Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Are There Generalization Effects to the Home Context From the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) Model?

Are There Generalization Effects to the Home Context From the School-Wide Positive Behavioral... The current study is the first to examine whether the positive effects of the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) model, previously documented as effective in the school context, may generalize to the home context. Potential benefits for children and parents were investigated longitudinally. A randomly selected subsample of Norwegian students drawn from a larger dataset and considered at respectively low, moderate, and high risk of developing conduct problems was rated by their parents at five time points across four successive school years. Only the fourth graders were included in the analyses to follow a stable group of students over time. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. The outcome variables examined were parent-rated problem behavior and social skills, monitoring, mental health, support to the child’s schooling, and school–home cooperation. The analyses revealed no significant benefits of SWPBIS in the home context, neither for the children nor the parents. Likewise, no differential effects for low-, moderate-, and high- risk groups were detected. To increase the odds of cross-domain effects of the SWPBIS model, the inclusion of additional intervention components to better inform, include, and support parents should be considered, particularly for parents of students with more severe behavior problems. Keywords SWPBIS, home-based intervention effects, problem behavior, high-risk students Research strongly suggests that universal school-wide pre- examined, neither in the Norwegian effectiveness studies vention approaches significantly reduce children’s conduct nor in other SWPBIS studies. It is therefore unclear if the problems and aggressive behavior (Bradshaw et al., 2010, parents experience child behavioral improvements or other 2012; Durlak et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2018). Among the benefits from the school intervention. In most school-based most successful interventions is the School-Wide Positive intervention studies, teachers and students are the primary Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) model. informants. Parent assessments are seldom included to Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Chitiyo identify potential child behavioral changes at home or et al., 2012; Horner et al., 2010; Lee & Gage, 2020; changes in the parent’s situation. In the current study, we Noltemeyer et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2012) conclude attempt to fill some of these knowledge gaps by examining that SWPBIS is a highly promising intervention model for if the SWPBIS model, as implemented in Norway, had any the prevention of externalizing behavior problems among effect on parental reports of the family situation. students, for improving the learning/classroom climate, and for improving safety in elementary and middle schools. The SWPBIS model (called PALS in Norway) has also 1 The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Development, Oslo, Norway been evaluated in several longitudinal effectiveness studies, University of Bergen, Norway with encouraging outcomes for students, teachers, and Corresponding Author: schools (e.g., Borgen et al., 2021; Sørlie et al., 2016, 2018; Mari-Anne Sørlie, The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Sørlie & Ogden, 2015). Positive effects have also been reg- Development, P.O. Box 7053 Majorstuen, 0306 Oslo, Norway. Email: mari.sorlie@nubu.no istered for an abbreviated version of the model (Sørlie et al., 2015). However, to the best of our knowledge, generaliz- Action Editor: ability effects to the home environment have not been Grace Gengoux 2 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) either student behavior or parent behavior at home. The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Model Descriptions of the model contain little information about The SWPBIS model is a broadly implemented intervention the goals, the specific content, and guidelines for school– worldwide, which aims to prevent moderate and serious stu- home cooperation. Still, according to the Norwegian hand- dent behavior problems (Michael et al., 2023). The main book, parents should be fully informed about the schools’ intention of the model is to replace reactive and punishment- plan to implement the model, and their participation in the oriented disciplinary approaches with one that promotes posi- school’s implementation or leader team is recommended tive behavior support. The model was developed in the United (Arnesen & Meek-Hansen, 2010). Moreover, general rec- States and Norway was the first European country to follow ommendations are made for extended school–home contact suit. Only surface changes were made to match the model and collaboration when students require additional help and to the Norwegian cultural and linguistic context (Sørlie & support. Although not included among the core compo- Ogden, 2015). The model is a multitiered, structured, yet flex- nents, teachers are encouraged to make home visits, and ible, approach to promote a safe and inclusive learning envi- parents are asked to encourage their children to attend ronment and to prevent and reduce antisocial behavior in school, get to school on time, pay attention in lessons, and students (Sprague & Walker, 2005). Social skills are added to behave positively. The recommendations emphasize the the behavioral expectations taught (Gresham et al., 2001). The importance of good school–home relationships, but there core intervention components are similar in the American and are few indications that this collaboration receives much the Norwegian versions and include (a) positive relationships, attention. In the United States, efforts have been made to (b) school-wide expectations as a few positively formulated help schools integrate research-supported family engage- rules and prosocial skills, (c) positive directions and instruc- ment strategies more systematically into the tiered support tion, and (d) positive behavior support including encourage- system to get away from the often random and event-based ment, recognition, and positive involvement. strategies used in many schools (Garbacz et al., 2018; Weist The intervention model consists of three tiers of preven- et al., 2017). tion and intervention: a universal, selected, and indicated To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the extent tier. All interventions should be evidence-based and to which the recommendations related to family engage- matched to the students’ needs. The universal Tier 1 inter- ment are implemented in practice. Neither did our review of ventions apply to all students in all school arenas, while the literature uncover any prior attempts to evaluate the selected interventions at Tier 2 are intended for the 10–15% potential crossover effects of the SWPBIS model to the of the students who do not benefit sufficiently from the uni- home context nor any parent assessments of change. In this versal interventions. The indicated interventions at Tier 3 study, we thus aimed to investigate if there are any signifi- are intended for the few students (1–4%) at high risk of con- cant generalization effects of the SWPBIS model from duct disorder. Based on individual needs and risk assess- school to home in Norway, and by that, contribute with ment, they are offered individually tailored and intensive research-based knowledge on how this school-wide preven- interventions. The selected level has the same objectives as tion model might influence the parents’ situation and chil- the universal but offers intensive small-group teaching for dren’s behavior at home. limited periods. The school model further relies on a team- structured organization and implementation, and each School-Based and Home-Based Interventions school appoints a team of five to six representatives, includ- and Generalizability of Outcomes ing parents and the principal, to make plans, train their colleagues in essential features of the intervention model Some children act out both at school and at home, but and implementation structure, and routinely report on the most structured intervention programs for the prevention outcomes and implementation fidelity at their school. To and reduction of child conduct problems are carried out monitor the quality of the implementation (fidelity), the either at school or at home. They address parent and “Effective Behavior Support Self-Assessment Survey” teacher assessments separately and most school-based (Sugai et al., 2009) or other fidelity measures should annu- programs only report on teacher and/or student assess- ally be completed by the teachers or implementation team. ments. For example, Wilson and Lipsey (2007) reported After completion, each school gets its their fidelity results that 70% of the school-based studies assessing aggressive/ in the form of easily understandable graphs. disruptive behavior outcomes used teacher or self-report data, while only 2% used parent-reported data. To get an update on the situation, we searched for home-based and/ The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support or school-based intervention studies published after 2010 Model and Parents targeting children with conduct problems in which both In Norway, the SWPBIS model is implemented in the parents and teachers were used as informants in the out- school setting with no pronounced intentions of changing come analyses. Sørlie et al. 3 School-Based Interventions. The Families And School in a meta-analysis of 77 intervention studies (Smith et al., Together (FAST) is a multifamily, after-school program, 2019). All studies examined outcome effects on child prob- mainly implemented in the school context for families lem behavior both at home and at school. Although the having children with multiple risk factors (i.e., high-risk meta-analysis concluded that the FSP program often samples). According to a Cochrane systematic review, no resulted in improved student outcomes, none of them were generalizing effects from school to home were tested or observed in the home environment. found (Valentine et al., 2019). The Positive Alternative The review of research on school-based interventions THinking Strategies (PATHS) program is a universal social targeting both home and school demonstrated mixed results. competence classroom-based intervention that aims to Some of the programs targeting high-risk children were reduce teacher-and parent-rated externalizing behavior. In effective, while others were not. Most effective among the addition to student activities in and outside the classroom targeted programs were school-based programs containing context, materials for use with parents are included. The components that directly targeted the parents, particularly program has demonstrated cross-domain effects with sig- problem-solving skills, but also components that are often nificant reductions in teacher- and parent-rated aggressive included in parenting programs like social skills, stress behavior among preK and Grades 1-3 students (e.g., Malti management, and emotion regulation. Moreover, two et al., 2011). The Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) universal school programs which included parenting inter- program is a family–school partnership model aiming at vention components demonstrated crossover effects from the promotion of teacher-rated behavioral competence and school to home. decreasing problem behavior in disruptive children (i.e., high-risk samples). In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) Home-Based Interventions. In the search for opposite gener- with 267 children in rural elementary schools, effects on alization effects from home to school, we examined a selec- parent competence in problem-solving were demonstrated tion of RCTs conducted on two parent training programs, for participants in the CBC group relative to the control Parent Management Training, the Oregon model (PMTO; group. However, different from program effects for chil- Askeland et al., 2014) and Early Interventions for Children dren in urban elementary schools (e.g., Sheridan et al., at Risk (EICR; Solholm et al., 2013). In an RCT on PMTO, 2013) nonsignificant effects were found for parent-rated teachers reported a higher level of social competence in the child externalizing and internalizing behaviors (Sheridan intervention group at postassessment compared to the com- & Wheeler, 2017). The school-based Anger Coping Pro- parison group (Ogden & Hagen, 2008) and in the 1-year gram (ACP) is a cognitive-behavioral intervention relevant follow-up study (Hagen et al., 2011). RCTs conducted on for children (from 7 years of age) and adolescents with the EICR program showed no home-to-school generaliza- clinical levels of conduct problems. It targets both children tion effects (Kjøbli et al., 2013; Kjøbli & Ogden, 2012). In in the school context and their parents (Lochman et al., conclusion, except for the crossover effect of social skills, 2021). A comprehensive social-cognitive component aims there were no generalization effects from home to school to teach parents how to interact with their children. Included when parent training programs were examined. are also family communication and problem-solving to maintain positive relationships between parents and chil- Research Questions dren. Impacts both on child aggression (rated by indepen- dent observers and parents) and on maternal depression, In the current study, the transfer of child behavioral changes marital/partner conflict, and parent stress management from school to home was examined, as were benefits for have been examined. Outcome analyses have demonstrated parents after the implementation of the school-wide preven- generalization effects to the home environment for high- tion model SWPBIS. The following research questions risk boys and their parents (e.g., Lochman & Lenhart, were formulated: (a) Are there significant differences in 1993). The Coping Power Universal program is an adapta- problem behavior and social skills at home among students tion of the APC. It is a universal classroom-based program respectively at low, moderate, or high risk of conduct prob- with no parenting components rather than a targeted pro- lems when parent ratings from schools implementing the gram like the ACP (Muratori et al., 2019). The intervention SWPBIS model are compared with parent ratings from con- was tested on 1,030 Italian fourth and fifth graders in 70 trol schools over 4 years and when demographic variables elementary classrooms. The focus on problem-solving and (i.e., student sex, parent education, family finances) are emotional regulation produced changes in the student’s controlled for? (b) Following 4 years of implementation of behavior both in the classroom and at home. The effect the SWPBIS model and controlling for demographic vari- sizes of parent ratings were small, however, compared ables, are there significant group differences in the parents’ to the moderate effect sizes of the teacher ratings. The perceived mental health, monitoring, school support of the Family–School Partnership (FSP) program was evaluated child, and school–home collaboration? 