BULLY PREVENTION IN POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
by
SCOTT W. ROSS
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Special Education
and Clinical Sciences
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
June 2009
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Scott Ross
Title:
"Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
by:
Robert Horner, Co-Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Kenneth Merrell, Co-Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Jeffrey Sprague, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Bruce Stiller, Member, Not from U of 0
Lou Moses, Outside Member, Psychology
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
June 13, 2009
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
© 2008 Scott vV. Ross
111
IV
Doctor of Philosophy
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Scott W. Ross for the degree of
in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
to be taken
Title: BULLY PREVENTION IN POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
June 2009
Approved: _
Dr. Kenneth Merrell, Co-Chair
Approved: _
Dr. Robert Homer, Co-Chair
Bullying behaviors are a growing concern in U.S. schools, and are documented to
have detrimental effects for victims, perpetrators, and bystanders. Most interventions
focused on bully prevention either have limited empirical support, or focus primarily on
the behavior of the bully. We present here an alternative approach to bully prevention
based on the growing recognition that interventions should be function-based. Bully
Prevention in Positive Behavior Support (BP-PBS) gives students the tools necessary to
remove the social rewards maintaining bullying behavior through a strong link to school-
wide positive behavior support, a discrimination between "being respectful" versus "not
being respectful" in unstructured settings, and the explicit teaching of a simple, school-
vwide response to bullying effective for victims, bystanders, and perpetrators of bullying.
This is coupled with an efficient strategy for school staff to use when dealing with reports
of bullying including a sequence of questioning and practice. A single-subject, multiple-
baseline design across six students and three elementary schools was implemented in an
empirical evaluation of the effectiveness ofBP-PBS. Results indicated that
implementation of the program not only significantly decreased incidents of bullying
behavior for all six students observed, but also increased the likelihood of appropriate
victim responses and bystander responses, indicating a substantial decrease in the social
rewards that served to maintain bullying behavior. In addition, through a pre-post survey,
students also reported improved perceptions of the bullying and safety at their schools.
Finally, school staff members were able to implement the program with a high degree of
fidelity and regarded the program as effective and easy to implement. These findings
have major implications for the design and support of effective social culture in schools.
Limitations of the research and future efforts are suggested to encourage the field in a
new direction with bully prevention efforts, away from overly complicated definitions
and interventions, toward a school-wide approach including specific strategies and a
reconceptualization of the bullying construct.
CURRlCULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Scott W. Ross
PLACE OF BIRTH: Los Altos, California
DATE OF BIRTH: March 21, 1979
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
University of California at Santa Cruz
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy, School Psychology, 2009, University of Oregon
Master of Science, Special Education, 2007, University of Oregon
Bachelor of Arts, Psychology, 2002, University of California at Santa Cruz
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Positive Behavior Support in Schools
VI
Vll
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Lead Researcher, Educational and Community Supports, Eugene, Oregon 2005-
2007
Research Assistant, Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon, 2007-2008
Consultant/Data Collector, Educational and Community Supports, Eugene,
Oregon, 2005-2008
Research Counselor, New York State University at Buffalo, New York, 2003
Research Assistant, University of California at Santa Cruz, California, 1999
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Presenter Scholarship, Association of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2008
Liz Gullion Scholarship, Oregon School Psychology Association, 2006
Culberson Honors Scholarship, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2005
Honors graduate, University of California at Santa Cruz, 2002
PUBLICAnONS:
Ross, S. W., Homer, R. H., and Stiller, B. (2008) Bully Prevention in Positive
Behavior Support. Curriculum manual developed for intervention
implementation. Published by Educational and Community Supports,
University of Oregon.
Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. (2008) How effective are
school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention
research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 1, 26-42.
Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2006). School-wide positive behavior support and
teacher outcomes. Teaching Exception Children Plus, 3, 6.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my dissertation committee members for their assistance in the
preparation of this manuscript. Special thanks are due to Dr. Horner and Dr. Stiller,
whose ideas were essential in the development of the Bully Prevention in Positive
Behavior Support Curriculum. Finally, very special thanks goes out to my wife and best
friend, Kelley Ross, for her amazing patience and unending encouragement throughout
this long process. This research was supported by a federal training grant, Project
Vanguard: Leadership Preparation in Literacy and Positive Behavior Support, Number
H325D030039, from the United States Department of Education.
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION ..
The Impact of Bullying 2
Explanations for Bullying 3
Bullying as a Developmental Process 3
As the Outcome ofIndividual Differences 4
As a Socio-Cultural Phenomenon 5
As a Response to Peer Pressures within the School 7
Bullying from the Perspective of Restorative Justice 8
Current Interventions 9
Mixed Program Results 13
The Bullying Construct 15
Program Maintenance 16
Bystanders. 17
The Conceptual Framework Underlying BP-PBS 18
Positive Behavior SuppOli 19
BP-PBS with Regard to the Bullying Construct 22
BP-PBS with Regard to Program Maintenance 23
BP-PBS with Regard to Bystanders 24
Chapter
x
Page
BP-PBS Pilot 26
Research Questions . 27
Primary Research Question 28
Secondary Research Questions 28
II. METHOD 29
Participants and Settings 29
Measurement 32
Fidelity of Implementation 32
Problem Behavior 33
Victim Responses to Problem Behavior 34
Bystander Responses to Problem Behavior 34
Student Perceptions of Experience 35
Inter-Observer Agreement 36
Social Validity 37
Design and Procedure 38
Phase 1: Baseline 39
Phase 2: Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support 39
III. RESULTS 42
The Impact ofBP-PBS on Incidents of Problem Behavior 42
Xl
Chapter Page
The Impact of BP-PBS on Victim and Bystander Response Probabilities 46
The Impact of BP-PBS on Student Perceptions 48
Effects ofIntervention Level 50
Effects of Grade 51
Interaction between Intervention and Grade 53
Fidelity of Implelnentation 54
Social Validity 56
IV. DISCUSSION 57
hnplications for Practice 58
Limitations 60
APPENDICES 64
A. BP-PBS PILOT RESULTS 64
B. STAFF FIDELITY CHECKLIST 66
C. STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY PLUS (SES+) 67
D. BULLY PREVENTION IN POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
MANUAL 81
REFERENCES 112
XlI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Behavior Pathway of Bullying 16
2. Six Key Features of Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support 19
3. Three-tier Model of Positive Behavior Support 20
4. Conceptual Framework ofBP-PBS 25
5. Incidents of Bullying Behavior 43
6. Conditional Probabilities 47
AI. BP-PBS Pilot Results: Incidents of Problem Behavior 64
A2. BP-PBS Pilot Results: Conditional Probabilities 65
Xlll
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. School Selection Criteria 29
2. Selected Student Percentile Scores 31
3. Direct Observation Inter-observer Percent Agreement 37
4. Chi Square for PAND 46
5. Descriptive Data for the Multivariate Analysis of Variance 49
6. Results of the Multivariate Tests 50
7. Between-subjects Effects for Level ofIntervention 51
8. Between-subjects Effects for Grade Level 52
9. Between-subjects Interactive Effects 53
10. Fidelity ofImplementation by Student Knowledge 54
11. Fidelity ofImplementation by Staff Adherence 55
12. Staff Ratings ofBP-PBS Acceptability 56
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The issue of bullying has become a chronic and costly problem in American
schools. It is perhaps the most common form of school violence (Batsche, 1997), the
National School Safety Center (NSSC) called it the most enduring and underrated
problem in U.S. schools (Beale, 2001), and in a national survey, nearly 30 percent of
students surveyed reported being involved in bullying as either a perpetrator or a victim
(Nansel, et aI., 2001; Swearer & Espelage, 2004). In an effort to respond, the present
research involved the development, field-testing and experimental validation of a novel
approach to effective and efficient school-wide bully-prevention. This new approach,
titled Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support (BP-PBS), blends school-wide
positive behavior support, explicit instruction of a 3-step response to problem behavior,
and a reconceptualization of the bullying construct, giving students the tools necessary to
remove the social rewards maintaining inappropriate behavior, thereby decreasing the
likelihood of problem behavior occurring in the future. It was hypothesized that BP-PBS
would not only decrease incidents of bullying behavior, but would also increase
appropriate victim and bystander responses to bullying behavior. In addition, because the
program is designed to fit within a larger system of school wide positive behavior
support, the resource intensity should be reduced making it far more likely to be
implemented over consecutive years.
Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support follows a long line of research
efforts on bullying and bullying prevention. In the following pages, the intensity of the
problem, the conceptual frameworks underlying its understanding, and current
intervention efforts are all discussed in the development of this novel approach, the
empirical evaluation of which points future efforts in a new direction.
The Impact of Bullying
Victims, bystanders, and perpetrators of bullying are at risk for behavioral,
emotional, and academic problems (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Schwartz & Gorman,
2003) and are also at increased risk for depression, anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem,
and suicide (Baldry & Farrington, 1998). Over time, these children are more likely to
skip aud/or drop out of school (Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Neary & Joseph, 1994) and
suffer from underachievement and sub-potential petionnance in employment settings
(Camey & Merrell, 2001; NSSC, 1995). Bullies in particular are more likely to acquire
increased numbers of criminal convictions and traffic violations than their less-aggressive
peers (Roberts, 2000), and children who are both victims and perpetrators of bullying
(bully/victims) are found to have significantly lower levels of social acceptance and self-
esteem than children who are bullies or victims only (Andreou, 2000). The now infamous
Columbine killings were perpetrated by young people thought to fit within this
bully/victim category who fought back against those who had treated them badly or had
seemed to collude in their social ostracism (Rigby, 2006).
2
Explanations for Bullying
Determining the cause of bullying is the first step toward decreasing its frequency
in schools and preventing its occurrence. Accomplishing this goal requires a conceptual
frarnework for bullying that identifies causal variables over which parents, educators, and
professionals have control. In the following section, 5 major frameworks for bullying are
considered: Bullying as a developmental process, an outcome of individual differences, a
socia-cultural phenomenon, a response to peer pressures within the school, and from the
perspective of restorative justice (Rigby, 2006). These explanations are important
because they are at the heart of cunent efforts to combat bullying and each may be useful
in a given context. Following this analysis, Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior
Support will be discussed with school wide positive behavior support at its foundation
along with a conceptual model tor the program.
