior
  • collection of direct observational data
  • identification of alternative behavior that could replace the child's problem behavior (i.e., what a typical child does). Often this is measured through direct observation or standardized behavioral assessment instruments.

In some cases, the problem behavior identified in the functional behavior assessment is further analyzed by conducting a behavior chain analysis—in which the sequences of behavior that build up to the problem behavior become the focus.

The results of the assessment help in developing the individualized behavior support plan. This outlines procedures for teaching alternatives to the behavior problems, and redesign of the environment to make the problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective.

Another avenue of functional behavior assessment is growing in popularity—it is called behavior chain analysis. In behavior chain analysis, one looks at the progressive changes of behavior as they lead to problem behavior and then attempts to disrupt this sequence. Whereas FBA is concerned mostly with setting-antecedent-behavior-consequence relations, the behavior chain analysis looks at the progression of behavior, such as first the child may fidget, then he might begin to tease others, then he might start to throw things, and then finally hit another student.

Behavioral strategies available[edit]

There are many different behavioral strategies that PBS can use to encourage individuals to change their behavior. Some of these strategies are delivered through the consultation process to teachers.[22] The strong part of functional behavior assessment is that it allows interventions to directly address the function (purpose) of a problem behavior. For example, a child who acts out for attention could receive attention for alternative behavior (contingency management) or the teacher could make an effort to increase the amount of attention throughout the day (satiation). Changes in setting events or antecedents are often preferred by PBS because contingency management often takes more effort. Another tactic especially when dealing with disruptive behavior is to use information from a behavior chain analysis to disrupt the behavioral problem early in the sequence to prevent disruption.[23] Some of the most commonly used approaches are:

  • Modifying the environment, antecedents (such as curriculum) to behavior, or routine
  • Providing an alternative to the undesired behavior (not the same as a reward; it should be an alternative that is readily available to the person. The thought behind this is that the person may, over time, learn to more independently seek out appropriate options rather than the undesired behavior(s).)
  • Tactical ignoring of the behavior
  • Distracting the child
  • Positive reinforcement for an appropriate behavior
  • Changing expectations and demands placed upon the child
  • Teaching the child new skills and behaviors
  • Modification techniques such as desensitization and graded extinction
  • Provide sensory based breaks to promote an optimal level of arousal and calming for increased use the replacement/alternative behavior
  • Changing how people around the child react
  • Time-out (child)
  • Medication.

Behavior management program[edit]

The main keys to developing a behavior management program include:

  • Identifying the specific behaviors to address
  • Establishing the goal for change and the steps required to achieve it
  • Procedures for recognizing and monitoring changed behavior
  • Choosing the appropriate behavioral strategies that will be most effective.

Through the use of effective behavior management at a school-wide level, PBS programs offer an effective method to reduce school crime and violence.[24] To prevent the most severe forms of problem behaviors, normal social behavior in these programs should be actively taught.[25]

Consequential management/contingency management[edit]

Consequential management is a positive response to challenging behavior. It serves to give the person informed choice and an opportunity to learn. Consequences must be clearly related to the challenging behavior. For example, if a glass of water was thrown and the glass smashed, the consequence (restitution) would be for the person to clean up the mess and replace the glass. These sorts of consequences are consistent with normal social reinforcement contingencies.

Providing choices is very important and staff can set limits by giving alternatives that are related to a behavior they are seeking. It is important that the alternative is stated in a positive way and that words are used which convey that the person has a choice. For example:

  • Coercive approach – "If you don't cut that out you'll have to leave the room."
  • Positive approach – "You can watch TV quietly or leave the room."

Implementing Positive Behavior Support on a School-Wide Level[edit]

The current trend of positive behavior support (PBS) is to use behavioral techniques to achieve cognitive goals. The use of cognitive ideas becomes more apparent when PBS is used on a school-wide setting. A measurable goal for a school may be to reduce the level of violence, but a main goal might be to create a healthy, respectful, and safe learning, and teaching, environment.[26] PBS on a school-wide level is a system that can be used to create the "perfect" school, or at the very least a better school, particularly because before implementation it is necessary to develop a vision for what the school environment should look like in the future.[27]

According to Horner et al. (2004), as cited in (Miller, Nickerson, & Jimerson, 2009),[26] once a school decides to implement PBS, the following characteristics require addressing:

  1. define 3 to 5 school-wide expectations for appropriate behavior;
  2. actively teach the school-wide behavioral expectations to all students;
  3. monitor and acknowledge students for engaging in behavioral expectations;
  4. correct problem behaviors using a consistently administered continuum of behavioral consequences
  5. gather and use information about student behavior to evaluate and guide decision making;
  6. obtain leadership of school-wide practices from an administrator committed to providing adequate support and resources; and
  7. procure district-level support.