4 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) years. Most had completed at least 3 years (41.9%) or 1 or Method 2 years (10.7%) at university or college. Only 6% reported Participants primary school as their highest education, while 19.5% and 21.9% respectively stated that 1–2 and 3 years at high The current study is based on repeated parental question- school were their highest educational level. As concerns the naire data derived from a longitudinal multicohort effec- family economy, 1% reported that they often or every month tiveness study of the SWPBIS model in Norway. A stratified, could not afford food, medicines (1%), insurance (2.5%), matched, and randomly invited sample of 65 ordinary pri- furniture or household articles (6.3%), or paying for recre- mary schools participated in the study among which 28 ational activities or pleasures (5.9%). schools implemented the full SWPBIS model while 18 There were mostly small (1-1.7%) differences between schools implemented an abbreviated version (Preventing the subsample and the total sample, except that there were Problem Behavior in School), and 20 schools maintained 3.8% more boys and 4.1% more students referred to child “Practices as Usual” (PAU; for details of design and recruit- welfare or mental health services in the total sample. In ment procedure, see Sørlie and Ogden [2014]). The first addition, the main part of parents in the subsample were assessment (T1, baseline) was conducted at the beginning somewhat younger than in the total sample (7.9% more of a new school year and close to the initiation of the parents were 31–40 years old, and 6.4% fever were 41–50 SWPBIS model. The remaining assessments were carried years old). out at the end of the following school years (T2-T5). Due to a lack of resources, only parent ratings from a part of the Procedures sample were possible to collect. Accordingly, based on the students’ T1 mean scores on the Teacher Report Form (TRF, The parents were informed about the study and received a Achenbach, 1991) externalization scale and Norwegian letter of consent written in Norwegian or in one of the four TRF norms (Larsson & Drugli, 2011; Lurie, 2006), we first most frequently spoken foreign languages, English, Urdu, divided all students into three risk groups (high, moderate, Somali, and Bosnian. The consent was signed and returned low). Next, a subgroup of 30% was randomly drawn, and via the school. The parents who consented to participate their parents were asked to complete a questionnaire annu- in the study then completed a questionnaire which was ally. The “select cases by random sample of cases” method returned at each assessment point via the Internet or the in SPSS was used to randomly select students. The sub- schools. To standardize the assessment procedure, written group included 10% of all students considered at low risk of instructions were given. Every year, the contributing par- severe conduct problems (i.e., TRF Ext <4.99), 10% con- ents participated in a raffle for five gift cards worth 2,000 sidered at moderate risk (TRF Ext between 5.0 and 10.99), Norwegian Krone. and 10% considered at high risk (TRF Ext >11.0). The selection procedure implied an oversampling of the number Measures of students in the high-risk group compared to the number of students in the moderate- and low-risk groups. The Problem Behavior. The primary outcome variable in the cur- oversampling was done to gain statistical power to detect rent study was parent ratings of the children’s behavior at significant cross-contextual outcome differences. To enable home, which was assessed with a Norwegian translation of tracking of a stable group of students, the current analyses the 17-item Problem Behavior scale (Cronbach’s ɑ = .88, were limited to the fourth graders (age 9 years) of the 30% max–min score = 68–17) of the Social Skills Rating Sys- subsample (n = 594 of total n = 2,138). These students tem (SSRS, Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The parents rated were followed through seventh grade (age 12 years). how often the child showed problem behaviors on a four- At T1, the analytical sample consisted of 219 low-risk point scale (1 = Seldom/never, 4 = Very often). SSRS mea- students (36.8%), 178 moderate-risk students (30%), and sures three subdimensions of problem behavior with six 196 high-risk students (33%). They received either PAU items each: externalizing (Cronbach’s ɑ = .80), internaliz- (n = 160, 26.9%), the full (n = 252, 42.4%), or the abbre- ing (ɑ = .73), and hyperactivity (ɑ = .83). Only the total viated SWPBIS model (n = 182, 30.6%). Out of these, scores were used in the analyses. Item examples: “Acts sad 345 were boys (58.1%) and most (n = 545, 91.7%) or depressed,” “Argues/quarrels with others,” and “Doesn’t had Norwegian as their first language. Moreover, 25% follow rules or instructions.” (n = 149) received ongoing special education, 17.5% had Social Skills. The children’s social skills were measured with been referred to the school educational services, and 10.6% a Norwegian translation of the 38-item parent version (ɑ = had been referred to the child welfare or mental health .94, max–min score = 152–38) of SSRS (Gresham & services. Elliott, 1990; Ogden, 2003). The parents rated how often Most parents were between 31 and 40 years of age the children engaged in positive social behaviors (1 = (60.5%) or between 41 and 50 years (35.1%), while only Seldom/never, 4 = Very often). The SSRS parent version 2.8% and 1.2% were either younger than 30 or older than 50 Sørlie et al. 5 taps four social skills dimensions (10 items each): coopera- Analytic Approach tion, assertion, self-control, and responsibility. The sum Data were analyzed using linear mixed models as imple- scores only were used in the analyses. Item examples: “Vol- mented in the SPSS Mixed module. As a default model, a unteers to help family members with household tasks” and random intercept of students across repeated measures was “Speaks in an appropriate tone of voice at home.” specified. As T1 was used for the classification of risk groups, only T2–T5 measurements for the dependent vari- Mental Health. Parent’s self-ratings of symptoms of ables were included in the outcome analyses. To isolate depression and anxiety were assessed by an 11-item scale main and interactive effects, independent fixed variables (ɑ = .90) derived from the Hopkins Symptom Check List were entered block-wise. Intervention effects would be (HSLC-25; Derogatis et al., 1974; max–min score = 44– demonstrated if two-way intervention group by time inter- 11). Item examples: “Constantly afraid or anxious” and action terms were statistically significant. Moderation of “Easily angry/furious (temper outbursts).” Rating scale: intervention effects by risk group would be indicated by 1 = Not bothered, 4 = Very bothered. significant three-way interactions, controlling for main effects and relevant two-way interactions. Effects were Monitoring. The parents’ knowledge of the child’s where- adjusted for the T1 covariates parent education, family abouts, who they were with, and what they were doing economy, and student sex and tested using Satterthwaite during their spare time was assessed with an eight-item F-tests, with corrected degrees of freedom. Bonferonni cor- scale (α =. 82, max–min score = 32–8) from the Oregon rection was used to control for family-wise error rates Healthy Teen Survey (Oregon Health Authority, 2020). across outcomes. As there were six outcomes, the nominal Item examples: “The child tells me openly and voluntarily p-value was set to p < .00833. The categorical independent about everything he/she is doing during leisure time” and variables risk group and intervention group and their inter- “I almost always know where my child is when not at actions were tested through simple contrasts against a refer- home.” Rating scale: 1 = Fits very well, 4 = Does not fit. ence category. For the risk group variable, low and medium risk was compared to the high-risk category. For the inter- School Support. The parents’ support for their child’s school vention group variable, the PAU and abbreviated condition efforts was assessed with an eight-item parental assessment were used as references. Two- and three-way interaction scale (α =. 85, max–min score = 32–8) from the Oregon terms were specified through product terms of included Healthy Teen Survey (Oregon Health Authority, 2020). main variables. Time was treated as a continuous variable Item examples: “I have daily conversations with the child and tested for linear effects. Differential effects of time about what is going on at school” and “I often encourage the were tested through the product term of simple contrasts child to do well in school, but without demands.” Rating and time, centered on T1. scale: 1 = Fits very poorly, 4= Fits very well. As students came from different schools, potential ran- dom school-level effects (RSE) were assessed. In line with School–Home Cooperation. The parents’ views on and expe- numerous other studies, we used the intraclass correlation riences with the school–home collaborations were mea- (ICC) to guide modeling decisions about random effects. As sured with 17 items using a 4-point rating scale (1 = Fits a simple rule of thumb, a strong ICC of the school would very poorly, 4= Fits very well). The scale was developed for support the inclusion of an RSE, at least to avoid biased this study (ɑ = .91, max–min score = 68–17). Item exam- standard errors. In contrast, an ICC close to zero would be ples: “I have good contact with the child’s main teacher,” an argument for excluding RSE from the random part of the “I am frequently informed of the child’s educational plan analysis. Although the ICC provides a useful heuristic for (curriculum),” and “I feel that the teachers are interested in making decisions about the inclusion of random effects, my suggestions and take my suggestions into account.” some note the need to also consider other sources of infor- mation. The impact of any given ICC varies as a function of Covariates. Covariates included in the analyses were student cluster size (Huang, 2018; Peugh, 2010) and type of research sex (girl, boy), parent self-reports on the family economic question (Nezlek, 2008). It follows from the design effect status, and education. Only the baseline scores of the covari- (DEFF) formula (e.g., Peugh, 2010): DEFF = 1 + (nc − 1) ates were used in the analyses. The perceived family econ- × ICC, that the impact of sample clustering (schools) on omy was assessed with six items (ɑ = .85) from the Household sampling variance (DEFF) is a function of ICC and cluster Economics scale developed by Pearlin and Schooler (1978). size. A small ICC could give rise to a strong DEFF if the Parent education was measured by the responding parent average cluster size is big (Huang, 2018). ticking off her/his highest completed education (1 = No or All models were tested with RSE (three-level model: limited schooling, 6 = Minimum 3 years college or univer- school–student–time) and without RSE (two-level model: sity education). student–time). The ICC of schools ranged between 0% for 6 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Parent-Rated Outcome Variables Across Assessments (n T1 = 594). Problem School-home Time Social skills behavior Mental health Monitoring School support cooperation T1 109.05 (14.73) 26.85 (5.98) 14.52 (4.16) 28.17 (2.99) 28.14 (3.31) 52.25 (8.13) T2 110.23 (14.56) 26.23 (5.70) 14.30 (3.94) 28.09 (3.10) 28.08 (3.20) 51.71 (8.08) T3 112.04 (15.59) 25.50 (5.94) 13.92 (3.55) 28.29 (2.92) 28.37 (3.55) 51.84 (8.21) T4 111.93 (14.51) 25.15 (6.14) 13.78 (3.19) 28.16 (3.07) 28.27 (3.16) 53.15 (9.01) T5 112.43 (15.92) 24.28 (5.33) 13.80 (3.30) 27.77 (3.19) 28.32 (3.47) 51.52 (8.63) the school support and social skills variables and 6.6% for the Main Effects of Time home-school cooperation variable. Under the current average Statistically significant main effects of linear time were cluster size, the school-level ICC represented a DEFF rang- observed for problem behavior at home only, F(1, 636.60) ing between 1.00 and 1.53 across outcomes. The ICC and = 1.36, p = .0000000032. The findings indicate that inde- DEFF indicated that the two-level model without RSE was pendent of being in the intervention groups or the control an acceptable model specification in the present study. group, the children’s problem behavior in the home setting decreased over time. For social skills, mental health, paren- Results tal monitoring, school-home cooperation, and parental school support, there were no significant main effects of The presentation of results follows a logical order. Initially, linear time across the four school years. A test of deviation means and standard deviations (raw scores) for each out- from linearity at two degrees of freedom was statistically come variable across time points are shown in Table 1. We significant for school-home collaboration but not for the then present the main effects of time, risk group, and sex. other five outcomes. Next, we present the interactive effects with an emphasis on intervention effects, particularly for groups considered at low, moderate, and high risk of conduct problems. Main Effects of Risk Group According to Table 1, the mean values and dispersion of Higher risk was associated with more problem behaviors, the parent-rated variables were either stable or showed a lower social skills, and less positive school-home coopera- marginal