Bullying as a Developmental Process
According to the perspective of bullying as a developmental process, bullying is
thought to begin when children fmd a need to assert themselves at the expense of others
to establish their social power (Rigby, 2004). 111is is done crudely at first tbrough more
external behaviors such as hitting others to intimidate them However, cbildren gradually
discover less overt ways of dominating others and over time, verbal and covert bullying
become more common than physical forms (Hawley, 1999). Both Olweus (1993) and
Smith & Sharp (1994) found through child self-reports, that behaviors typically labeled
as bullying become less common. However, although reported victimization tends to
decrease over time, when children move to middle school, there tends to be a temporary
4increase in reported bullying (Rigby, 2002). These findings are not well understood, but it
is hypothesized that in combination with increased hOlIDone release, the value of social
reinforcement may increase during this time, and bullying may become more "worth
while".
This view of bullying has had appeal in the past because it suggests that bullying
is part of a natural developmental process. Schools taking this perspective may be
encouraged to work specifically with children less mature and teach them to get past
bullying. It may also persuade teachers to be more sensitive to subtle forms ofbuUying
among older children, which can be more detrimental than direct forms (Rigby &
Bagshaw, 2001).
As the Outcome of Individual Differences
According to this perspective, bullying is said to result liom encounters between
children who differ in their personal power, WhC1] the more powerful child is motivated to
ovelvower and oppress less powerful children, and to do so repeatedly. TIus power
differential is related to physical and/or psychological differences, and according to
Olweus (1993), children exhibiting high frequencies of bullying behavior (more
powerful) tend to be physically stronger, more aggressive, and more manipulative than
average. In addition, c1uldren who are often the victims of bullying tend to be physically
weaker, more introverted, and lower in self-esteem (Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Slee &
Rigby, ]993). ft has been suggested that tllese power differences may be at least
somewhat genetically based. O'Connor, Focll, Todd, & Plomin (1980) found that
5identical twins are significantly more likely to be similar in their bullying of peers than
fraternal twins.
Although schools can have little impact on the genetic structure of students,
understanding bullying from this perspective draws attention to the importance of
recognizing students likely to exhibit bullying and students likely to be victimized.
Adults may be encouraged to modify the behavior of these children tln·ough counseling
and/or (in the case of bullies) disciplinary measures. Several intervention programs
emphasizing this theory have focused upon the use of clearly defined rules of behavior
and the application of appropriate sanctions for those identified as "bullies". Examples of
such programs include those implemented in both primary and secondary schools in
Norway designed by Olweus (1993) and in Flanders by Stevens et a1. (2000). Finally,
while most attention has been directed towards changing the person who bullies, some
schools have also attempted to help victimized students become less vulnerable by
acquiring social skills, especially in the area of assertiveness (Field, 1999: Smith &
Sharp, 1994).
As a Socio-cultural Phenomenon
As a socio-cultural phenomenon, bullying is considered an outcome of social
groups with differing levels of power. This perspective typically focuses on differences
with a historical or cultural basis such as race, social class, religious affiliation, and
especially gender. Males are viewed to have more power than females as a consequence
of social beliefs that they should be tlle dominant gender. In order to maintain dominance,
boys may feel justified in oppressing girls. Several studies have indicated that boys are
6more likely than girls to exhibit bullying behavior (Olweus, 1993; Smith & Sharp, 1994).
Cross-gender bullying may be due to a belief about how boys should behave in the
company of girls. Some boys may learn that it is acceptable to harass or sexually coerce
girls (Rosenbluth, Whitaker, Sanchez, & Valle, 2004) or other boys who do not clearly
possess stereotypical masculine qualities. For example, the use oflanguage with sexual
connotations such as the term "gay" has become quite prevalent in schools (Duncan,
1999). On the other hand, explaining the bullying of girls (often in the form of relational
bullying) is more complex and invokes the notion of femininity construction, with girls
deviating from an idealized conception of what it means to be feminine. But these notions
continue to be challenged as our definition of behaviors labeled as bullying become more
complete to include social ostracism, technology abuse, and other forms more
"acceptable" for girls.
The socio-cultural perspective on bullying can have striking implications for how
a school approaches the issue. It directs attention to how school curriculum can influence
children to positively respond to socio-cultural differences. It has been suggested that
schools explicitly address issues related to gender, race, and social class, while delivering
bully-proofing curricula indirectly, promoting cooperative problem solving, emotional
sensitivity, and independent critical thinking. The Australian national Website on
bullying (http://www.bullyingnoway.com.au/) is a strong example of this approach and
includes specific strategies, case studies, and online resources for educators and families.
7As a Response to Peer Pressures Within the School
Similar to the socio-cultural perspective on bullying, bullying as a response to
peer pressure focuses on bullying within a social context. But unlike the socio-cultural
categories of gender, race, and class, this view of bullying recognizes two levels of
contexts: "the school ethos" and smaller cliques. The school ethos is the broad social
context including behaviors and attitudes of members in the community. Smaller groups
within the ethos are made up of individuals with a closer association. Such groups are
typically formed based on perceived common interests. These groups provide support for
group members, and they may become a threat to outsiders, whom they bully. These
actions are due to a perceived grievance, prejudice, or simply a desire to have fun at the
expense of another. Importantly, acts of bullying are maintained by a connection with the
group rather than personal motives. Research has supported this theory by way of
findings indicating that students are more likely to bully when they have the support of
peers. More specifically, bystanders are present when a child is being bullied at school on
about 85% of occasions (Pepler & Craig, 1995). Also, when a bystander expresses
disapproval of the bullying, there is a strong possibility that it will stop (Hawkins, Pepler,
& Craig, 2001).
The implication of this theory for schools is the necessity to recognize the impact
of groups as distinct from individuals and to focus interventions accordingly. Several
methods have been devised for working with groups of children who have bullied others,
including the No Blame Approach (Robinson & Maines, 1997), which involves a meeting
between a teacher/counselor, a bullying group, and some socially responsible peers.
8During the group session the teacher/counselor describes the victim's suffering, and the
group is asked to consider ways in which the situation can be improved. The socially
responsible peers in the group are expected to exert positive "peer pressure" on the
bullies, encouraging them to behave more appropriately toward the victim.
Bullyingfrom the Perspective ofRestorative Justice
A view that emphasizes individual differences, bullying from the perspective of
restorative justice sees bully-victim problems as a consequence of poor character
development. It is believed that children who exhibit bullying behaviors feel little or no
pride in their school and are badly integrated into the community (Morrison, 2002).
Emotional reactions are mishandled and appropriate feelings of shame are not commonly
felt by bullies, while victims are prone to experience too much inappropriate shame.
While this approach does emphasize individual differences, an important role is assumed
by the school community and others involved in the situation including family and
friends of both the bully and the victim.
Restorative justice encourages appropriate feelings of shame in those who exhibit
bullying behavior through exposure to criticism from those they have offended. This can
be done constructively in the presence of people that truly care for the individuals, with
success greatly dependent on their ability to care for the individual, while at the same
time, disapproving of their behavior (Morrison, 2002). Problem behavior in this sense is
considered a "violation against people" and the intervention involves a restoration of
positive relationships rather than applying punishment for breaking rules (Cameron &
Thorsborne). This view has motivated schools to promote values likely to lead to
9responsible citizenship, such as the importance of helping others and taking pride in one's
school. Incidents of bullying require confrontations with perpetrators, the deliberate
inducement of appropriate shame, and action taken to restore positive relations with the
victim. Community conferences are implemented when serious cases of bullying take
place, and victims are encouraged to express their anguish while perpetrators listen and
agree to compensate the victim (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2003).
Current Interventions
Over the last 20 years, great attention in education has been directed toward
"bullies" and the negative impact oftheir behavior on schools (Smokowski & Kopasz,
2005). Major concern about improving school safety has followed, with an onslaught of
bully-prevention campaigns across the country. According to a national survey of state
departments of education, 39 states inform educators, parents, and students about how to
respond to bullying (Furlong & Morrison, 2000), and 23 states have passed anti-bullying
laws including clear prohibitions on bullying and legislative findings of its deleterious
effects on school environments (http://bullypolice.org). With this enhanced interest in
stopping bullying has come a rapidly increasing number of intervention programs
designed to reduce bullying in schools. Evaluations of these interventions have
commonly involved measurements of the incidence of bullying behavior before and after
the intervention. Most of the time, these estimates have been based on student self
reports, but in some cases, peer nominations were used, and in a few, teachers or
researchers conducted systematic observations. Some evaluations involved up to 42
10
schools while others involved as few as 1. Finally, in some of the studies, control schools
were used, a desirable procedure because pre-testing itself can raise awareness to
bullying and result in an apparent increase. These different measurement techniques are
important because they inform school personnel on decisions regarding the type and
intensity of intervention they will implement. Some of the programs with the most
empirical support are reviewed here.
Dan Olweus, thought by many to be the father of bullying prevention, developed
the Bergen Anti-Bullying program based on aggression research (Olweus, 1993; Olweus
& Limber, 1999). He contended that bullies obtain attention and status through bullying
behavior so interventions must change the environment to remove that status and
attention for problematic behavior. An intensive intervention, the Bergen Anti-Bullying
program includes multiple components at the individual, class, and school level.
Components at the individual level include confrontation with bullies, talking with
victims, and talking with the parents of bullies and victims. Classroom-level components
include establishing classroom rules about bullying and its consequences. These rules
require that (a) students will not bully, (b) students will help others who are being bullied,
and (c) students will attempt to include in activities children who are often left out by
others. Consistent classroom meetings are also held to discuss social relations and
bullying. Finally, school-wide components of the intervention include a school
conference day to educate teachers, administrators, parents, and students about bullying
and victimization.
11
The original Bergen Anti-Bullying Program was implemented from 1983 until
1985, and 4th through 9th grade students completed a self report questionnaire at 3
different points throughout the year. Teachers also provided a rating of the amount of
bullying that took place in their classrooms. Results of that initial intervention indicated a
50% reduction in bullying frequency, as well as a decrease in the percentage of new
victims. Improvements in school climate were also noticed including improved social
relations among students and more positive attitudes toward school.
