Positive behavior support

Positive behavior support (PBS) 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. Positive behavior support (PBS) 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 affect 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). 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). The use of Positive Behavior Intervention Supports (PBIS) in schools is widespread (Sugai & Horner, 2002) in part because it is a professional skill in early special education programs (as opposed to Rogerian counseling). The program offers a primary, secondary, and tertiary level of intervention. 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; Tobin & Sugai, 2005; Walker et al., 1996.) 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. The interventions become more focused and complex as one examines the strategies used at each level. Primary prevention strategies focus on interventions used on a school-wide basis for all students (Sugai & Horner, 2002). PBS (positive behavioral supports) use for other than a designated population group has neither been approved by the professions or the public-at-large.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. 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; Martella & Nelson, 2003; Nelson, Crabtree, Marchand-Martella & Martella, 1998; Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella, 2002). 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). 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 , 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). Tertiary prevention programs focus on students who display persistent patterns of disciplinary problems (Nelson, Benner, Reid, Epstein, & Currin, 2002).Tertiary-level programs are also called intensive or individualized interventions and are the most comprehensive and complex. 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. 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). 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; Putnam, Luiselli, Handler, & Jefferson, 2003; Sprague et al., 2001; Sugai et al., 2000; Tidwell, Flannery, & Lewis-Palmer, 2003; Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum, 2005. ODRs have also been shown to be effective in determining where students fall within a three-leveled model (Sugai et al., 2000), developing professional development as well as helping coordinate school efforts with other community agencies (Tobin & Sugai, 1997; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 2000), predicting school failure in older grades as well as delinquency (Sprague et al., 2001), indicating types of behavior resulting in referrals (Putnam et al., 2003), and determination of the effectiveness of precorrection techniques (Oswald, Safran, & Johanson, 2005). 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; Nelson et al., 2002). 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.