positive change across the school years. From tion. Statistically significant main effects of risk group were fourth through seventh grade, the social skills scores slightly observed for problem behavior at home, F(2, 404.34) = increased while the ratings of problem behavior in the home 22.48, p = .000000000055, social skills, F(2, 401.31) = setting decreased. Despite the oversampling of students 13.96, p = .00000014, and school–home cooperation, F(2, frequently showing problem behaviors in the school 409.96) = 7.25, p = .000803881. For parental mental setting, the parents generally seemed to rate the children’s health, monitoring, and school support, there were no main problem behavior in the home settings as relatively low effects of risk group. (M = 24–26 of max-min = 68–17). Across studies and measures, Norwegian children are rated as having fewer problems than in other societies both by teachers and by Main Effects of Sex parents (Jozefiak et al., 2012; Larsson & Drugli, 2011). The parents’ ratings of their mental health (anxiety and depres- According to the parents, there were no statistically signifi- sion) were also in the lower range, while the self-ratings of cant main effects of sex, which indicate that boys and girls their monitoring, support for their child’s school efforts, and did not differ in their social and behavioral development collaboration with the school were in the higher range. In over time. Likewise, being a parent to a boy or a girl did not other words, the parents seemed to have a rather positive seem to affect the parent ratings of their monitoring skills, and stable perception of their children’s functioning as well ability to support the child’s schooling, or their evaluation as of their parental role. of the school-home cooperation. Analysis of main and interactive longitudinal effects was conducted for each dependent variable (for details, see Intervention Group by Time Interaction Online Supplemental Material Tables 2–7). The key find- ings are summarized in the following text. Information on Group-by-time interaction effects were statistically nonsig- the omnibus F-test for each independent variable is given. nificant for all outcomes, suggesting no evidence for inter- For further details about the specific contrasts, see the vention effects in the home setting across the period (i.e., Online Supplemental Material tables. neither for parental mental health, problem behavior, social Sørlie et al. 7 Figure 1. Differential Development Over Time Across Risk Groups and Outcome Variables Note. C_InSCL = self-rated parent mental health; C_InSSR = parent-rated child social skills; C_InSSRP = parent-rated child problem behavior; C_ InmonP = self-rated parent monitoring; C_Inshom = parent-rated school–home cooperation; C_Insup = self-rated parental school support. skills, school support, and school collaboration nor for skills, F(2, 394.06) = 5 .41, p = .0048, indicating that the monitoring). impact of risk group on social skills was stronger for boys than for girls. For the other outcomes, there was no signifi- cant interaction effects of sex. Moderation of Intervention Effects by Risk To visualize differential development across risk groups, Group scores for each dependent variable were centered on the T1 Likewise, we found no statistically significant three-way grand mean score and standardized to the T1 standard devi- intervention-by-time-by-risk group interaction effects, sug- ation as shown in Figure 1. It was evident that the risk gesting that there were no clear differences in the three risk groups had similar trajectories across time, as indicated by groups’ (low, moderate, high) benefits of the SWPBIS the overlapping confidence intervals. The most striking model in the home context. aspect of Figure 1 is that the risk groups differed in their general outcome levels. Over time, the low-risk group maintained a lower level of problem behaviors and a higher Other Interactions level of social skills. The medium- and high-risk groups did For risk group-by-time, significant interactions were not differ much. Except for problem behaviors at home, the observed for problem behavior at home, F(2, 627.74) = differences between the groups over time were rather sta- 4.92, p = .007557297, but not for the other outcomes. This ble. The trajectories were in general linear, but with a few implies that the low-risk group showed a steady decline random deviations from linearity on single time points. in problem behaviors over the school years, whereas the moderate- and high-risk groups changed less. To assess Discussion subgroup consistency, a saturated interaction including sex- by-time and sex-by-risk group was estimated. Risk group- The present study examined whether the previously docu- by-sex interactions were observed for parent-rated social mented positive behavioral changes among students in 8 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) schools implementing the SWPBIS model (Chitiyo et al., 4-year study period. Moreover, the study results revealed no 2012; Lee & Gage, 2020; Noltemeyer et al., 2018; Sørlie significant sex differences in how boys and girls developed et al., 2016; Sørlie & Ogden, 2015) may generalize to the over time on any of the parent-rated outcome variables. The home setting. We also examined whether parents may ben- impact of risk group on social skills was, however, stronger efit from SWPBIS. Potential intervention effects in the for boys than for girls. The low-risk group’s problem behav- home setting were investigated over a 4-year period in a ior decreased more over the school years, compared to the randomly selected sample (n = 594) of students (fourth moderate- and high-risk groups which changed less. Several through seventh grade) considered at various levels of risk. studies, including twin studies, have found that externaliz- No significant differences were detected between students ing problem behavior in typically developing children and in the intervention group attending SWPBIS schools and youths shows strong stability over time, from childhood to students in the control schools maintaining PAU. This early adulthood—for boys as well as for girls (e.g., Flouri should come as no surprise as the raw scores on both the et al., 2019; Hatoum et al., 2018). The decrease demon- primary and the secondary outcome variables were quite strated in this study may be due to the increased social pres- stable over time and leaning to the positive side rather than sure children are exposed to when they misbehave, for to the negative side. Evidently, there was little room for instance from parents, relatives, and friends. According to improvement in any of the groups. Parent ratings of social social control theory, children who bond to family, friends, skills, monitoring, school support, and school-home col- or school are more susceptible to the environment’s expec- laboration remained in the high positive range, while con- tations and norm pressure, regardless of being exposed to duct and mental health problems, despite low scores at any formal interventions (Schreck & Hirschi, 2009). baseline, were further reduced. These results generally sug- Children who frequently demonstrate disruptive behavior gest that the SWPBIS model had no significant impacts in may experience pressure proportional to the increase in the home setting, neither for students nor for parents. such behavior. They are expected to comply with norms and Likewise, we found no indications of differential interven- values in their family and social network and are usually tion effects in the home setting for students considered at rewarded for doing so. respectively low, moderate, or high risk of conduct prob- The findings from the current study join findings from lems. Accordingly, the previously documented positive other effectiveness studies that have failed to demonstrate effects of SWPBIS on high-risk students’ behavior in the cross-domain effects of school-based or home-based inter- school context (e.g., Borgen et al., 2021; Sørlie et al., 2018) ventions such as the FAST program, the FSP program, and did not seem to generalize to the home context. the PMTO program. The lack of indicative generalization The high-risk group was, however, rated by their parents effects for the SWPBIS model is perhaps disappointing but as being less socially skilled, and the parents experienced not surprising, in that most interventions that have docu- the cooperation with the school as more conflictual and less mented effects both in the school and home setting are, satisfactory than other parents. The high-risk group was unlike the SWPBIS model in Norway, characterized by an also rated across research conditions and time as showing incorporation of specific components, strategies, and mate- more problem behavior in the home setting than students in rials directly aimed at the parents such as the PATHS pro- the moderate- and low-risk groups. Accordingly, the parent gram, CBS program, and ACP. In this context, it should be ratings point in roughly the same direction as previous noted that the SWPBIS model has a school-wide approach teacher ratings; students frequently showing problem and does not have a stated goal of influencing the students’ behavior in school are rated as less socially and academi- behavior outside the school context or entail gains for cally skilled (e.g., Hukkelberg et al., 2019; Kremer et al., parents. In most cases, preventing and reducing problem 2016). Since the risk groups were selected based on teacher behavior in the school setting are perhaps sufficient. ratings, the parent ratings suggest that the high-risk group However, for those students showing externalizing behav- differs from other students in that they strive with multiple ior across contexts, it may seem that SWPBIS is insuffi- problems that are observable both at school and at home. ciently rigged, at least in Norway. In line with recent The results also reflect this finding as parents of children recommendations from researchers including Weist et al. frequently report that externalizing problems are often (2017) and Garbacz et al. (2018), our findings indicate that stressful and concerning. The correlations between teacher the acceptance and effectiveness of the intervention model and parent ratings are usually moderate, in the region of could benefit from a more clear and more specified approach 0.30 (Piquero et al., 2012). The parents’ assessments of the to involve and support parents. risk groups’ functioning may thus give rise to discrepancies To our knowledge, this is the first study examining among teachers and parents. the potential effects of the SWPBIS model in the home Independent of which research condition and risk group context. Other strengths of the study include (a) the use of the students belonged to, the occurrence of problem behav- a randomly selected subsample from a large-scale effec- iors in the home setting significantly decreased over the tiveness study with a sound design, (b) longitudinal data, Sørlie et al. 9 and (c) the use of reliable and widely used instruments. Declaration of Conflicting Interests However, the study may also have been hampered by some The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect weaknesses. Although parents were seen as the most reli- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. able informants of possible changes in the home setting, the validity of the study findings could have benefited from Funding the inclusion of additional student ratings. A second limita- This research was supported by the Norwegian Center for Child tion is that the sample may have been too small to detect Behavioral Development and in part by a grant from the Norwegian minor changes in the home setting. Third, other factors Directorate for Education and Training. The standards of the than those we have accounted for in the analyses may have regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics influenced the results (e.g., fidelity). Fourth, the children’s (REK South-East) and of the Norwegian Social Science Data and parents’ problems as measured in the home setting may Services were followed throughout the conduct of the study. initially have been limited thus leaving little room for change. On this basis, the study results should be inter- ORCID iDs preted with caution. Mari-Anne Sørlie https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-3683 Torbjørn Torsheim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7825-4463 Conclusions and Practical Implications Supplemental Material The results from this study indicate that there are few gen- Supplemental material for this article is available at https://doi. eralization effects from the SWPBIS model to the home org/10.1177/10983007241312421 context. It seems that parents rarely perceive or register any significant changes in their children’s behavior and social References skills following the SWPBIS model. Likewise, they did not Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the teacher’s report form register any significant changes in their mental health, in and 1991 profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of the school–home collaboration, or in their monitoring and Vermont. support of the children’s schooling. Neither were we able to Arnesen, A., & Meek-Hansen, W. (2010). PALS. Håndbok: Modul detect any differential effects of SWPBIS in the home set- 1. Skoleomfattende forebyggende tiltaksnivå [SWPBIS hand- ting for students with varying risk status. However, before book: Module 1. School-wide preventive interventions]. Oslo: firm conclusions of the model’s generalizing effects to the Nasjonalt utviklingssenter for barn og unge. home setting are drawn, the study results should be repli- Askeland, E., Apeland, A. & Solholm, R. (Eds.). (2014). PMTO: cated in future studies. Foreldretrening for familier med barn som har atferdsvan- Outcomes from the current as well as several previous sker [PMTO: Parent training for families with conduct disor- evaluation studies indicate that children with conduct prob- dered children]. Gyldendal Akademisk. Borgen, N. T., Frønes, I., & Raaum, O. (2021). Impact of the lems could benefit from a combination and integration of school environment on medical treatment of attention defi- parenting and school-based intervention components. At cit hyperactivity disorder: A population-wide register data the universal level, the results suggest a need for increased study of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and information and involvement of parents in general preven- Supports. Child Development, 92, 2089–2105. https://doi. tive work. At the selected level, there may be a need for org/10.1111/cdev.13574 extended contact and cooperation between school and Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining home. More frequent contacts and increased communica- the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions tion could be integrated in the model like home visits, and Supports on student outcomes. Results from a randomized report cards, and phone calls. A short-term parenting pro- controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal gram (three to five sessions) could also be delivered by the of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. https://doi. school health services or the municipal child and family org/10.1177/1098300709334798 Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of services (Kjøbli & Ogden, 2012). Finally, at the indicated schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports in level, a full-scale parenting program could be recom- child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130, 1136–1145. https:// mended (Askeland et al., 2014). Parenting programs (e.g., doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0243 PMTO) contain several of the components shown to be Chitiyo, M., May, M. E., & Chitiyo, G. (2012). An assessment effective in previous school–home projects, including rela- of the evidence-base for School-Wide Positive Behavior tionship building, problem-solving, good directions, skills Support. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 1–24. encouragement, monitoring, and self-regulation. This https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0000 intervention could be integrated with relational activities Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & between parents and teachers, in which home and school Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): coordinate their efforts, rather than working in isolation A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Sciences, 19, (Smith et al., 2019). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1159/000395070 10 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., A test of growth-curve models with gender and racial dif- & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing stu- ferences. Children and Youth Services Review, 67, 95–104. dents’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.003 school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, Larsson, B., & Drugli, M. B. (2011). School competence and 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x emotional/behavioral problems among Norwegian school Flouri, E., Papachristou, E., Midouhas, E., Ploubidis, G. B., children as rated by teachers on the Teacher Report Form. Lewis, G., & Joshi, H. (2019). Developmental cascades of Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(6), 553–559. https:// internalizing symptoms, externalizing problems and cog- doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00889.x nitive ability from early childhood to middle adolescence. Lee, A., & Gage, N. A. (2020). Updating and expanding systematic European Psychiatry, 56, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide posi- eurpsy.2018.12.005 tive behavior interventions and supports. Psychology in the Garbacz, S. A., Hirano, K., McIntosh, K., Eagle, J. W., Minch, Schools, 57(5), 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22336 D., & Vatland, C. (2018). Family engagement in schoolwide Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C. L., Gilplin, A. T., & Powell, N. positive behavioral interventions and supports: Barriers and P. (2021). Cognitive behavioral intervention for aggressive facilitators to implementation. School Psychology Quarterly, children. The Anger Coping and Coping Power programs. In 33(3), 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000216 M. E. Feinberg (Ed.), Designing evidence-based public health Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system and prevention programs (pp. 9–21). Routledge. manual. American Guidance Service. Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. A. (1993). Anger coping interven- Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2001). Interpreting tion for aggressive children: Conceptual models and outcome outcomes of social skills training for students with high- effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(8), 785–805. https:// incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 331–344. doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(05)80006-6 https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029010670030 Lurie, J. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of emotional and behav- Hagen, K. A., Ogden, T., & Bjørnebekk, G. (2011). Treatment out- ioral problems in 6–12-year-old Norwegian school children. comes and mediators of Parent Management Training: A one- Barnevernets utviklingssenter i Midt-Norge. year follow-up of children with conduct problems. Journal of Malti, T., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. P. (2011). The effective- Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 1–14. https:// ness of two universal preventive interventions in reducing doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.546050 children’s externalizing behavior: A cluster randomized trial. Hatoum, A. S., Rhee, S. H., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., & Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), Friedman, N. P. (2018). Etiology of stability and growth of 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597084 internalizing and externalizing behavior problems across Michael, D., Goutas, T., Tsigilis, N., Michaelidou, V., Gregoriades, childhood and adolescence. Behavior Genetics, 48(4), 298– A., Charalambous, V., & Vrasidias, C. (2023). Effects of the 314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9900-8 universal positive behavioral interventions and supports on Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining collective teacher efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 1(3), the evidence base for School-Wide Positive Behavior 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22919 Support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1–14. https:// Mitchell, B. S., Hatton, H., & Lewis, T. J. (2018). An examina- doi.org/10.17161/fec.v42i8.6906 tion of the evidence-base of schoolwide positive behavior Huang, F. L. (2018). Multilevel modeling myths. School Psycho- interventions and supports through two quality appraisal logy Quarterly, 33(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq processes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(4), 0000272 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718768217 Hukkelberg, S., Keles, S., Ogden, T., & Hammerstrøm, K. (2019). Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Masi, G., Milone, A., Nocentini, A., The relation between behavioral problems and social compe- Powell, N. P., Lochman, J. E., Jones, S., Kassin, F., & Romero, tence: A correlational meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), D. (2019). Effects of a universal prevention program on exter- Article 354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2343-9 nalizing behaviors: Exploring the generalizability of findings Jozefiak, T., Larsson, B., Wichstrøm, L., & Rimehaug, T. across school and home settings. Journal of School Psychology, (2012). Competence and emotional/behavioural problems in 77, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.09.002 7-16-year-old Norwegian school children as reported by par- Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for ents. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 66(5), 311–319. https:// social and personality psychology. Social and Personality doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2011.638934 Psychology Compass, 2(2), 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Kjøbli, J., Hukkelberg, S., & Ogden, T. (2013). A randomized trial j.1751-9004.2007.00059.x of group parent training: Reducing child conduct problems in Noltemeyer, A., Palmer, K., James, A. G., & Wiechman, S. (2018). real-world settings. Behavior Research and Therapy, 51(3), School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.11.006 (SWPBIS): A synthesis of existing research. International Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2012). A randomized effectiveness trial Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(2), 1–10. of brief parent training in primary care settings. Prevention https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1425169 Science, 13(6), 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012 Ogden, T. (2003). The validity of teacher ratings of adoles- .11.006 cents’ social skills. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Kremer, K. P., Flower, A., Huang, J., & Vaughn, M. G. (2016). Research, 47, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313833032 Behavior problems and children’s academic achievement: 000033335 Sørlie et al. 11 Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. A. (2008). Treatment effectiveness of parents and children in the home setting: Results from a ran- Parent Management Training in Norway: A randomized con- domized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 51(6), trolled trial of children with conduct problems. Journal of 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.09.003 Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 607–621. https://doi. Sheridan, S. M., & Wheeler, L. A. (2017). Building strong fam- org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.607 ily–school partnerships: Transitioning from basic findings Oregon Health Authority. (2020). Oregon healthy teens survey. to possible practices. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Applied Family Studies, 66(4), 670683. https://doi. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2–21. https:// org/10.1111/fare.12271 www.jstor.org/stable/2136319 Smith, T. E., Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Park, S., & Beretvas, Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. S. N. (2019). The effects of school family partnership inter- Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85–112. https://doi. ventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: A org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002 meta-analysis exploring what works for whom? Educational Piquero, A. R., Carriga, M. L., Diamond, B., Kazemian, L., & Psychology Review, 32, 511–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Farringgton, D. P. (2012). Stability in aggression revisited. s10648-019-09509-w Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 365–372. https://doi. Solholm, R., Kjøbli, J., & Christiansen, T. (2013). Early initiatives org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.04.001 for children at risk. Development of a program for the preven- Sørlie, M.-A., Idsoe, T., Ogden, T., Olseth, A. R., & Torsheim, tion and treatment of behavior problems in primary services. T. (2018). Behavioral trajectories during middle childhood: Prevention Science, 14(6), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Differential effects of the School-Wide Positive Behavior s11121-012-0334-x Support model. Prevention Science, 19, 1055–1065. https:// Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., & Politylo, B. C. (2012). The effect doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0938-x of performance feedback on teachers’ treatment integrity: A Sørlie, M.-A., & Ogden, T. (2014). Reducing threats to valid- meta-analysis of the single-case literature. School Psychology ity by design in a non-randomized experiment of a school- Review, 41(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.20 wide intervention model. International Journal of School & 12.12087518 Educational Psychology, 2, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080 Sprague, J. R., & Walker, H. M. (2005). Safe and healthy schools: /21683603.2014.881309 Practical prevention strategies. Guilford Press. Sørlie, M.-A., & Ogden, T. (2015). School-Wide Positive Behavior Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2009). Effective behavior Support–Norway. Impacts on problem behavior and class- support (EBS) self-assessment survey (Version 3). Educational room climate. International Journal of School & Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. https:// Psychology, 3, 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2 www.pbisapps.org/Applications/Pages/PBIS-Assessment- 015.1060912 Surveys.aspx#sas Sørlie, M.-A., Ogden, T., & Olseth, A. R. (2015). Preventing Valentine, J. C., Leach, S. M., Fowler, A. P., Stojda, D. K., & problem behavior in school through school-wide staff Macdonald, G. (2019). Families and Schools Together empowerment: Intervention outcomes. World Journal of (FAST) for improving outcomes for children and their fami- Educational Research, 2, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.22158/ lies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, 7(7), wjer.v2n2p117 CD012760. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012760.pub2 Sørlie, M.-A., Ogden, T., & Olseth, A. R. (2016). Examining Weist, M. D., Garbacz, S. A., Lane, K. L. & Kincaid, D. (Eds.). teacher outcomes of the School-Wide Positive Behavior (2017). Aligning and integrating family engagement in Support Model in Norway: Perceived efficacy and behavior Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): management. Sage Open, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177 Concepts and strategies for families and schools in key /2158244016651914 contexts. Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Schreck, C. J., & Hirschi, T. (2009). Social control theory. In J. M. Supports, University of Oregon Press. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions (Vol. 1, pp. 305–311). Sage. for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta- Sheridan, S. M., Ryoo, J. H., Garbacz, S. A., Kunz, G. M., & Chumney, analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2), F. L. (2013). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation on 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions SAGE