Since that original study, several variations of Olweus' program have been
implemented and evaluated in the United States (Olweus & Limber, 1999; Committee for
Children, 2001), Germany (Hanewinkel, 2004), and in the United Kingdom (Smith &
Sharp, 1994). Although the results of these interventions have been less significant,
Olweus has suggested that these projects were only "partial replications" of the original
program (Olweus, 1993).
The SAVE model, a Spanish government-supported initiative implemented in 25
elementary and middle schools (ages 8-16) in Seville from 1995 through 2000, included a
study of nearly 5000 students (Ortega, Del Rey, & Mora-Merchan, 2004). Following an
ecological preventive model, this intervention promoted an atmosphere of coexistence,
further defined as a desire to get along with others, to promote solidarity in the school
atmosphere, and to use nonviolent strategies for resolving problems. A democratic form
of classroom management was encouraged, allowing students enough time and space for
negotiating conflicts. In addition, the SAVE curriculum included instruction on
cooperation and education on feelings, attitudes, and values. Finally, for those already
12
involved in school bullying, the SAVE program included peer support and other
mediation procedures such as conflict resolution, assertiveness training, and empathy
development. Changes in bullying and victimization were measured pre-post with a
survey created by Ortega et aI. (2004). The authors of the study reported a 50% decrease
in the number of students who self-identified as victims and a 20% reduction in the
number of students who self-identified as bullies.
In Canada, Pepler and colleagues (Pepler et aI., 1994, 2004) developed and
evaluated the Toronto Anti-Bullying Intervention Program with elementary and middle
school children from 1992 through 1995 across 2 schools. Less comprehensive than the
Olweus or Spanish program, student self reports in one school indicated a significant
decrease (10%) in victimization, but no significant decrease in bullying across the school
years. The results of the second school's implementation of the program indicated
significant decreases in student reports of bullying (12%) and victimization (10%).
Observations were also conducted on the playground through the use of video cameras
mounted in strategic areas. This video footage was then matched with audio recordings
from units worn by selected students. Results of these observations showed up to 70%
decreases in incidents of bullying over 3 years.
Finally, Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention Program (Committee for
Children, 200 1) is a universal, multilevel program designed to reduce bullying problems
in elementary schools by (a) increasing staff awareness and school responsiveness to
bullying, (b) fostering socially responsible beliefs among students, (c) teaching students
specific skills to solve bullying problems, and (d) promoting acquisition of skills
13
associated with general socio-emotional competence. Comprised of a school-wide
program guide, multiple levels of staff training, classroom curriculum, and ongoing
support for implementation, evaluations of the Steps to Respect program have shown
significant impacts on (a) group differences in student behavior, attitudes, and skills, (b)
increased prosocial beliefs, and (c) increased social competence. Group differences were
measured by way of pre and post-test survey administration along with random
playground observations during 1 year of program implementation for up to 1000
students. (Frey et aI., 2005). Results of the direct observations revealed that playground
bullying increased in control schools, but not in schools implementing Steps to Respect.
Teacher ratings of student interpersonal skills did not show significant changes, but
observations of general social behavior showed a decrease in argumentative interactions
and increased agreeable interactions among students in the intervention schools.
Mixed Program Results
While some interventions have shown promising results, the overall results of
bully prevention efforts are mixed. In addition, despite the overdue attention given to
bully prevention, there are indications that the movement is not making good progress.
The U.S. Surgeon General's report on youth violence (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2001) identified 29 best practices in youth violence prevention; the only
bullying program to make the list was Olweus' Bergen Anti-Bullying Prevention
Program (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999), and it was listed as a "promising" rather
14
than a "model" program. A more recent listing of 32 "effective programs" produced the
same result; only the Olweus program made the list (Osher & Dwyer, 2006).
In a meta-analysis of 16 bullying prevention studies conducted by Merrell,
Gueldner, Ross, and Isava (2008), results indicated that anti-bullying programs produced
meaningful effects for little more than one third (36%) of outcome variables while the
majority of intervention effects failed to evidence sufficient power for consideration as
clinically important. In addition, the most improved intervention outcomes were most
commonly noted in indirect, knowledge-based outcomes. For example, using Cohen's D,
the largest effect sizes determined in the meta-analysis were for student social
competence (ES = 3.31), knowledge of the specific bully prevention program (ES =
1.52), and global self esteem (ES = 1.08). Rather than measuring how students actually
responded to the bully prevention interventions, these variables measured how well
participants understood the program and how they should or would respond to incidents
of bullying. Finally, in a few variables, significant negative effects were discovered (lout
of 28 mean effects across studies, or slightly less than 4%; 8 out of 107 individual effects
within studies, or about 7%). While these findings were difficult to interpret, it is indeed
possible that some well-intentioned programs may actually produce adverse effects with
students. This may be the case when interventions group together deviant peers for
treatment (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). It may also be the case that through some
interventions, students and teachers learn how to better recognize bullying, and then
report it more often.
15
The Bullying Construct
Why then do bully prevention efforts struggle to achieve their objective? One
critical problem is the difficulty in conceptualizing and measuring bullying behavior
(Griffin & Gross, 2004). Common definitions of "bullying" involve repeated acts of
aggression, intimidation, or coercion against a victim who is weaker in terms of physical
size, psychological! social power, or other factors that result in a notable power
differential (Carney & Merrell, 2001; Due, et aI., 2005; Olweus, 1993; Smith &
Ananiadou, 2003; Smith & Brain, 2000). The broad range of physical, verbal, and social
behaviors, the intent to harm, the repetition of confrontation, and the imbalance of power
between the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) are key features of bullying that make it
extremely difficult to recognize and measure, forcing observers to judge not only intent,
but the levels of power in each participant and the number of times the behavior has
occurred in the past. There is no doubt that an understanding and an appreciation of
bullying has been aided by the development of these complex definitions, but they are
clearly not ideal for assessing its prevalence or developing effective interventions.
Decreasing the frequency and preventing incidents of bullying requires the
identification of causal variables over which parents, educators, and professionals have
control. Such variables are to be found outside the person and include the events that
reliably precede and follow problem behavior. In other words, what is needed is a
functional assessment of bullying. A functional assessment is used to identify events in
the environment that may trigger problem behavior and may serve to reinforce problem
behavior, increasing the likelihood that it will occur in the future. These events that
16
trigger and maintain bullying can be observable and subject to alteration by school staff
and professionals. The following model depicts the hypothesized pathway of bullying
behavior, including the variables that tend to precede it, as well as the consequences that
serve to maintain it (see figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Behavior Pathway ofBullying: Environments that promote
or sustain bullying behavior in unstructured settings.
a) Self-delivered
reinforcement
b) Bystander
reinforcement
c) Victim
reinforcement
d) Delayed
reinforcement
from deviant peer
group
e) Tangible items
f) Escape from
negative attention
Bullying
Behavior
Minimally
structured
social
interaction
Undefined
Behavioral
Expectations
Program Maintenance
Another major issue in previously designed bullying prevention programs is the
lack of program maintenance. Of the positive outcomes found in some interventions, few
have been maintained even two years later. For example, an implementation of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in southeastern United States (Limber et aI., 2004)
produced significant reductions in self-report measures of peer victimization in boys, but
2 years later, differences from the baseline level of peer victimization were insignificant.
Additionally, an analysis of results obtained in a study conducted in Rogaland, Norway
indicated an actual increase in bullying behavior 3 years after the implementation of the
Olweus program (Roland, 1993).
17
Two reasons for these disappointing results exist. First, bullying programs often
require large amounts of time and resources to implement, and schools are unable to
continue their focus on bullying when few positive outcomes are seen (Rigby, 2006).
Second, a lack of sustained school-wide systems inhibit a school's capacity to maintain
prevention efforts. Consistent findings across interventions suggest that bully prevention
programs involving consistent, school-wide efforts along with the creation of pro-social
atmospheres tend to be more effective than programs that implement at the classroom
level only or address just the victims and/or bullies involved (Olweus, Limber, &
Mihalic, 1999; Pepler et aI., 1994).
Bystanders
With regard to involving more than just the victims and bullies in prevention
efforts, research on the contextual process of bullying provides significant support for the
inclusion of bystanders in bullying intervention efforts (O'Connell et aI., 1999). Along
with the victims of bullying, bystanders play an enormous role in acting to maintain
bullying behavior by either responding positively (e.g. joining in, laughing) or simply
standing and watching, rather than intervening to help the victim. Bystanders include
anyone other than the victim or perpetrator who interacts within the bullying situation.
Sometimes, bystanders will take an active part in bullying, following the bully's lead by
engaging in additional bullying behavior. More often, supporters of bullying do not take
part in the actual bullying, but reinforce the behavior at the time of the incident or later on
after the incident has occurred by praising the bully for their self-reported bullying
behavior. Possible bystanders may also include disengaged onlookers who don't approve
18
of the bullying, but also don't do anything about it. Finally, some bystanders will defend
the victim, getting involved by telling the bully to stop, helping the victim to walk away,
or reporting the problem behavior to an adult. Very few bully prevention programs take
this important process of bystander reinforcement into account and it has been suggested
that future research include teaching bystanders specific strategies to either remove
themselves from the bullying vicinity in order to avoid inadvertently reinforcing the
behavior, or to intervene on behalf of the victim (Hartung, & Scambler, 2006).
The Conceptual Framework Underlying BP-PBS
The conceptual framework underlying Bully-Prevention in Positive Behavior
Support lies in an effort to identify the most efficient procedures for achieving durable
reductions in violent and disruptive behavior. Among the most important changes to
occur in the field over the past 20 years are shifts in emphasis toward prevention as well
as remediation of problem behaviors (Horner, et ai., 2004). It is this emphasis on
establishing preventative systems of behavior support that prompted the development of
PB-PBS. Six key features ofBP-PBS map perfectly onto those developed through a
synthesis of research on effective implementation of school-wide PBS, making BP-PBS
an ideal additional component of Positive Behavior Support (see figure 2 below).
19
Figure 2. Six Key features ofBully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support
1. The use of empirically-tested instructional principles to teach expected behavior outside
the classroom to all students.
2. The monitoring and acknowledgement of students for engaging in appropriate behavior
outside the classroom.
3. Specific instruction and pre-correction to prevent bullying behavior from being rewarded
by victims or bystanders.