If adequate support and consistency using a positive behavior support program exists, then over time a school’s atmosphere will change for the better. PBS is capable of creating positive changes so pronounced that alumni would mention the differences upon a visit to the school. Such a program is able to create a positive atmosphere and culture in almost any school, but the support, resources, and consistency in using the program overtime must be present.[27]

School-wide Positive behavior support (SW-PBS) consists of a broad range of systematic and individualized strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behavior with all students.[28]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guildford Press
  2. ^ a b Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23-50.
  3. ^ Tobin, T.J. and Sugai, G. (2005). Preventing Problem Behaviors: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Level Prevention Interventions for Young Children. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2 (3), 125–144 BAO
  4. ^ a b c Sugai, G., Sprague, J.R., Horner, R.H., & Walker, H.M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.
  5. ^ a b Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., et al. (1996). Integrated ap- proaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emo- tional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193–256.
  6. ^ Stewart, R.M., Martella, R.C., Marchand-Martella, N.E. and Benner, G.J (2005) Three-Tier Models of Reading and Behavior. JEIBI, 2 (3), 115–124 BAO
  7. ^ a b Tobin T.J., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai G. (2001) School-Wide And Individualized Effective Behavior Support: An Explanation And An Example. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3 (1), 51–75 BAO
  8. ^ Mack D. Burke, PhD, Kevin Ayres, MA & Shanna Hagan-Burke, PhD. (2004): Preventing School-Based Antisocial Behaviors with School-Wide Positive Behavioral Support. JEIBI, 1 (1), 66–74 BAO
  9. ^ Lewis, T. J, Sugai, G., Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school- side system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
  10. ^ Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2003). Managing disruptive behaviors in the schools: A schoolwide, classroom, and individualized social learning approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  11. ^ Nelson, J. R., Crabtree, M., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (1999). Teaching good behavior in the whole school. In F. Schultz (Ed.), Annual editions: Education 99/00, (26th ed., pp. 116-121). Sluice Dock, Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
  12. ^ Nelson, J.R., Martella, R.M., Marchand-Martella, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 136-148.
  13. ^ Nelson, J. R., Benner, G., Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., & Currin, D. (2002) The convergent validity of office discipline referrals with the TRF. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 181-189.
  14. ^ Tincani, M. (2007). Moving forward: Positive behavior support and applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8, 492–499. BAO
  15. ^ Putnam, R.F., Luiselli, J.K., Handler, M.W., & Jefferson, G.L. (2003). Evaluating student discipline practices in a public school through behavioral assessment of office referrals. Behavior Modification, 27, 505–523.
  16. ^ Tidwell, A., Flannery, K.B., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2003). A description of elementary classroom discipline referral patterns. Preventing School Failure 48(1), 18-26.
  17. ^ Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005).Schoolwide screening and positive behavior support: Identifying and supporting students at risk of school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 194-204.
  18. ^ Tobin, T., Sugai, G., Colvin, G., (2000). Using Discipline Referrals to Make Decisions. NASSP Bulletin, 84(616), 106-117.
  19. ^ Putnam, R.F., Luiselli, J.K., Handler, M.W., & Jefferson, G.L. (2003). Evaluating student discipline practices in a public school through behavioral assessment of office referrals. Behavior Modification 27(4), 505-523.
  20. ^ 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. 
  21. ^ Stewart, R.M., Martella, R.C. Marchand-Martella, N.E. & Benner, G.J. (2005). Three-Tier Models of Reading and Behavior. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2 (3), 115–124 BAO
  22. ^ Luiselli, J.K., Putnam, R.F. & Handler, M.W. (2001) Improving Discipline Practices In Public Schools: Description of a Whole-School and District-Wide Model Of Behavior Analysis Consultation. The Behavior Analyst Today, 2 (1), 18–25 BAO
  23. ^ Walker,H., Colvin, J. & Ramsey., E. (1996). Best practices in treating antisocial behavior in schools
  24. ^ Scott, T.M. Gagnon, J.C., and Nelson, C.M. (2008). School-Wide Systems of Positive Behavior Support: A Framework for Reducing School Crime and Violence. Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim: Treatment and Prevention, 1 (3), 259–272.BAO
  25. ^ Hawken, L.S. and Johnston, S.J. (2008). Preventing Severe Problem Behavior in Young Children: The Behavior Education Program. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 4 (3), 599–613. BAO
  26. ^ a b Furlong, edited by Rich Gilman, E. Scott Huebner, Michael J.; Miller, David N.; Nickerson, Amanda B. and Jimerson, Shane R. (2009). Handbook of positive psychology in schools (1st ed. ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 293–299. ISBN 9780805863628. 
  27. ^ a b Rhodes, Virginia; Stevens, Douglas and Hemmings, Annette (15 April 2011). "Creating Positive Culture in a New Urban High School". High School Journal. Spring 2011 94 (3): 82–94. 
  28. ^ OSEP Center on Positive Interventions and Support, "School-wide positive behavior support implementers’ blueprint and self-assessment", 2004, April

External links[edit]