Are There Generalization Effects to the Home Context From the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) Model?

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading...

Page 2

Loading...

Page 3

Loading...

Page 4

Loading...

Page 5

Loading...

Page 6

Loading...

Page 7

Loading...

Page 8

Loading...

Page 9

Loading...

Page 10

Loading...

Page 11

 
/lp/sage/are-there-generalization-effects-to-the-home-context-from-the-school-gUUQU80CLC

References (100)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2025
ISSN
1098-3007
eISSN
1538-4772
DOI
10.1177/10983007241312421
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The current study is the first to examine whether the positive effects of the School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) model, previously documented as effective in the school context, may generalize to the home context. Potential benefits for children and parents were investigated longitudinally. A randomly selected subsample of Norwegian students drawn from a larger dataset and considered at respectively low, moderate, and high risk of developing conduct problems was rated by their parents at five time points across four successive school years. Only the fourth graders were included in the analyses to follow a stable group of students over time. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. The outcome variables examined were parent-rated problem behavior and social skills, monitoring, mental health, support to the child’s schooling, and school–home cooperation. The analyses revealed no significant benefits of SWPBIS in the home context, neither for the children nor the parents. Likewise, no differential effects for low-, moderate-, and high- risk groups were detected. To increase the odds of cross-domain effects of the SWPBIS model, the inclusion of additional intervention components to better inform, include, and support parents should be considered, particularly for parents of students with more severe behavior problems. Keywords SWPBIS, home-based intervention effects, problem behavior, high-risk students Research strongly suggests that universal school-wide pre- examined, neither in the Norwegian effectiveness studies vention approaches significantly reduce children’s conduct nor in other SWPBIS studies. It is therefore unclear if the problems and aggressive behavior (Bradshaw et al., 2010, parents experience child behavioral improvements or other 2012; Durlak et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2018). Among the benefits from the school intervention. In most school-based most successful interventions is the School-Wide Positive intervention studies, teachers and students are the primary Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) model. informants. Parent assessments are seldom included to Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Chitiyo identify potential child behavioral changes at home or et al., 2012; Horner et al., 2010; Lee & Gage, 2020; changes in the parent’s situation. In the current study, we Noltemeyer et al., 2018; Solomon et al., 2012) conclude attempt to fill some of these knowledge gaps by examining that SWPBIS is a highly promising intervention model for if the SWPBIS model, as implemented in Norway, had any the prevention of externalizing behavior problems among effect on parental reports of the family situation. students, for improving the learning/classroom climate, and for improving safety in elementary and middle schools. The SWPBIS model (called PALS in Norway) has also 1 The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Development, Oslo, Norway been evaluated in several longitudinal effectiveness studies, University of Bergen, Norway with encouraging outcomes for students, teachers, and Corresponding Author: schools (e.g., Borgen et al., 2021; Sørlie et al., 2016, 2018; Mari-Anne Sørlie, The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Sørlie & Ogden, 2015). Positive effects have also been reg- Development, P.O. Box 7053 Majorstuen, 0306 Oslo, Norway. Email: mari.sorlie@nubu.no istered for an abbreviated version of the model (Sørlie et al., 2015). However, to the best of our knowledge, generaliz- Action Editor: ability effects to the home environment have not been Grace Gengoux 2 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) either student behavior or parent behavior at home. The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Model Descriptions of the model contain little information about The SWPBIS model is a broadly implemented intervention the goals, the specific content, and guidelines for school– worldwide, which aims to prevent moderate and serious stu- home cooperation. Still, according to the Norwegian hand- dent behavior problems (Michael et al., 2023). The main book, parents should be fully informed about the schools’ intention of the model is to replace reactive and punishment- plan to implement the model, and their participation in the oriented disciplinary approaches with one that promotes posi- school’s implementation or leader team is recommended tive behavior support. The model was developed in the United (Arnesen & Meek-Hansen, 2010). Moreover, general rec- States and Norway was the first European country to follow ommendations are made for extended school–home contact suit. Only surface changes were made to match the model and collaboration when students require additional help and to the Norwegian cultural and linguistic context (Sørlie & support. Although not included among the core compo- Ogden, 2015). The model is a multitiered, structured, yet flex- nents, teachers are encouraged to make home visits, and ible, approach to promote a safe and inclusive learning envi- parents are asked to encourage their children to attend ronment and to prevent and reduce antisocial behavior in school, get to school on time, pay attention in lessons, and students (Sprague & Walker, 2005). Social skills are added to behave positively. The recommendations emphasize the the behavioral expectations taught (Gresham et al., 2001). The importance of good school–home relationships, but there core intervention components are similar in the American and are few indications that this collaboration receives much the Norwegian versions and include (a) positive relationships, attention. In the United States, efforts have been made to (b) school-wide expectations as a few positively formulated help schools integrate research-supported family engage- rules and prosocial skills, (c) positive directions and instruc- ment strategies more systematically into the tiered support tion, and (d) positive behavior support including encourage- system to get away from the often random and event-based ment, recognition, and positive involvement. strategies used in many schools (Garbacz et al., 2018; Weist The intervention model consists of three tiers of preven- et al., 2017). tion and intervention: a universal, selected, and indicated To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the extent tier. All interventions should be evidence-based and to which the recommendations related to family engage- matched to the students’ needs. The universal Tier 1 inter- ment are implemented in practice. Neither did our review of ventions apply to all students in all school arenas, while the literature uncover any prior attempts to evaluate the selected interventions at Tier 2 are intended for the 10–15% potential crossover effects of the SWPBIS model to the of the students who do not benefit sufficiently from the uni- home context nor any parent assessments of change. In this versal interventions. The indicated interventions at Tier 3 study, we thus aimed to investigate if there are any signifi- are intended for the few students (1–4%) at high risk of con- cant generalization effects of the SWPBIS model from duct disorder. Based on individual needs and risk assess- school to home in Norway, and by that, contribute with ment, they are offered individually tailored and intensive research-based knowledge on how this school-wide preven- interventions. The selected level has the same objectives as tion model might influence the parents’ situation and chil- the universal but offers intensive small-group teaching for dren’s behavior at home. limited periods. The school model further relies on a team- structured organization and implementation, and each School-Based and Home-Based Interventions school appoints a team of five to six representatives, includ- and Generalizability of Outcomes ing parents and the principal, to make plans, train their colleagues in essential features of the intervention model Some children act out both at school and at home, but and implementation structure, and routinely report on the most structured intervention programs for the prevention outcomes and implementation fidelity at their school. To and reduction of child conduct problems are carried out monitor the quality of the implementation (fidelity), the either at school or at home. They address parent and “Effective Behavior Support Self-Assessment Survey” teacher assessments separately and most school-based (Sugai et al., 2009) or other fidelity measures should annu- programs only report on teacher and/or student assess- ally be completed by the teachers or implementation team. ments. For example, Wilson and Lipsey (2007) reported After completion, each school gets its their fidelity results that 70% of the school-based studies assessing aggressive/ in the form of easily understandable graphs. disruptive behavior outcomes used teacher or self-report data, while only 2% used parent-reported data. To get an update on the situation, we searched for home-based and/ The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support or school-based intervention studies published after 2010 Model and Parents targeting children with conduct problems in which both In Norway, the SWPBIS model is implemented in the parents and teachers were used as informants in the out- school setting with no pronounced intentions of changing come analyses. Sørlie et al. 3 School-Based Interventions. The Families And School in a meta-analysis of 77 intervention studies (Smith et al., Together (FAST) is a multifamily, after-school program, 2019). All studies examined outcome effects on child prob- mainly implemented in the school context for families lem behavior both at home and at school. Although the having children with multiple risk factors (i.e., high-risk meta-analysis concluded that the FSP program often samples). According to a Cochrane systematic review, no resulted in improved student outcomes, none of them were generalizing effects from school to home were tested or observed in the home environment. found (Valentine et al., 2019). The Positive Alternative The review of research on school-based interventions THinking Strategies (PATHS) program is a universal social targeting both home and school demonstrated mixed results. competence classroom-based intervention that aims to Some of the programs targeting high-risk children were reduce teacher-and parent-rated externalizing behavior. In effective, while others were not. Most effective among the addition to student activities in and outside the classroom targeted programs were school-based programs containing context, materials for use with parents are included. The components that directly targeted the parents, particularly program has demonstrated cross-domain effects with sig- problem-solving skills, but also components that are often nificant reductions in teacher- and parent-rated aggressive included in parenting programs like social skills, stress behavior among preK and Grades 1-3 students (e.g., Malti management, and emotion regulation. Moreover, two et al., 2011). The Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) universal school programs which included parenting inter- program is a family–school partnership model aiming at vention components demonstrated crossover effects from the promotion of teacher-rated behavioral competence and school to home. decreasing problem behavior in disruptive children (i.e., high-risk samples). In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) Home-Based Interventions. In the search for opposite gener- with 267 children in rural elementary schools, effects on alization effects from home to school, we examined a selec- parent competence in problem-solving were demonstrated tion of RCTs conducted on two parent training programs, for participants in the CBC group relative to the control Parent Management Training, the Oregon model (PMTO; group. However, different from program effects for chil- Askeland et al., 2014) and Early Interventions for Children dren in urban elementary schools (e.g., Sheridan et al., at Risk (EICR; Solholm et al., 2013). In an RCT on PMTO, 2013) nonsignificant effects were found for parent-rated teachers reported a higher level of social competence in the child externalizing and internalizing behaviors (Sheridan intervention group at postassessment compared to the com- & Wheeler, 2017). The school-based Anger Coping Pro- parison group (Ogden & Hagen, 2008) and in the 1-year gram (ACP) is a cognitive-behavioral intervention relevant follow-up study (Hagen et al., 2011). RCTs conducted on for children (from 7 years of age) and adolescents with the EICR program showed no home-to-school generaliza- clinical levels of conduct problems. It targets both children tion effects (Kjøbli et al., 2013; Kjøbli & Ogden, 2012). In in the school context and their parents (Lochman et al., conclusion, except for the crossover effect of social skills, 2021). A comprehensive social-cognitive component aims there were no generalization effects from home to school to teach parents how to interact with their children. Included when parent training programs were examined. are also family communication and problem-solving to maintain positive relationships between parents and chil- Research Questions dren. Impacts both on child aggression (rated by indepen- dent observers and parents) and on maternal depression, In the current study, the transfer of child behavioral changes marital/partner conflict, and parent stress management from school to home was examined, as were benefits for have been examined. Outcome analyses have demonstrated parents after the implementation of the school-wide preven- generalization effects to the home environment for high- tion model SWPBIS. The following research questions risk boys and their parents (e.g., Lochman & Lenhart, were formulated: (a) Are there significant differences in 1993). The Coping Power Universal program is an adapta- problem behavior and social skills at home among students tion of the APC. It is a universal classroom-based program respectively at low, moderate, or high risk of conduct prob- with no parenting components rather than a targeted pro- lems when parent ratings from schools implementing the gram like the ACP (Muratori et al., 2019). The intervention SWPBIS model are compared with parent ratings from con- was tested on 1,030 Italian fourth and fifth graders in 70 trol schools over 4 years and when demographic variables elementary classrooms. The focus on problem-solving and (i.e., student sex, parent education, family finances) are emotional regulation produced changes in the student’s controlled for? (b) Following 4 years of implementation of behavior both in the classroom and at home. The effect the SWPBIS model and controlling for demographic vari- sizes of parent ratings were small, however, compared ables, are there significant group differences in the parents’ to the moderate effect sizes of the teacher ratings. The perceived mental health, monitoring, school support of the Family–School Partnership (FSP) program was evaluated child, and school–home collaboration? 