4. The correction of problem behaviors using a consistently administered continuum of
consequences.
5. The collection and use of information about student behavior to evaluate and guide
decision making.
6. The establishment of a team that develops, implements, and manages the BP-PBS effort
in a school.
Positive Behavior Support
BP-PBS was designed to fit within a system of Positive Behavior Support (PBS),
a prevention-focused alternative to student support that blends socially valuable
outcomes, research-based procedures, behavioral science, and a systems approach to
reduce problem behavior and improve school climate (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-
Palmer, 2005). With a foundation in early efforts to apply principles of behavior to life
improvement for children with severe problem behaviors (Bijou & Baer, 1961; Bijou,
Peterson, & Ault, 1968), PBS involves the application of behavior analysis to real world
settings where children and adults struggle to maintain appropriate behavior. Through a
three tiered prevention model (Walker et aI., 1996), Positive Behavior Support utilizes
effective strategies to create environments that support and encourage success for both
20
teacher and student behavior (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998; Sugai et aI., 2000). See
Figure 3 below for a description of the 3-tier model of behavior support.
Figure 3. Three-tier model ofPositive Behavior Support (Walker et. ai, 1996)
Primary Prevention:
School-/Classroom-
Wide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students
with High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students
with At-Risk Behavior
The primary tier of PBS strives to create positive, predictable environments for all
students at all times of the day. This tier prescribes the use of empirically-tested
instructional principles to clearly teach expected, appropriate, positive behavior to all
students, modeling appropriate behavior, leading them through practice in specific
settings, and testing their knowledge (Colvin & Kame'enui, 1993). Effective
reinforcement of appropriate and expected behaviors follows, and is implemented by all
staff in the school (Crone & Homer, 2003), who receive training and feedback regarding
the effective implementation of the systems. In addition, reinforcement and discipline are
documented through a concise, predictable, and clear continuum of consequences
matched to the intensity of the problem behavior (Sprague & Homer, 2006).
21
The secondary tier of school-wide positive behavior support includes all of the
components described in the primary tier with additional support given to students who
are "at risk" for whom the primary tier of support is not enough. The secondary tier
usually involves interventions given to small groups of children, including more
reinforcement, and a more individual consideration of antecedents and consequences
(Sugai, et aI., 2000). BP-PBS is considered to fit within this tier of support. Although it
is an intervention implemented throughout the school, it teaches students to remove the
social rewards serving to maintain bullying behavior. It is hypothesized that this approach
will have the greatest impact on those students "at risk" for bullying behavior, while
more serious issues of bullying may require an intervention with more intensity.
Finally, the tertiary tier of support is for students whose negative behavior
patterns have been established and who fail to respond to the primary and secondary
levels of intervention. For these students, behavior support is individualized based on a
functional assessment of their behavior. The foundation for understanding patterns of
problem behavior (Repp & Horner, 1999), functional assessment takes note of individual
differences, links interventions directly to problem behavior, and increases the
effectiveness of interventions (O'Neill, Horner, Albin, Sprague, Storey, & Newton,
1997). In the case ofBP-PBS, tertiary support would be initiated when a student failed to
respond to BP-PBS. The completion of a functional assessment would likely follow,
allowing for a thorough analysis of the reinforcement that maintains the student's
problem behavior along with the antecedents that trigger it. Once this is established, an
individualized intervention can be implemented at each point in the pathway to deal with
22
the student's problem behavior most effectively. Interventions like this may involve
significant resources to implement with fidelity, but by having a secondary intervention
such as BP-PBS in place, the number of students requiring this level of support will be
greatly reduced.
PBS has been shown to have short and long-term beneficial effects on attachment
to school, academic achievement, aggression, drug use, crime, student reports of positive
reinforcement, positive referrals, decreased discipline referrals, and increased academic
learning time (Hawkins, Catalano, Kostennan, Abbott, & Hill, 1999; Metzler, Biglan,
Rusby, & Sprague, 2001). To date, evaluation and research studies have focused on the
impact of PBS on the improvement of social and academic outcomes for all students. But
even with the powerful impact it has on school systems, a small population of students
remain in need of additional behavioral supports surrounding problem behavior outside
the classroom, including victimization and bullying. BP-PBS was designed for these
secondary tier students.
BP-PBS with Regard to the Bullying Construct
Because of the problems evident in the definition of bullying, BP-PBS focuses on
the improvement of behaviors that are specific, observable, and measurable. In addition,
the definitions of these behaviors did not speculate on the intent of the behavior, the
power of the individuals involved, or the frequency of its occurrence. Both verbal and
physical aggression were evaluated and were defined as follows: Physical aggression was
the display of aggression toward other children including hitting, biting, kicking, or
choking, stealing, throwing objects, or restricting freedom of movement. Verbal
23
aggression was defined as the direction of negative communication either verbal or
nonverbal, toward one or more peers who were identifiable as intended victims and who
could see or hear the negative communication. Examples of negative communication
might include teasing, name calling, or inappropriate gestures. Having specific
operational definitions were particularly useful in this study as an effective means of
recognizing the behavior's occurrence, analyzing the intervention's effectiveness, and
achieving inter-rater reliability. Unfortunately, the definitions provided here do not fit
into many bullying categories as provided by past research and will likely be considered
within a broader category of victimization - and rightly so. Victimization includes
problem behavior regardless of a power differential and regardless of frequency.
Therefore, single incidents of problem behavior between children of similar power were
responded to in an equal fashion. Reducing peer maintained problem behavior outside the
classroom remains the goal of BP-PBS, and the reduction of "bullying" behaviors is a
sub-set of this process.
BP-PBS with Regard to Program Maintenance
BP-PBS also takes into account the problems associated with inadequate
maintenance of prevention programs. First of all, BP-PBS is an addition to the already
"-
research substantiated School-wide Positive Behavior Support (Hawkins, et aI., 1999;
Metzler, et aI., 2001). The program requires only a small amount of additional resources
from the school, making it far more likely to be implemented with fidelity and
maintained over multiple years of implementation. In addition, schools in the study were
required to first maintain effective school-wide systems to a criterion of at least 80% on
24
the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (Todd, et. aI, 2003), a tool designed to measure the use
of school-wide positive behavior support systems. Having these systems in place
provided familiarization with positive behavior supports and empirically based
instructional techniques, making effective and long-lasting program implementation more
likely. Lastly, having effective school-wide positive behavior support practices in place is
likely to increase community buy-in, resources allocated to program implementation, and
ongoing professional support.
BP-PBS with Regard to Bystanders
In order to decrease the frequency of problem behavior and prevent bullying, in
addition to redefining bullying and ensuring program maintenance, we must analyze the
causal variables that maintain the problem behavior. For this study, the events that serve
to reinforce problem behavior - increasing the likelihood that it will occur again - were of
particular importance. If perpetrators attain peer attention or tangible items when they
behave inappropriately, they will be more likely to engage in those behaviors in the
future. BP-BPS teaches the entire school an effective 3-step response to problem
behavior, encouraging them not to reinforce problem behavior, thereby putting the
behavior on extinction. In addition, students are rewarded for responding appropriately to
problem behavior or intervening to help other students in need. Finally, staff within
schools that implement the program are taught a clear and simple method of responding
to reports of problem behavior, thereby reducing the likelihood of future occurrences.
The following 2 models depict the various elements of the BP-PBS program and
its effect on peer maintained problem behavior (see figure 4 below). The first describes
25
an environment that promotes or sustains bullying behavior, while the second outlines the
linked strategies of BP-PBS that make the maintenance of bullying less likely.
Figure 4. Conceptual Framework ofBP-PBS: Environments that
promote or sustain bullying behavior and the strategies ofBP-PBS
making the maintenance ofbullying less likely r-----------,
Undefined
Behavioral
Expectations
Minimally
structured
social
interaction
Bullying
Behavior
a) Self-delivered
reinforcement
b) Bystander
reinforcement
c) Victim
reinforcement
d) Delayed
reinforcement
from deviant peer
group
e) Tangible items
-
c::J
a) Staff Review
and Resolve
Routine
b) 3 step Bystander
Response
c) 3 step Victim
Response
Figure 4 indicates how Bully-Prevention in Positive Behavior Support works to
reduce incidents of bullying through the alteration of events that precede and follow
behavior.
Specifically, BP-PBS works to (a) define universal expectations, especially those
outside the classroom, (b) pre-correct on the appropriate response to problem behavior,
(c) teach an appropriate reply when the 3-step response is used, (d) train staff on a
26
universal review and resolve routine, and (e) teach all students a specific 3-step response
that reduces the probability of bullying incidents (see Bully Prevention in Positive
Behavior Support Manual in Appendix D). Research suggests that bullying behavior is
frequently followed by and reinforced by peer attention or tangibles (Salmivalli, 2002;
Soutter & McKenzie, 2000). Through the implementation BP-PBS, students and staff
learn to eliminate the reinforcement for bullying. In addition, inconsistent staff
procedures for dealing with reported incidents of bullying can lead to an increased
likelihood of its display in certain settings. In a study of behavioral procedures in schools,
the major limitation of many discipline programs is a lack of clear procedural
implementation guidelines (Chard, Smith, & Sugai, 1992). Students who frequently
exhibit problem behavior do not take long to learn what they can get away with, and with
little staff consistency, these students quickly discover how to "work the system". BP-
PBS eliminates this problem through specific instruction to all school staff on effective,
efficient procedures for pre-correcting students onhow to respond, dealing with reports
of problem behavior, and delivering consequences. Through the implementation of these
procedures, staff members build consistency regarding responses to problem behavior,
thereby reducing the probability that students will attempt to work the system.
BP-PBS Pilot
The BP-PBS curriculum was developed from the identification of need and core features
of effective interventions that have been defined in the literature (Merrell, et al. 2008),
and early field-test trials in New Mexico schools (Jones & Horner, 2006). In an effort to
27
evaluate the initial effectiveness of the BP-PBS curriculum, a pilot study was conducted
in an elementary school during the winter of 2007. The school was validated as using
SWPBS to criterion through their School-wide Evaluation Tool (Todd, et aI., 2003) score
above the 80% criterion. The lead author of the study trained the teachers and supervisors
on the BP-PBS curriculum, and also taught the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students the BP-
PBS program. Ten-minute playground observations were conducted with three highly
aggressive students, along with a composite peer to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program. Results indicated a significant reduction in problem behavior after the
intervention was delivered (55-69% reduction). In addition, other students on the
playground were significantly more likely to respond appropriately (less likely to reward
bullying behavior) when they experienced problem behavior (see Figures Al and A2 in
Appendix A for results of the BP-PBS pilot). The encouraging results from the pilot
analysis led to the present experimental assessment ofthe effects that bully-prevention
within school-wide positive behavior support can have on both the reduction of bullying
behavior, and the improvement of social consequences to bullying provided by peers.
Research Questions
This study was developed to evaluate the impact of Bully Prevention in Positive
Behavior Support (BP-PBS) through the analysis of (a) the verbal and physical
aggression of children identified as bullies, (b) reduction in the probability of peer-
delivered social consequences following verbal and physical aggression, and (c) student
perceptions of experiences related to bullying. More specifically, researchers wanted to
28
answer the following questions:
Primary Research Question
• Is there a functional relation between the implementation of Bully-Prevention in
Positive Behavior Support and a reduction in bullying behaviors, including
physical and verbal aggression on the playground during lunch recess, performed
by typical elementary grade students?
Secondary Research Questions
• Is there a functional relation between the implementation of Bully-Prevention in
Positive Behavior Support and (a) an increased conditional probability that
victims of bullying behaviors will say "stop" and/or walk away, and (b) a decrease
in the conditional probability of victim social reward for bullying behaviors?
• Is there a functional relation between the implementation of Bully-Prevention in
Positive Behavior Support and an increased conditional probability that
bystanders of bullying behaviors will say "stop" or help victim to walk away?
• Is there a relationship between the implementation of Bully Prevention in Positive
Behavior and student perceptions of their experiences related to bullying,
harassment, and school safety for 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students?
29
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Three elementary schools within a school district in Oregon were eligible to
participate in the study. Of the 12 interested schools within the district, the 3 selected
schools included between 319 and 567 students, and were attended by students of varying
levels of socio economic status (SES) as determined by the percent of students on free
and/or reduced lunch programs. In addition, to be eligible for the study, selected schools
were made up of grades K-5, and had implemented Positive Behavior Support (PBS) with
adequate fidelity, meeting an 80% criterion on the School-wide Evaluation Tool (Todd,
et. aI, 2003; See table 1 below for school selection criteria including SET score, SES,
overall student enrollment, and school grade levels). In appreciation of the district's
willingness to participate in the study, all interested schools in the district were provided
with the intervention regardless of their study participation status.
Table 1. School selection criteria
School SET SES* Enrollment Grades
School A 90% 32% 567 K-5
School B 98% 87% 319 K-5
School C 93% 71% 341 K-5
*Percentage of students who qualify for free and/or reduced lunch.
30
Once p3.liicipating schools had been selected, 2 students in each school were
nominated by the principal for their high levels of problem behavior outside the
classroom related to physical and/or verbal aggression toward peers. Teachers of these
students were asked to complete the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Greshalll, &
Elliott, 1990) in an effort to compare the students' social skills and problem behavior to
national nonTIS. The SSRS is a nationally standardized series of questionnaires that obtain
information on the social beh'lViors of children and adolescents from teachers, parents,
and the students themselves (only teacher fonn used in this study). It includes ratings on
social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence, measured on a 3 level scale
(fewer, average, and more). It produces standard scores and percentile ranks based on a
large, national sample of 4, 170 boys and girls aged 3 through 18, as well as for
handicapped elementary students.
Analysis of the SSRS indicated that all 6 selected students received scores under
the 20th percentile in the category of problem behavior, which includes items such as:
"Fights with others", "Is easily distracted", and "Doesn't listen to what others say". This
means that when compared to other students of similar age and gender, these students
were perceived to exhibit more problematic behavior than 80% of their peers. In addition,
all but one of the students scored under the 16tb percentile on social skills, which includes
items such as: "Makes friends easily", "Receives criticism well", and "Follows your
directions". Scoring under the I 6th percentile on this measure means that when compared
to other students of similar age and gender, the social skills of these students were
perceived to be worse than 84% of their peers (see table 2 below for results of the SSRS).
31
Table 2. Selected student percentile scores on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)
compared to other students of similar grade and gender in the U. S.
Student Grade Gender Social Skills Problem AcademicBehavior Competence
Rob 4 M 14th%ilc 12th%ile 15th(7oile
Bruce 5 M 10th%ile 9th%ile 21 %ile
Cindy 4 F 4Sth%ile 16th%ile 75th%ile
Scott 4 M Sth%ile Sth%ile 21 st%ile
Anne 5 F 14th%ile 9th%ile 12th%ile
Ken 3 M 16th%ile 19th%ile 16th%ile
Every student in the 3 selected schools was assured voluntary participation and
several forms of consent were completed prior to study implementation. First, the
participating district along with each participating school completed a letter of approval
for the study, and each school was asked to include a letter of involvement in their fall
newsletter. Next, for participation in the survey measures, passive parental consents were
sent home to a1l3n t, 4th , and 5th grade students within the selected schools. Students
retuming those consents were not included in direct observation. Finany, when students
were nominated as potential participants for the direct observation, the parents were
asked to sign an individual consent. Implementation was conducted on a daily basis
throughout the study and all students in the study were provided with a unique numerical
identification.
The first student in school A was Rob. a 10 year-old 4th grade boy whose
problematic behavior outside the classroom involved teasing and physically disrupting
32
peers (i.e., poking, grabbing, pushing, and holding). Rob was on an IEP for deficits in
reading and mat~ and spent approximately 30% of his day in Special Education classes.
Bruce was the second selected student in school A; an 11 year-old 5th grade boy
whose problematic behavior included talking back to adults, fighting, teasing, stealing,
and disrupting peers. Bruce was not on an IEP for academic difficulties and spent all of
his time in the general education classroom
The 2 students selected at school B were Cindy and Scott. Cindy was a 10 year-
old 4th grade girl whose problematic behaviors included teasing, stealing, and gossip.
Scott was a 10 year-old 4th grade boy whose problem behaviors included talking back to
adults, fighting, teasing, stealing, and disrupting peers. Scott was on an IEP for deficits in
reading, writing, and math, and spent approximately 70% of his day in special education
classes.
Finally, Anne and Ken were the two selected students at school C. Alille was an
11 year-old 5th grade girl whose problematic behaviors included talking back to adults,
teasing, and disrupting peers. Ken was a 9 year-old yd grade boy whose problematic
behaviors included teasing and disrupting peers. Neither Anne nor Ken was on an rEP
and both spent all of their time in the general education setting.
Measurement
Fidelity of Implementation
Fidelity of BP-PBS implementation was assessed through both student knowledge
of the cUlTiculu1l1, and staff adherence to program components. Student knowledge of the
curriculum was evaluated at three different points in the study and involved the random
questioning of 10 students on the lunch recess playground regarding their knowledge of
the 3 step response (StoplWalkfTalk) to problem behavior. Staff adherence involved a
daily checklist filled out by each playground supervisor. Iterns ou the checklist assessed
the daily number of times staff (a) checked in with chronic targets and instigators of
problem behavior, (b) delivered positives for student use of StoplWalkffalk, (c) received
reports of problem behavior, (d) practiced StopfWalkfTalk with students, and (e) gave out
office discipline referrals for continued problem behavior (See Appendix A for staff
adherence checklist).
Problem Behavior
The primary measure for this study was the frequency of problem behaviors
related to bullying including (a) physical aggression, and (b) verbal aggression, which
occurred within 10 minute observations during school lunch recess. Physical aggression
was defrned as including hitting, biting, kicking, choking, stealing, throwing objects, or
restricting freedom of movement (behaviors within games were considered physical
aggression when they went beyond the appropriate expectations for the game). Verbal
aggression was defined as the direction of negative cOlmnunication either verbal or
gestural, toward one or more focus children including teasing, taunting, threatening,
negative body language, or negative gestures. Observers received regular training
regarding the operational definitions of problem bella viors.
In addition to the 2 students selected in ead school for observation, data were
gathered daily on 5 randomly selected peers for a total of 10 minutes. Random selection
34
involved visually selecting the peers each day prior to any observation. Observers
recorded behavior for 2.5 minutes on each peer until all five had been observed. The peer
data collection process produced a composite index of typical peer problem behavior per
sessIOn.
Victim Responses to Problem Behavior
The second measure recorded victim responses to problem behavior within 5
seconds of the behavior. Observers recorded whether victims responded in an appropriate
manner as taught in the Bully-Prevention in Positive Behavior Support curriculum.
Appropriate victim responses included the use of a "stop signal", or "walking away".
Inappropriate victim responses included "positive responses" (i.e. laughing, cheering),
"negative responses" (i.e. complaining, fighting back) or "no response". As with problem
behaviors, victim response data for composite peers was gathered.
Bystander Responses to Problem Behavior
The third measure recorded social responses from bystanders. Within 5 seconds of
each instance of problem behavior, bystanders within 10 feet of the behavior were
observed for their response. Appropriate responses included the use of a "stop signal", or
"helping victim walk away", while inappropriate responses included "positive
responses"(i.e. laughing, cheering), "negative responses" (i.e. complaining, fighting back)
or "no response". Observers received regular training regarding the responses made to
problem behavior. As with problem behaviors and victim responses, bystander response
data for composite peers was also gathered.
35
Student Perceptions ofExperience
The fifth and final measure assessed all 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students on their
perceptions of bullying behavior in each of the study schools both 1-2 weeks prior to the
BP-PBS training implementation and 8-12 weeks after the BP-PBS training using the
Student Experience Survey (SES). The SES (Frey, et. aI, 2004) is a 21 item measure,
originally developed by the Committee for Children for the purposes of evaluating the
Steps to Respect bully prevention program. The tool was designed to assess perceptions
and attitudes related to bullying. Students were asked about perceptions of bullying or
aggressive behavior, assertiveness skills, and their own and adults' responsiveness to
bullying. In addition, 9 items were added to the end of the SES including statements
about the frequency of bullying behavior, victimization, and use of BP-PBS curriculum
components. The survey was administered in classrooms and took approximately 15-20
minutes to complete (See Appendix B for the SES +). Following an introduction to the
measure, examples and survey items were read aloud. The survey is also read aloud if
reading difficulties or limited English proficiency were of concern.