4 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) years. Most had completed at least 3 years (41.9%) or 1 or Method 2 years (10.7%) at university or college. Only 6% reported Participants primary school as their highest education, while 19.5% and 21.9% respectively stated that 1–2 and 3 years at high The current study is based on repeated parental question- school were their highest educational level. As concerns the naire data derived from a longitudinal multicohort effec- family economy, 1% reported that they often or every month tiveness study of the SWPBIS model in Norway. A stratified, could not afford food, medicines (1%), insurance (2.5%), matched, and randomly invited sample of 65 ordinary pri- furniture or household articles (6.3%), or paying for recre- mary schools participated in the study among which 28 ational activities or pleasures (5.9%). schools implemented the full SWPBIS model while 18 There were mostly small (1-1.7%) differences between schools implemented an abbreviated version (Preventing the subsample and the total sample, except that there were Problem Behavior in School), and 20 schools maintained 3.8% more boys and 4.1% more students referred to child “Practices as Usual” (PAU; for details of design and recruit- welfare or mental health services in the total sample. In ment procedure, see Sørlie and Ogden [2014]). The first addition, the main part of parents in the subsample were assessment (T1, baseline) was conducted at the beginning somewhat younger than in the total sample (7.9% more of a new school year and close to the initiation of the parents were 31–40 years old, and 6.4% fever were 41–50 SWPBIS model. The remaining assessments were carried years old). out at the end of the following school years (T2-T5). Due to a lack of resources, only parent ratings from a part of the Procedures sample were possible to collect. Accordingly, based on the students’ T1 mean scores on the Teacher Report Form (TRF, The parents were informed about the study and received a Achenbach, 1991) externalization scale and Norwegian letter of consent written in Norwegian or in one of the four TRF norms (Larsson & Drugli, 2011; Lurie, 2006), we first most frequently spoken foreign languages, English, Urdu, divided all students into three risk groups (high, moderate, Somali, and Bosnian. The consent was signed and returned low). Next, a subgroup of 30% was randomly drawn, and via the school. The parents who consented to participate their parents were asked to complete a questionnaire annu- in the study then completed a questionnaire which was ally. The “select cases by random sample of cases” method returned at each assessment point via the Internet or the in SPSS was used to randomly select students. The sub- schools. To standardize the assessment procedure, written group included 10% of all students considered at low risk of instructions were given. Every year, the contributing par- severe conduct problems (i.e., TRF Ext <4.99), 10% con- ents participated in a raffle for five gift cards worth 2,000 sidered at moderate risk (TRF Ext between 5.0 and 10.99), Norwegian Krone. and 10% considered at high risk (TRF Ext >11.0). The selection procedure implied an oversampling of the number Measures of students in the high-risk group compared to the number of students in the moderate- and low-risk groups. The Problem Behavior. The primary outcome variable in the cur- oversampling was done to gain statistical power to detect rent study was parent ratings of the children’s behavior at significant cross-contextual outcome differences. To enable home, which was assessed with a Norwegian translation of tracking of a stable group of students, the current analyses the 17-item Problem Behavior scale (Cronbach’s ɑ = .88, were limited to the fourth graders (age 9 years) of the 30% max–min score = 68–17) of the Social Skills Rating Sys- subsample (n = 594 of total n = 2,138). These students tem (SSRS, Gresham & Elliott, 1990). The parents rated were followed through seventh grade (age 12 years). how often the child showed problem behaviors on a four- At T1, the analytical sample consisted of 219 low-risk point scale (1 = Seldom/never, 4 = Very often). SSRS mea- students (36.8%), 178 moderate-risk students (30%), and sures three subdimensions of problem behavior with six 196 high-risk students (33%). They received either PAU items each: externalizing (Cronbach’s ɑ = .80), internaliz- (n = 160, 26.9%), the full (n = 252, 42.4%), or the abbre- ing (ɑ = .73), and hyperactivity (ɑ = .83). Only the total viated SWPBIS model (n = 182, 30.6%). Out of these, scores were used in the analyses. Item examples: “Acts sad 345 were boys (58.1%) and most (n = 545, 91.7%) or depressed,” “Argues/quarrels with others,” and “Doesn’t had Norwegian as their first language. Moreover, 25% follow rules or instructions.” (n = 149) received ongoing special education, 17.5% had Social Skills. The children’s social skills were measured with been referred to the school educational services, and 10.6% a Norwegian translation of the 38-item parent version (ɑ = had been referred to the child welfare or mental health .94, max–min score = 152–38) of SSRS (Gresham & services. Elliott, 1990; Ogden, 2003). The parents rated how often Most parents were between 31 and 40 years of age the children engaged in positive social behaviors (1 = (60.5%) or between 41 and 50 years (35.1%), while only Seldom/never, 4 = Very often). The SSRS parent version 2.8% and 1.2% were either younger than 30 or older than 50 Sørlie et al. 5 taps four social skills dimensions (10 items each): coopera- Analytic Approach tion, assertion, self-control, and responsibility. The sum Data were analyzed using linear mixed models as imple- scores only were used in the analyses. Item examples: “Vol- mented in the SPSS Mixed module. As a default model, a unteers to help family members with household tasks” and random intercept of students across repeated measures was “Speaks in an appropriate tone of voice at home.” specified. As T1 was used for the classification of risk groups, only T2–T5 measurements for the dependent vari- Mental Health. Parent’s self-ratings of symptoms of ables were included in the outcome analyses. To isolate depression and anxiety were assessed by an 11-item scale main and interactive effects, independent fixed variables (ɑ = .90) derived from the Hopkins Symptom Check List were entered block-wise. Intervention effects would be (HSLC-25; Derogatis et al., 1974; max–min score = 44– demonstrated if two-way intervention group by time inter- 11). Item examples: “Constantly afraid or anxious” and action terms were statistically significant. Moderation of “Easily angry/furious (temper outbursts).” Rating scale: intervention effects by risk group would be indicated by 1 = Not bothered, 4 = Very bothered. significant three-way interactions, controlling for main effects and relevant two-way interactions. Effects were Monitoring. The parents’ knowledge of the child’s where- adjusted for the T1 covariates parent education, family abouts, who they were with, and what they were doing economy, and student sex and tested using Satterthwaite during their spare time was assessed with an eight-item F-tests, with corrected degrees of freedom. Bonferonni cor- scale (α =. 82, max–min score = 32–8) from the Oregon rection was used to control for family-wise error rates Healthy Teen Survey (Oregon Health Authority, 2020). across outcomes. As there were six outcomes, the nominal Item examples: “The child tells me openly and voluntarily p-value was set to p < .00833. The categorical independent about everything he/she is doing during leisure time” and variables risk group and intervention group and their inter- “I almost always know where my child is when not at actions were tested through simple contrasts against a refer- home.” Rating scale: 1 = Fits very well, 4 = Does not fit. ence category. For the risk group variable, low and medium risk was compared to the high-risk category. For the inter- School Support. The parents’ support for their child’s school vention group variable, the PAU and abbreviated condition efforts was assessed with an eight-item parental assessment were used as references. Two- and three-way interaction scale (α =. 85, max–min score = 32–8) from the Oregon terms were specified through product terms of included Healthy Teen Survey (Oregon Health Authority, 2020). main variables. Time was treated as a continuous variable Item examples: “I have daily conversations with the child and tested for linear effects. Differential effects of time about what is going on at school” and “I often encourage the were tested through the product term of simple contrasts child to do well in school, but without demands.” Rating and time, centered on T1. scale: 1 = Fits very poorly, 4= Fits very well. As students came from different schools, potential ran- dom school-level effects (RSE) were assessed. In line with School–Home Cooperation. The parents’ views on and expe- numerous other studies, we used the intraclass correlation riences with the school–home collaborations were mea- (ICC) to guide modeling decisions about random effects. As sured with 17 items using a 4-point rating scale (1 = Fits a simple rule of thumb, a strong ICC of the school would very poorly, 4= Fits very well). The scale was developed for support the inclusion of an RSE, at least to avoid biased this study (ɑ = .91, max–min score = 68–17). Item exam- standard errors. In contrast, an ICC close to zero would be ples: “I have good contact with the child’s main teacher,” an argument for excluding RSE from the random part of the “I am frequently informed of the child’s educational plan analysis. Although the ICC provides a useful heuristic for (curriculum),” and “I feel that the teachers are interested in making decisions about the inclusion of random effects, my suggestions and take my suggestions into account.” some note the need to also consider other sources of infor- mation. The impact of any given ICC varies as a function of Covariates. Covariates included in the analyses were student cluster size (Huang, 2018; Peugh, 2010) and type of research sex (girl, boy), parent self-reports on the family economic question (Nezlek, 2008). It follows from the design effect status, and education. Only the baseline scores of the covari- (DEFF) formula (e.g., Peugh, 2010): DEFF = 1 + (nc − 1) ates were used in the analyses. The perceived family econ- × ICC, that the impact of sample clustering (schools) on omy was assessed with six items (ɑ = .85) from the Household sampling variance (DEFF) is a function of ICC and cluster Economics scale developed by Pearlin and Schooler (1978). size. A small ICC could give rise to a strong DEFF if the Parent education was measured by the responding parent average cluster size is big (Huang, 2018). ticking off her/his highest completed education (1 = No or All models were tested with RSE (three-level model: limited schooling, 6 = Minimum 3 years college or univer- school–student–time) and without RSE (two-level model: sity education). student–time). The ICC of schools ranged between 0% for 6 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Parent-Rated Outcome Variables Across Assessments (n T1 = 594). Problem School-home Time Social skills behavior Mental health Monitoring School support cooperation T1 109.05 (14.73) 26.85 (5.98) 14.52 (4.16) 28.17 (2.99) 28.14 (3.31) 52.25 (8.13) T2 110.23 (14.56) 26.23 (5.70) 14.30 (3.94) 28.09 (3.10) 28.08 (3.20) 51.71 (8.08) T3 112.04 (15.59) 25.50 (5.94) 13.92 (3.55) 28.29 (2.92) 28.37 (3.55) 51.84 (8.21) T4 111.93 (14.51) 25.15 (6.14) 13.78 (3.19) 28.16 (3.07) 28.27 (3.16) 53.15 (9.01) T5 112.43 (15.92) 24.28 (5.33) 13.80 (3.30) 27.77 (3.19) 28.32 (3.47) 51.52 (8.63) the school support and social skills variables and 6.6% for the Main Effects of Time home-school cooperation variable. Under the current average Statistically significant main effects of linear time were cluster size, the school-level ICC represented a DEFF rang- observed for problem behavior at home only, F(1, 636.60) ing between 1.00 and 1.53 across outcomes. The ICC and = 1.36, p = .0000000032. The findings indicate that inde- DEFF indicated that the two-level model without RSE was pendent of being in the intervention groups or the control an acceptable model specification in the present study. group, the children’s problem behavior in the home setting decreased over time. For social skills, mental health, paren- Results tal monitoring, school-home cooperation, and parental school support, there were no significant main effects of The presentation of results follows a logical order. Initially, linear time across the four school years. A test of deviation means and standard deviations (raw scores) for each out- from linearity at two degrees of freedom was statistically come variable across time points are shown in Table 1. We significant for school-home collaboration but not for the then present the main effects of time, risk group, and sex. other five outcomes. Next, we present the interactive effects with an emphasis on intervention effects, particularly for groups considered at low, moderate, and high risk of conduct problems. Main Effects of Risk Group According to Table 1, the mean values and dispersion of Higher risk was associated with more problem behaviors, the parent-rated variables were either stable or showed a lower