Four response formats were used in the SES+.
1. Five items assessed the relative difficulty of performing c~rtain behaviors. The set
of available responses was 0-3: not hard at all, a little bit hard, pretty hard, really
hard
2. Nine items assessed the level at which students thought that the provided
statement was true. The set of available responses was 0-3: not true, a little true,
pretty true, very true.
36
3. Seven items assessed the level at which students agreed with the provided
statement. The set of available responses was 0-3: don't agree, agree a little,
agree some, and agree a lot.
4. Finally, for the 9 items added to the SES, each assessed the frequency with which
behaviors occurred in the school setting. The set of available responses was 0-4:
never, once in a while, once a week, once a day, nwre than once a day.
Inter-Observer Agreement
To attain inter-observer agreement on behavioral observations, 9 undergraduate
and graduate students in the Special Education Department at the University of Oregon
were trained during recess observations to achieve initial inter-observer agreement of at
least 85%. Once this was consistently achieved, observations within the study were
assessed for inter-rater reliability on 30% of observations for each phase, for each
participant. Observations throughout the study had to attain inter-rater reliability of at
least 0.85 to be counted in the study. Inter-observer agreement was calculated on a daily
basis by dividing the number of agreements by the total frequency of incidents observed
and multiplying by 100%. Inter-observer agreement for (a) problem behavior, (b) victim
responses to problem behavior, and (c) bystander responses to problem behavior for each
of the 6 observed students and peer composites met or exceeded 83% for oceUITenee
agreement (see table 3 below for inter-observer agreement for each observed student
before and after the intervention). Observations were summarized daily to determine the
frequency of problem behaviors for each 10 minute observation, along with the
conditional probabilities of victim and bystander responses to the behavior.
37
Table 3. Direct observation inter-observer percent agreement.
Baseline Intervention lntellJentionStudent % of Data Baseline IDA % of Data PoiniS IDAPoints with IDA with IDA
1 31% 90% 39% 93%
2 33% 95fl0 38% 88%
3 35% 89% 35% 92%
4 33% 93% 35% 85%
5 33% 92% 40% 88%
6 32% 88% 40% 86%
Social Validity
A four-item BP-PBS Acceptability QuestiOlmaire was used to assess the social
validity of the intervention. Three months after BP-PBS was implemented, the survey
was completed by all statf involved in the intervention including teachers, instructional
aides, and administrators. Questions on the BP-PBS Acceptability QuestiOIUlaire assessed
the extent to which BP-PBS was perceived to (a) improve behavior at school, (b) be
worth the time and eft~)rt, (c) be worth recommending to others, aud (d) be easy to
implement. Scores Oil the BP-PBS Acceptability Questionnaire were recorded on a Likert
scale from 1 to 6 with higher scores indicating a more favorable impression.
38
Design and Procedure
The study implemented both single subject and group designs. First, a multiple-
baseline-across-schools design was used to examine the effectiveness of BP-PBS on
reducing problem behavior outside the classroom and increasing appropriate responses to
problem behavior. Next, a between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to evaluate student perceptions and attitudes about bullying and
aggressive behavior before and after the intervention through the Student Experience
Survey Plus (SES+).
A single subject design was ideal for this study because it offered the advantage
of demonstrating experimental control within single p31ticipants, which is especially
useful when evaluating students displaying specific problem behaviors like those related
to bullying. Idiographic in nature, single subject designs evaluate how specific
individuals behave, why they do what they do, and then tests whether interventions like
BP-PBS can change their behavior. Multiple baselines also control for potential threats to
internal validity through repeated evidence of the effect at several different points in time
(Alberto & Troutman, 2003).
The between-subjects MANOVA also added an impOltant component to the
study, evaluating if a relationship exists between students' (n :::: 483) level of intervention,
grade level (3rd, 4th , or Stll), and scores on the SES+. It was anticipated that student scores
on the SES+ would improve significantly wIlen compared to pre-inlervention. An alpha
level of .05 (p < .05) was used for all statistical tests.
39
Phase 1: Baseline
During baseline, the 6 selected students (two students in each of 3 schools) were
observed during lunch recess on the school playground. Baselines were established
conculTently for each of the students along with a peer composite, observed on a daily
basis throughout the study. Incidents of problem behavior and conditional probabilities of
victim and bystander responses were collected each day of the study. These observations
were conducted five times a week during Baseline and BP-PBS implementation. The first
administration of the SES+ was also completed during this phase, 1 to 2 weeks prior to
the implementation of the BP-PBS intervention.
Phase 2: Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support
Once a stable baseline was established, BP-PBS was implemented sequentially,
one school at a time following documented change in the primary dependent variable:
problem behavior. Implementation of the intervention involved a two step process in
which (a) the first author provided training to the whole school faculty on the BP-PBS
cuniculum (Ross, Homer, & Stiller, 2008), and then (b) the school staff used the BP-PBS
cUITiculul1l to provide training for students. During the fIrst step in the intervention
process the instructional, administrative, and supervisor staff within the school received a
1 hour workshop on the BP-PBS program components using the BP-PBS curriculum
manual (see Appendix C for complete manual). Next, all playground supervisors and
instructional aides received an additional half-hour training on supervising behavior
outside the classroom Teachers then scheduled delivery of the one hour BP-PBS
cuniculum to their students during the next week.
40
The Bully-Prevention in Positive Behavior Support curriculum used by teachers
focused on un-structured and less monitored settings such as the cafeteria, gyn:l.
playground, hallway, and bus area, where bullying is most conlllon. The specific skills
taught within the BP-PBS curriculum include:
1. The discrimination of behavior that is "respectful" and "not respectful".
2. If someone is not respectful to you (victim), say "stop" and use the "stop
gesture" (hand held up).
3. If you see someone being treated disrespectfully (bystander), say "stop" and
take the victim away.
4. If, after you say "stop" and disrespectful behavior continues, walk away.
5. If, after you walk away, disrespectful behavior continues, come and tell an
adult.
6. If someone says "stop" to you, (a) step back, (b) take a breath, and (c) go
about your day.
Note that at no time during the training was the concept of "bully" presented or
taught. The focus was on learning wbat "respectful behavior" looked like, and how to
handle situations when someone was forgetting how to be respectful. A major emphasis
within the training was on teaching students that disrespectful behavior typically keeps
happening because it results III attention and praise from others. Students were
encouraged to take away the attention that serves as oxygen maintaining the name of
disrespectful behavior.
During the extra ha1f- hour of training for supervision staff, the author taught a
41
specific "review and resolve" routine that was to be used on the playground when a
student reported inappropriate behavior by another student. In addition to following
nonnal standards for protection and safety, playground supervisors were taught:
1. If a student reports problem behavior, ask the reporting student, "Did you say
stop," "did you walk away?"
a. If the repOlting student did not say "stop"! "walk away" then
encourage them to do that the next time, and go no further.
b. If the reporting student did say "stop"! "walk away" then interact with
the student identified as engaging ill problem behavior.
2. Ask offending student if she!he was asked by others to "stop." Then ask if
they did in fact "stop." Provide practice for the steps to follow when someone asks you
to stop.
After all students and staff had been trained on the BP-PBS components,
playground supervisors and instructional aides were asked to complete the staff fidelity
checklist, collected and entered at the end of every week. The student knowledge fidelity
assessment was also conducted at three points during the BP-PBS intervention phase.
Finally, between 8 and 12 weeks after BP-PBS wa..<; implemented, students were asked to
complete the post-intervention SES+ and staff was asked to complete the BP-PBS
Acceptability Questio1ll1aire.
42
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Results indicated a functional relation between the implementation of Bully-
Prevention in Positive Behavior Support and a reduction in bullying behaviors including
physical and verbal aggression on the playground during lunch recess. The
implementation ofBP-PBS was also functionally related to an increased conditional
probability that victims and bystanders of bullying behaviors would say "stop" and/or
walk away. Finally, results indicated a statistically significant relationship between the
implementation ofBP-PBS, grade levels, and scores on the SES+.
Impact of BP-PBS on Incidents of Problem Behavior
The frequency of incidents of bullying behavior (physical and verbal aggression)
during 10 minute observations of lunch recess across experimental phases for each
participant and composite peer is presented in Figure 7. High, variable, and increasing
rates of physical and verbal aggression were observed in baseline phases for the selected
students. These observed rates not only decreased rapidly and became less variable
during intervention, but they were achieved without being accompanied by extinction
bursts that are often seen with extinction-based procedures. Composite peer results, on
the other hand, indicated minimal incidents of problem behavior both before and after
BP-PBS implementation, arguing for substantial clinical significance.
43
Figure 7. Incidents 0/bullying behavior during Baseline, BP-PBS ltcquisition, and Full
BP-PBS Implementation/or each participant and composite peers duringlO minute
observations 0/ lunch recess.
'0
Full BP-PBS Implementation
•~ I;Baselin~e. A Acquisition
. ,rJ lr -'\Iv. "\.
<:) : -...-
Roh
Cindy
Bruce
Scott
I School 1
Peer COfimosite
Peer Comnosi le
......~
e .
o+-~~~-<---.»o-..;...--.,......~~__~~ ~ ~"""'i
'0
~~
o ..j-,....';>S.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~,....f--~,:...,......~~~~~~~~--4(;~~~~1
'0
School 2
o-+-~~;;....;",........<;-;>.~~,........~..-,..~_~+.......;;-..,...,...,-.-.~-"<;-:;>"_""""'"""",,__""""'~--I
'0
Anne
o+-_~_~~_~~ ~_~-+--''''::'''';;''''''''''''..,......l,o....;:,_,----,:>,.....,
'0
0+-.-~~-~-~- ~_~_~~_--+-...,.:.t;....,2;i~~~_....-,....,44
'0
IPtt
l
,::::":"
""""-..~..-...-.,.--~..,.,.,--
School Days
44
The six target students averaged 3.14 incidents of bullying behavior during
baseline: 4 f()1" Rob, 3.17 for Bruce, 2.78 for Cindy, 2.38 for Scott, 3.4 for Anne, and 3.1
for Ken. For School 1, Rob's baseline levels of problem behavior varied drastically,
from1 to 10 incidents, and produced an overall increasing trend. Bruce's baseline problem
behavior was less variable, ranging between 0 and 5 incidents, but with a similar
increasing trend. For School 2, Cindy produced a baseline with a slightly flatter
increasing trend and a range of 0-5 incidents over 23 observations. Scott produced a
baseline quite similar to that of Cindy with a slightly increasing trend, a range of 0-4
incidents, and an average of 2.38 incidents on a daily basis. Finally, for school 3, Anne
produced a baseline of problem behavior ranging from 1 to 6 incidents and maintaining a
strong increasing trend over 30 observations. Ken's baseline ranged from 1 to 5 incidents
with a sJjghtly lower average and a flatter trend.
After the school staff was trained on the curriculum components of BP-PBS, they
were asked to deliver the curriculum to the students within the next 3-5 school days.
During that time, some but not all of the students may have received the intervention and
the phase is therefore labeled as a separate acquisition phase of the intervention. During
tIns acquisition phase, the selected students averaged 1. 88 incidents of problem behavior
during a bservatiolls, with a range of 0-4 incidents and an overall acute decreasing trend.
Once the BP-PBS intervention was fully implemented, it was associated with
significant reductions in the mean level of problem behavior (0.88 incidents), decreasing
trends, and reductions in variability for all 6 targeted students. Rob's BP-PBS phase
documents an average of96 incidents with problem behavior (a reduction of over 3
45
incidents per 10 minute observation} with a gradually decreasing trend across the
intervention phase. Bruce, Cindy, Scott, AIlIle and Ken averaged 1.18,1.30,0.60,0.83,
and 0.43 incidents of problem behavior respectively across the BP-PBS phase. These
levels represent reductions of 1.99, 1.48, 1.78,2.57, and 2.67 average incidents from
baseline means. The trends during the BP-PBS phase decreased steadily for all 6
students, and each student demonstrated reduced variability.
In addition to the decrease in average incidents of problem behavior for each
selected student, the overall intervention effect size was calculated using Percentage of
All Non-Overlapping Data (PAND). PAND represents an altemative index of effect size,
reflecting non-overlapping data between phases, but avoiding the overemphasis on one
data point, which plagues the percent of non-overlapping data approach (PND) typical in
single subject research (Parker, Hagan-Burke, & Vannest, 2(07). PAND can also be
translated to Pearson's Phi, a reasonable effect size measurement according to Cohen
(Cohen, 1988). PAND requires the evaluation of all non-overlapping data points by
calculating the number of data points in both intervention and baseline phases that would
have to be swapped across phases in order to achieve complete score separation. When
only the baseline and Full BP-PBS Implementatioll phases were considered, a total of 36
overlapping data points were found across baseline and intervention phases: 3 for Rob, 6
for Bruce, 10 for Cindy, 8 for Scott, 6 for 1L\rrne, ,md 2 for Ken. This nnmber was then
divided by 251, the total number of data points in the 2 phases, for a total of 13.94%
overlapping data points.
Following tlus calculation, a Chi square was used to calculate the Pearson Phi effect
46
size as the difference between the two cell ratios: Phi = [al (a + c)J - [bl (b + d)]. In this
study: (110/133)-(12/118) = .83 - .10 = 0.73, so Phi = .73. (See table 4 below for the
PAND Chi Square). According to Cohen's rule of thumb for Phi, 0.72 is considered
between a medium and large effect size.
Table 4. Chi Square/or PAND between baseline and/ull BP-PBS implementation phases.
Overlap Intervention Baseline Total
Lower 110 12 122
cell a cell b
Higher 23 106 129
cell c cell d
Total: 133 118 251
The Impact of BP-PBS on Victim and Bystander Response Probabilities
Each time a data collector recorded an incident of bullying behavior, they also
recorded the conditional probability of victim (victim) and bystander responses, which
are presented below in Figure 8. Bars indicate the pre and post response probabilities in
each school.
47
Figure 8. Conditional probabilities of victim and bystander responses to bullying
behavior during 10 minute observations of lunch recess.
Victim Response Probabilities
o BaselineBystander Response Probabilities
!l:lBP-PBS
40% 40%
Q) Q) Q)D.- ~ .~ (f)0 m ..... .~ c(f) .U) ro 0 0s: 0 OJ Z D.-o... <ll (f)
Z Q)0:
0%
0%
20%
30%
0"/0
10%
40%
20%
30% .
10%
30%-
10%
20%
,._.-.. -
Q)
(f)
c
o 0
Z Q
(f)
Q)
0:
~ Q)
Q)
.~ .~
(1J
- roS (f)0 OJ
0... Q)Z
[I ,- - -- -- - ,- -
'T.clr -~~. 'r'~'
0.
o
(f)
0% - - --
10%
'20%
30%
C 20%
....
......
_t""'! 10%~
,D 0%
o
I-<
~ 40%
V
rIlI:l 30%
o
~ 20%
~ 10%
~1-1 0%
o
....
+-' 40%~
I:lo 30~;,
U
Overall, before the BP-PBS intervention, when an incident of bullying behavior
occurred, victims (victims) of bullying said "stop" 2% of the time, "walked" away 3% of
the time, delivered a positive (reinforcing) response 19% of the time, delivered a negative
(still reinforcing) response 34% of the time, and delivered no response 43% of the time,
Bystanders of bul1ying incidents said "stop" 1WJ of the time, helped the victim "walk"
away 2% of the time, delivered a positive (reinforcing) response 39% of the time,
delivered a negative response 18% of the time. and delivered no response 40% of the
48
time.
The BP-PBS intervention was associated with increases in appropriate responses
to problem behavior for all 3 schools. Overall, victims of bullying said "stop" 30% of the
time (a 28% increase from baseline), helped the victim "walk" away 13% of the time (a
10% increase), delivered a positive response 8% of the time (an 11 % decrease), delivered
a negative response 15% of the time (a 19% decrease), and delivered no response 34% of
the time (a 9% decrease). Finally, after BP-PBS was fully implemented, bystanders of
bullying said "stop" 22% of the time (a 21 % increase), helped the victim "walk" away
13% of the time (an 11 % increase), delivered a positive response 17% of the time (a 22%
decrease), delivered a negative response 8% of the time (a 10% decrease), and delivered
no response 41 % of the time (a 1% increase). Of particular note was the large impact that
BP-PBS implementation had on the use of "stop" by all students, the decrease in victim
delivery of a negative response (i.e. complaining, fighting back), and the decrease in
bystander delivery of a positive response (i.e. cheering, laughing). It is likely that these
changes in conditional probabilities had the greatest impact 011 the rapid decrease in
future incidents of bullying behavior.
The Impact of BP-PBS on Student Perceptions
For the group design portion of the study, data were analyzed using a between
subjects IVfuJtivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). The analysis was conducted to
determine if (a) the pre and post BP-PBS survey were equivalent, (b) if grade 3, 4, and 5
were equivalent, and (c) if grade level and intervention level had an interaction effect 011
49
the 10 dependent variables of the SES+: SES score, perceptions of verbal aggression
towards others, verbal aggression by others towards self, physical aggression towards
others, physical aggression by others towards self, gossip towards others, gossip by
others towards self, and use of stop, walk, and talk responses to problem behavior.
Each school's level of SES + score was run on a computerized statistical program
(SPSS). First, descriptive data for each variable was analyzed (see Table 5 below).
Table 5. Descriptive data/or the Multivariate Analysis o/Variance.
Dependent Variable. ··Mean .Std. Error 95% Con[uience Interval
·LovverBound·· . Upper Bound
SES 15.59 .29 15.03 16.152
Verbal .71 .03 .65 ;764
Other Verbal 1.43 .04 1.35 1.502
Physical .27 .02 .23 .302
Other Physical .79 .03 .73 .852
Gossip .53 .02 .49 .580
Other Gossip .98 .04 .91 1.044
Stop 2.02 .04 1.94 2.093
Walk 1.68 .04 1.61 1.753
Talk 1.74 .04 1.66 1.820
50
The lead author then ran the MANOVA to detemtine the relationship between the
students' (n = 483) level of intervention (pre or post BP-PBS) , their grade level (Td, 4th,
or 5th), and their scores on the SES+. Results indicated that there was a significant effect
of level of intervention, grade, and interaction, on SES+. \\-Tilks' Lambda reported F(l,
480) =25.23, p < .05 for intervention level, F(2, 480) =3.03, P < .05 for grade level, and
F(l, 480) =2.80, P < .05 for the interaction effect (see Table 6).
Table 6. Results of the multivariate tests.
.Hypothesis Error PartialEffect Value F Sig.. Etadf df Squared
Intercept .10 876.33 10 951 .000 .90
Grade .94 3.031 20 1902 .000 .03
Intervention .79 25.23 10 951 .000 .21
Grade*
.94 2.80 20 1902 .000 .03Intervention
Computed using alpha =.05
Effects of Intervention Level
Next, a comparison between pre and post BP-PBS surveys was analyzed. Results
indicated that 9 out of the 10 dependent variables were significantly different in the post
survey. SES scores, scores of perceived verbal aggression tOl'mrds others, scores of
perceived verbal aggression by others, scores of perceived physical aggression tmvards
others, scores of perceived physical aggression b.Y' others, scores of perceived gossip b}'
51
others, scores of perceived use of "stop", scores of perceived use of "walk", and scores of
perceived use of "talk" were all significantly different in the anticipated direction (See
Table 7 below). The only dependent variable not significantly different was the score of
perceived gossip tmvards others, Fel, 480) =0.20,p =0.54.
Table 7. Benveen-sul~jects effectsfor level o.fintervention.