social skills, and less positive school-home coopera- marginal positive change across the school years. From tion. Statistically significant main effects of risk group were fourth through seventh grade, the social skills scores slightly observed for problem behavior at home, F(2, 404.34) = increased while the ratings of problem behavior in the home 22.48, p = .000000000055, social skills, F(2, 401.31) = setting decreased. Despite the oversampling of students 13.96, p = .00000014, and school–home cooperation, F(2, frequently showing problem behaviors in the school 409.96) = 7.25, p = .000803881. For parental mental setting, the parents generally seemed to rate the children’s health, monitoring, and school support, there were no main problem behavior in the home settings as relatively low effects of risk group. (M = 24–26 of max-min = 68–17). Across studies and measures, Norwegian children are rated as having fewer problems than in other societies both by teachers and by Main Effects of Sex parents (Jozefiak et al., 2012; Larsson & Drugli, 2011). The parents’ ratings of their mental health (anxiety and depres- According to the parents, there were no statistically signifi- sion) were also in the lower range, while the self-ratings of cant main effects of sex, which indicate that boys and girls their monitoring, support for their child’s school efforts, and did not differ in their social and behavioral development collaboration with the school were in the higher range. In over time. Likewise, being a parent to a boy or a girl did not other words, the parents seemed to have a rather positive seem to affect the parent ratings of their monitoring skills, and stable perception of their children’s functioning as well ability to support the child’s schooling, or their evaluation as of their parental role. of the school-home cooperation. Analysis of main and interactive longitudinal effects was conducted for each dependent variable (for details, see Intervention Group by Time Interaction Online Supplemental Material Tables 2–7). The key find- ings are summarized in the following text. Information on Group-by-time interaction effects were statistically nonsig- the omnibus F-test for each independent variable is given. nificant for all outcomes, suggesting no evidence for inter- For further details about the specific contrasts, see the vention effects in the home setting across the period (i.e., Online Supplemental Material tables. neither for parental mental health, problem behavior, social Sørlie et al. 7 Figure 1. Differential Development Over Time Across Risk Groups and Outcome Variables Note. C_InSCL = self-rated parent mental health; C_InSSR = parent-rated child social skills; C_InSSRP = parent-rated child problem behavior; C_ InmonP = self-rated parent monitoring; C_Inshom = parent-rated school–home cooperation; C_Insup = self-rated parental school support. skills, school support, and school collaboration nor for skills, F(2, 394.06) = 5 .41, p = .0048, indicating that the monitoring). impact of risk group on social skills was stronger for boys than for girls. For the other outcomes, there was no signifi- cant interaction effects of sex. Moderation of Intervention Effects by Risk To visualize differential development across risk groups, Group scores for each dependent variable were centered on the T1 Likewise, we found no statistically significant three-way grand mean score and standardized to the T1 standard devi- intervention-by-time-by-risk group interaction effects, sug- ation as shown in Figure 1. It was evident that the risk gesting that there were no clear differences in the three risk groups had similar trajectories across time, as indicated by groups’ (low, moderate, high) benefits of the SWPBIS the overlapping confidence intervals. The most striking model in the home context. aspect of Figure 1 is that the risk groups differed in their general outcome levels. Over time, the low-risk group maintained a lower level of problem behaviors and a higher Other Interactions level of social skills. The medium- and high-risk groups did For risk group-by-time, significant interactions were not differ much. Except for problem behaviors at home, the observed for problem behavior at home, F(2, 627.74) = differences between the groups over time were rather sta- 4.92, p = .007557297, but not for the other outcomes. This ble. The trajectories were in general linear, but with a few implies that the low-risk group showed a steady decline random deviations from linearity on single time points. in problem behaviors over the school years, whereas the moderate- and high-risk groups changed less. To assess Discussion subgroup consistency, a saturated interaction including sex- by-time and sex-by-risk group was estimated. Risk group- The present study examined whether the previously docu- by-sex interactions were observed for parent-rated social mented positive behavioral changes among students in 8 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) schools implementing the SWPBIS model (Chitiyo et al., 4-year study period. Moreover, the study results revealed no 2012; Lee & Gage, 2020; Noltemeyer et al., 2018; Sørlie significant sex differences in how boys and girls developed et al., 2016; Sørlie & Ogden, 2015) may generalize to the over time on any of the parent-rated outcome variables. The home setting. We also examined whether parents may ben- impact of risk group on social skills was, however, stronger efit from SWPBIS. Potential intervention effects in the for boys than for girls. The low-risk group’s problem behav- home setting were investigated over a 4-year period in a ior decreased more over the school years, compared to the randomly selected sample (n = 594) of students (fourth moderate- and high-risk groups which changed less. Several through seventh grade) considered at various levels of risk. studies, including twin studies, have found that externaliz- No significant differences were detected between students ing problem behavior in typically developing children and in the intervention group attending SWPBIS schools and youths shows strong stability over time, from childhood to students in the control schools maintaining PAU. This early adulthood—for boys as well as for girls (e.g., Flouri should come as no surprise as the raw scores on both the et al., 2019; Hatoum et al., 2018). The decrease demon- primary and the secondary outcome variables were quite strated in this study may be due to the increased social pres- stable over time and leaning to the positive side rather than sure children are exposed to when they misbehave, for to the negative side. Evidently, there was little room for instance from parents, relatives, and friends. According to improvement in any of the groups. Parent ratings of social social control theory, children who bond to family, friends, skills, monitoring, school support, and school-home col- or school are more susceptible to the environment’s expec- laboration remained in the high positive range, while con- tations and norm pressure, regardless of being exposed to duct and mental health problems, despite low scores at any formal interventions (Schreck & Hirschi, 2009). baseline, were further reduced. These results generally sug- Children who frequently demonstrate disruptive behavior gest that the SWPBIS model had no significant impacts in may experience pressure proportional to the increase in the home setting, neither for students nor for parents. such behavior. They are expected to comply with norms and Likewise, we found no indications of differential interven- values in their family and social network and are usually tion effects in the home setting for students considered at rewarded for doing so. respectively low, moderate, or high risk of conduct prob- The findings from the current study join findings from lems. Accordingly, the previously documented positive other effectiveness studies that have failed to demonstrate effects of SWPBIS on high-risk students’ behavior in the cross-domain effects of school-based or home-based inter- school context (e.g., Borgen et al., 2021; Sørlie et al., 2018) ventions such as the FAST program, the FSP program, and did not seem to generalize to the home context. the PMTO program. The lack of indicative generalization The high-risk group was, however, rated by their parents effects for the SWPBIS model is perhaps disappointing but as being less socially skilled, and the parents experienced not surprising, in that most interventions that have docu- the cooperation with the school as more conflictual and less mented effects both in the school and home setting are, satisfactory than other parents. The high-risk group was unlike the SWPBIS model in Norway, characterized by an also rated across research conditions and time as showing incorporation of specific components, strategies, and mate- more problem behavior in the home setting than students in rials directly aimed at the parents such as the PATHS pro- the moderate- and low-risk groups. Accordingly, the parent gram, CBS program, and ACP. In this context, it should be ratings point in roughly the same direction as previous noted that the SWPBIS model has a school-wide approach teacher ratings; students frequently showing problem and does not have a stated goal of influencing the students’ behavior in school are rated as less socially and academi- behavior outside the school context or entail gains for cally skilled (e.g., Hukkelberg et al., 2019; Kremer et al., parents. In most cases, preventing and reducing problem 2016). Since the risk groups were selected based on teacher behavior in the school setting are perhaps sufficient. ratings, the parent ratings suggest that the high-risk group However, for those students showing externalizing behav- differs from other students in that they strive with multiple ior across contexts, it may seem that SWPBIS is insuffi- problems that are observable both at school and at home. ciently rigged, at least in Norway. In line with recent The results also reflect this finding as parents of children recommendations from researchers including Weist et al. frequently report that externalizing problems are often (2017) and Garbacz et al. (2018), our findings indicate that stressful and concerning. The correlations between teacher the acceptance and effectiveness of the intervention model and parent ratings are usually moderate, in the region of could benefit from a more clear and more specified approach 0.30 (Piquero et al., 2012). The parents’ assessments of the to involve and support parents. risk groups’ functioning may thus give rise to discrepancies To our knowledge, this is the first study examining among teachers and parents. the potential effects of the SWPBIS model in the home Independent of which research condition and risk group context. Other strengths of the study include (a) the use of the students belonged to, the occurrence of problem behav- a randomly selected subsample from a large-scale effec- iors in the home setting significantly decreased over the tiveness study with a sound design, (b) longitudinal data, Sørlie et al. 9 and (c) the use of reliable and widely used instruments. Declaration of Conflicting Interests However, the study may also have been hampered by some The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect weaknesses. Although parents were seen as the most reli- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. able informants of possible changes in the home setting, the validity of the study findings could have benefited from Funding the inclusion of additional student ratings. A second limita- This research was supported by the Norwegian Center for Child tion is that the sample may have been too small to detect Behavioral Development and in part by a grant from the Norwegian minor changes in the home setting. Third, other factors Directorate for Education and Training. The standards of the than those we have accounted for in the analyses may have regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics influenced the results (e.g., fidelity). Fourth, the children’s (REK South-East) and of the Norwegian Social Science Data and parents’ problems as measured in the home setting may Services were followed throughout the conduct of the study. initially have been limited thus leaving little room for change. On this basis, the study results should be inter- ORCID iDs preted with caution. Mari-Anne Sørlie https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-3683 Torbjørn Torsheim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7825-4463 Conclusions and Practical Implications Supplemental Material The results from this study indicate that there are few gen- Supplemental material for this article is available at https://doi. eralization effects from the SWPBIS model to the home org/10.1177/10983007241312421 context. It seems that parents rarely perceive or register any significant changes in their children’s behavior and social References skills following the SWPBIS model. Likewise, they did not Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the teacher’s report form register any significant changes in their mental health, in and 1991 profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of the school–home collaboration, or in their monitoring and Vermont. support of the children’s schooling. Neither were we able to Arnesen, A., & Meek-Hansen, W. (2010). PALS. Håndbok: Modul detect any differential effects of SWPBIS in the home set- 1. Skoleomfattende forebyggende tiltaksnivå [SWPBIS hand- ting for students with varying risk status. However, before book: Module 1. School-wide preventive interventions]. Oslo: firm conclusions of the model’s generalizing effects to the Nasjonalt utviklingssenter for barn og unge. home setting are drawn, the study results should be repli- Askeland, E., Apeland, A. & Solholm, R. (Eds.). (2014). PMTO: cated in future studies. Foreldretrening for familier med barn som har atferdsvan- Outcomes from the current as well as several previous sker [PMTO: Parent training for families with conduct disor- evaluation studies indicate that children with conduct prob- dered children]. Gyldendal Akademisk. Borgen, N. T., Frønes, I., & Raaum, O. (2021). Impact of the lems could benefit from a combination and integration of school environment on medical treatment of attention defi- parenting and school-based intervention components. At cit hyperactivity disorder: A population-wide register data the universal level, the results suggest a need for increased study of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and information and involvement of parents in general preven- Supports. Child Development, 92, 2089–2105. https://doi. tive work. At the selected level, there may be a need for org/10.1111/cdev.13574 extended contact and cooperation between school and Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining home. More frequent contacts and increased communica- the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions tion could be integrated in the model like home visits, and Supports on student outcomes. Results from a randomized report cards, and phone calls. A short-term parenting pro- controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal gram (three to five sessions) could also be delivered by the of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. https://doi. school health services or the municipal child and family org/10.1177/1098300709334798 Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of services (Kjøbli & Ogden, 2012). Finally, at the indicated schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports in level, a full-scale parenting program could be recom- child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130, 1136–1145. https:// mended (Askeland et al., 2014). Parenting programs (e.g., doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0243 PMTO) contain several of the components shown to be Chitiyo, M., May, M. E., & Chitiyo, G. (2012). An assessment effective in previous school–home projects, including rela- of the evidence-base for School-Wide Positive Behavior tionship building, problem-solving, good directions, skills Support. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 1–24. encouragement, monitoring, and self-regulation. This https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0000 intervention could be integrated with relational activities Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & between parents and teachers, in which home and school Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): coordinate their efforts, rather than working in isolation A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Sciences, 19, (Smith et al., 2019). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1159/000395070 10 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 00(0) Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., A test of growth-curve models with gender and racial dif- & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing stu- ferences. Children and Youth Services Review, 67, 95–104. dents’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.003 school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, Larsson, B., & Drugli, M. B. (2011). School competence and 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x emotional/behavioral problems among Norwegian school Flouri, E., Papachristou, E., Midouhas, E., Ploubidis, G. B., children as rated by teachers on the Teacher Report Form. Lewis, G., & Joshi, H. (2019). Developmental cascades of Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(6), 553–559. https:// internalizing symptoms, externalizing problems and cog- doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00889.x nitive ability from early childhood to middle adolescence. Lee, A., & Gage, N. A. (2020). Updating and expanding systematic European Psychiatry, 56, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide posi- eurpsy.2018.12.005 tive behavior interventions and supports. Psychology in the Garbacz, S. A., Hirano, K., McIntosh, K., Eagle, J. W., Minch, Schools, 57(5), 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22336 D., & Vatland, C. (2018). Family engagement in schoolwide Lochman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C. L., Gilplin, A. T., & Powell, N. positive behavioral interventions and supports: Barriers and P. (2021). Cognitive behavioral intervention for aggressive facilitators to implementation. School Psychology Quarterly, children. The Anger Coping and Coping Power programs. In 33(3), 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000216 M. E. Feinberg (Ed.), Designing evidence-based public health Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system and prevention programs (pp. 9–21). Routledge. manual. American Guidance Service. Lochman, J. E., & Lenhart, L. A. (1993). Anger coping interven- Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2001). Interpreting tion for aggressive children: Conceptual models and outcome outcomes of social skills training for students with high- effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(8), 785–805. https:// incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 331–344. doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(05)80006-6 https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029010670030 Lurie, J. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of emotional and behav- Hagen, K. A., Ogden, T., & Bjørnebekk, G. (2011). Treatment out- ioral problems in 6–12-year-old Norwegian school children. comes and mediators of Parent Management Training: A one- Barnevernets utviklingssenter i Midt-Norge. year follow-up of children with conduct problems. Journal of Malti, T., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. P. (2011). The effective- Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 1–14. https:// ness of two universal preventive interventions in reducing doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.546050 children’s externalizing behavior: A cluster randomized trial. Hatoum, A. S., Rhee, S. H., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., & Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), Friedman, N. P. (2018). Etiology of stability and growth of 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.597084 internalizing and externalizing behavior problems across Michael, D., Goutas, T., Tsigilis, N., Michaelidou, V., Gregoriades, childhood and adolescence. Behavior Genetics, 48(4), 298– A., Charalambous, V., & Vrasidias, C. (2023). Effects of the 314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9900-8 universal positive behavioral interventions and supports on Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining collective teacher efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 1(3), the evidence base for School-Wide Positive Behavior 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22919 Support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1–14. https:// Mitchell, B. S., Hatton, H., & Lewis, T. J. (2018). An examina- doi.org/10.17161/fec.v42i8.6906 tion of the evidence-base of schoolwide positive behavior Huang, F. L. (2018). Multilevel modeling myths. School Psycho- interventions and supports through two quality appraisal logy Quarterly, 33(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq processes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(4), 0000272 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718768217 Hukkelberg, S., Keles, S., Ogden, T., & Hammerstrøm, K. (2019). Muratori, P., Bertacchi, I., Masi, G., Milone, A., Nocentini, A., The relation between behavioral problems and social compe- Powell, N. P., Lochman, J. E., Jones, S., Kassin, F., & Romero, tence: A correlational meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), D. (2019). Effects of a universal prevention program on exter- Article 354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2343-9 nalizing behaviors: Exploring the generalizability of findings Jozefiak, T., Larsson, B., Wichstrøm, L., & Rimehaug, T. across school and home settings. Journal of School Psychology, (2012). Competence and emotional/behavioural problems in 77, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.09.002 7-16-year-old Norwegian school children as reported by par- Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for ents. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 66(5), 311–319. https:// social and personality psychology. Social and Personality doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2011.638934 Psychology Compass, 2(2), 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Kjøbli, J., Hukkelberg, S., & Ogden, T. (2013). A randomized trial j.1751-9004.2007.00059.x of group parent training: Reducing child conduct problems in Noltemeyer, A., Palmer, K., James, A. G., & Wiechman, S. (2018). real-world settings. Behavior Research and Therapy, 51(3), School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.11.006 (SWPBIS): A synthesis of existing research. International Kjøbli, J., & Ogden, T. (2012). A randomized effectiveness trial Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(2), 1–10. of brief parent training in primary care settings. Prevention https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2018.1425169 Science, 13(6), 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012 Ogden, T. (2003). The validity of teacher ratings of adoles- .11.006 cents’ social skills. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Kremer, K. P., Flower, A., Huang, J., & Vaughn, M. G. (2016). Research, 47, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313833032 Behavior problems and children’s academic achievement: 000033335 Sørlie et al. 11 Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. A. (2008). Treatment effectiveness of parents and children in the home setting: Results from a ran- Parent Management Training in Norway: A randomized con- domized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 51(6), trolled trial of children with conduct problems. Journal of 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.09.003 Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 607–621. https://doi. Sheridan, S. M., & Wheeler, L. A. (2017). Building strong fam- org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.4.607 ily–school partnerships: Transitioning from basic findings Oregon Health Authority. (2020). Oregon healthy teens survey. to possible practices. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Applied Family Studies, 66(4), 670683. https://doi. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2–21. https:// org/10.1111/fare.12271 www.jstor.org/stable/2136319 Smith, T. E., Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Park, S., & Beretvas, Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. S. N. (2019). The effects of school family partnership inter- Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85–112. https://doi. ventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: A org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002 meta-analysis exploring what works for whom? Educational Piquero, A. R., Carriga, M. L., Diamond, B., Kazemian, L., & Psychology Review, 32, 511–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Farringgton, D. P. (2012). Stability in aggression revisited. s10648-019-09509-w Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 365–372. https://doi. Solholm, R., Kjøbli, J., & Christiansen, T. (2013). Early initiatives org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.04.001 for children at risk. Development of a program for the preven- Sørlie, M.-A., Idsoe, T., Ogden, T., Olseth, A. R., & Torsheim, tion and treatment of behavior problems in primary services. T. (2018). Behavioral trajectories during middle childhood: Prevention Science, 14(6), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Differential effects of the School-Wide Positive Behavior s11121-012-0334-x Support model. Prevention Science, 19, 1055–1065. https:// Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., & Politylo, B. C. (2012). The effect doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0938-x of performance feedback on teachers’ treatment integrity: A Sørlie, M.-A., & Ogden, T. (2014). Reducing threats to valid- meta-analysis of the single-case literature. School Psychology ity by design in a non-randomized experiment of a school- Review, 41(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.20 wide intervention model. International Journal of School & 12.12087518 Educational Psychology, 2, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080 Sprague, J. R., & Walker, H. M. (2005). Safe and healthy schools: /21683603.2014.881309 Practical prevention strategies. Guilford Press. Sørlie, M.-A., & Ogden, T. (2015). School-Wide Positive Behavior Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. (2009). Effective behavior Support–Norway. Impacts on problem behavior and class- support (EBS) self-assessment survey (Version 3). Educational room climate. International Journal of School & Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. https:// Psychology, 3, 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2 www.pbisapps.org/Applications/Pages/PBIS-Assessment- 015.1060912 Surveys.aspx#sas Sørlie, M.-A., Ogden, T., & Olseth, A. R. (2015). Preventing Valentine, J. C., Leach, S. M., Fowler, A. P., Stojda, D. K., & problem behavior in school through school-wide staff Macdonald, G. (2019). Families and Schools Together empowerment: Intervention outcomes. World Journal of (FAST) for improving outcomes for children and their fami- Educational Research, 2, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.22158/ lies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, 7(7), wjer.v2n2p117 CD012760. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012760.pub2 Sørlie, M.-A., Ogden, T., & Olseth, A. R. (2016). Examining Weist, M. D., Garbacz, S. A., Lane, K. L. & Kincaid, D. (Eds.). teacher outcomes of the School-Wide Positive Behavior (2017). Aligning and integrating family engagement in Support Model in Norway: Perceived efficacy and behavior Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): management. Sage Open, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177 Concepts and strategies for families and schools in key /2158244016651914 contexts. Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Schreck, C. J., & Hirschi, T. (2009). Social control theory. In J. M. Supports, University of Oregon Press. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions (Vol. 1, pp. 305–311). Sage. for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta- Sheridan, S. M., Ryoo, J. H., Garbacz, S. A., Kunz, G. M., & Chumney, analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2), F. L. (2013). The efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation on 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011

Journal

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions – SAGE

Published: Jan 1, 2025

Keywords: SWPBIS; home-based intervention effects; problem behavior; high-risk students

There are no references for this article.