Dependent Type III Sum Mean PartialDf F Sig. EtaVariable ofSquares Square Squared
SBS 2807.81 1 2807.81 36.07 .000 .036
Verbal 23.25 1 23.25 27.26 .000 .028
Other verbal 105.31 1 105.31 74.21 .000 .072
Physical 3.59 3.59 10.59 .001 .011
Other physical 27.23 1 27.23 29.60 .000 .030
Gossip 0.20 1 0.20 .37 .541 .000
Other go ssip 10.13 10.13 8.82 .003 .009
Stop 162.90 1 162.90 113.63 .000 .106
Walk 75.52 1 75.52 63.62 .000 .062
Talk 31.72 1 31.72 20.14 .000 .021
Effects of Grade
Next, the comparison between 3rd , 4th , and 5th grade was analyzed. Results
indicated that 4 out of the 10 dependent variables were significantly different in the post
survey. Fifth grade students scored significantly higher than the other two grades on
52
perceived gossip towards other students, F(2, 480) =5.57, p < 0.05, 1]2 =.01. Also, 4th
graders scored significantly higher than the other two grades on perceived use of the stop,
walk, and talk responses: F(2, 480) =30.61, p < 0.05,1]2 = .02, F(2, 480) = 23.77, P <
0.05,112 = .02, F(2, 480) =21.63, P < 0.05,112 =.01, respectively. Also worth noting was
the near significance of perceived verbal aggression by other students for 3rd graders, F(2,
480) = 7.11, p = 0.08, and the near significance of perceived physical aggression by other
students tor 4th graders, F(2, 480) = 4.93, P = 0.07 (See Table 8).
Table 8. Between-subjects eJfectsfor grade level.
Dependent I)Jpe III Sum df Mean F Sig. Partial EtaFariable of Squares Square Squared
SES 196.26 2 98.13 1.26 .28 .00
Verbal 1.85 2 .93 1.08 .34 .00
Other verbal 7.11 2 3.55 2.51 .08 .01
Physical .28 2 .14 .41 .66 .00
Other pllysical 4.93 2 2.47 2.68 .07 .01
Gossip 5.57 2 2.79 5.22 .01 .01
Other gossip 3.93 2 1.96 1.71 .18 .00
Stop 30.61 2 15.31 10.68 .00 .02
Walk 23.77 2 11.89 10.01 .00 .02
Talk 21.63 2 10.81 6.86 .00 .01
53
Interaction between Intervention and Grade
Finally, the interaction effect of intervention level and grade level was analyzed.
Results indicated that verbal aggression towards others and by others was impacted by
the intervention significantly more for 3rd graders than for either of the other two grades:
F(l, 481) =9.20, p < 0.05, 112 =.01, F(l, 481) =13.97, p < 0.05, 112 =.01. These results
argue that the BP-PBS intervention had the greatest impact on 3rd grader use of verbal
aggression (See Table 9).
Table 9. Between-subjects interaction effects between level of intervention and grade
level.
Dependent Type III Sum df Mean F Sig. Partial EtaVariable ofSquares Square Squared
SES 119.70 2 59.85 .77 .46 .00
Verbal 9.20 2 4.60 5.40 .01 .01
Other verbal 13.97 2 6.99 4.92 .01 .01
Physical .65 2 .33 .96 .38 .00
Other physical 4.37 2 2.19 2.38 .09 .00
Gossip 1.27 2 .63 1.19 .31 .00
Other gossip 4.39 2 2.19 1.91 .15 .00
Stop 6.86 2 3.43 2.39 .09 .00
\Valk 1.33 2 .66 .56 .57 .00
Talk 2.55 2 1.28 .81 .45 .00
54
Fidelity of Implementation
Fidelity of BP-PBS implementation was assessed through both student knowledge
of the curriculum, and staff adherence to program components (see Table 10 and 11
below). In regards to the student knowledge of the cuniculum, students were assessed
three times during the course of the intervention. The results indicate that at each of the 3
assessment points, students knew the 3 step response to problem behavior with more than
93% accuracy.
Table 10. Fidelity o/implementation by student knowledge of StoplWalk/Talk.
Student Knowledge of
StoplVValklJralk
School
School 1
School 2
School 3
Time 1
96.67% (29/30)
Correct Responses
Time 2
100% (30/30)
100% (30/30)
Time 3
93.33% (28/30)
100% (30/30)
96.67% (29/30)
55
Tahle 11. Fidelity of implementation by staff adherence to program components.
StaffAdherence to Average daily frequencyProgram Components
School Check-ins Positives Reports Practices ODRs*
School 1 2.30 2.20 2.00 3.51 0.06
School 2 1.06 1.48 2.57 1.43 0.00
School 3 2.54 3.44 2.41 3.90 0.15
Overall 1.97 2.25 2.27 2.95 0.06
*ODR - Office Discipline Referral
[n Table 11, the staff adherence daily checklist results are described for each
school. A total of 34 (n =34) staff filled out the daily checklist dmmg the study. Results
indicated that overall, staff participated in an average of 1.97 (M = 1.97, SD = 1.81)
check-ins \vith chronic targets and instigators of problem behavior on a daily basis and
delivered positive reinforcement to students t~Jr using the BP-PBS cUlTiculum
components an average of 2.25 (M = 2.25, SD = 1.83) times per day. In addition, on
average school staff were able to practice the BP-PBS components with students 2.95 (M
=2.95, SD =2.61) times each day, and they delivered office discipline refenals to
students exhibiting continued problem behavior a total of 10 times throughout the study,
for CUi average of 0.06 times a day (M = 0.06, SD =0.24). Finally, on average, staff
received 2.27 (M = 2.25, SD = 2.07) student repo11s of problem behavior on a daily basis.
Together the data indicate that students were able to learn and retain the fundamental
56
components of the BP-PBS curriculum and that staff were able to implement the BP-PBS
curriculum components throughout the study.
Social Validity
A summary of BP-PBS Acceptability Questionnaire ratings is provided in Table
12. Twenty-five (n =25) statr from all three schools completed the questionnaire on a 6
point scale (1 through 6), with higher scores indicating a higher satisfaction with
intervention components. Overall, staff gave ratings of 4 or greater on the 6 point scale as
to whether BP-PBS resulted in improved behavior (M =4.43, SD = 1.04), whether it was
worth the time and effOli (M =4.74, SD =1.10), and whether they would recolllll1end it
to others (M =4.6, SD = 1.23). Staff ratings were even higher on the 6 point scale for the
program's ease of participation (M = 5.51, SD = 0.77), which is likely related to the
efficiency of the curriculum delivery and the simplicity of program components.
Table 12. StaffRatings ofBP-PBS Acceptability
Improved Worth the Would Easy toSchool Student Time and Recommend
Behavior Effort to Others Participate
School 1 4.75 5.00 4.50 5.38
Schoo12 4.43 4.71 5.00 5.86
School 3 4.1 4.5 4.3 4.3
57
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Results strongly support the addition of a targeted intervention, like BP-PBS, to a
school's system of positive behavior support. Results indicate a large reduction in the
number of incidents, variability, and trend of bullying behavior. These effects were
coupled with an increase in appropriate bystander and victim responses to bullying
behavior, which likely served to moderate the changes in behavioral incidents. By
responding appropriately to incidents of bullying behavior, victims and bystanders
learned to put bullying behavior on extinction, reducing the peer attention maintaining
the problem behavior. Finally, results also indicated a significant improvement in student
perceptions of experiences related to bullying, harassment, and school safety.
Not only did faculty and staff give the intervention high scores regarding its
effectiveness and efficiency, they were able to implement the study procedures with a
high degree of fidelity. A simple, cost-efficient system that teaches all students a specific
response to problem behavior and teaches all staff a specific approach to reports of
problem behavior can have a large impact on patterns of bullying behavior. BP-PBS will
be most' effective for students who engage in problem behavior that is maintained by peer
attention. If students do not find peer attention reinforcing, the BP-PBS procedures may
be less effective. Further research on the role of functional behavioral assessment results
to guide the design of bully prevention procedures is warranted.
58
Implications for Practice
The empirical findings in this study have major implications for educators across
the country. First, the results indicate that the use of "bullying" language seems less than
necessary, as its complex definitions and descriptions can be difJicult to recognize for
students as well as staff. By avoiding the language, BP-PBS was able to focus on real and
observable behaviors, allowing for more reliable data collection and more consistent
responses by staff and students. By not evaluating levels of power and frequency,
observers undoubtedly coded more than just bullying, but it is also doubtful that anyone
will complain the program reduced too much problem behavior. The more complex
defmitions of bullying serve to understand the phenomenon, but data indicate that it may
not be necessary for effective intervention.
Program maintenance ofBP-PBS signified another major implication for
educators across the country. Past research has made evident the difficulties in
implementing resource-intensive bully prevention efforts over multiple years. Although
these programs have provided some efficacious results, schools have great difficulty
maintaining funding and remaining motivated to continue program implementation. In
their efforts, bully prevention programs have included components of individual
counseling with the victim and the bully, small group social skills instruction, staff
training, and others. Many of these components are extremely valuable and absolutely
necessary for a small percentage of students, but by effectively teaching and reinforcing a
simple, specific, school-wide response to problem behavior, BP-PBS requires
substantially less money, time, and effon, while significantly limiting the number of
59
students needing this additional level of SUPPOlt. It has been recommended that future
efforts consider interventions of differing intensities in order to determine the most
efficient level of intervention and prevention (Hartung & Scambler, 2006). BP-PBS is a
definite step in this direction.
There is evidence that teachers' SUppOlt and coaching for student skill use, outside
of lesson instruction, has enormous benefits. In the BP-PBS cUlTiculum, practice is
initiated with victims, perpetrators, and bystanders each time problem behavior is
reported, reinforcing appropriate use of skills, and serving as a small punisher for
problem behavior. In addition, a small adult check-in with chronic victims and
perpetrators of bullying at the beginning and end of unstructured times (cafeteria, gym,
recess) provides pre-correction and needed preparation in difficult settings.
Administrators should create 0pp01tunities for statf to discuss additional strategies to
provide ongoing, high levels of this kUJd of support. Specifically, this may rnvoJve
increasing adult availability to help coach students in unstructured settings.
For the program to be effective, BP-PBS requires the maintenance of adult
awareness and motivation. Administrative, teacher, and supervisor buy-in is absolutely
essential, as the reinforcement of students who use the BP-PBS skills will make or break
the program Good practice also illc1udes ongoillg trainillg and brainstoTIl1illg about hmv
to make the program fit within the context of the school. This can include weekly
supervisor meetings to discuss upcoming issues, BP-PBS posters, and ongoing evaluation
of program effectiveness. The follow-up survey at the end of the curriculum manual can
serve in this regard.
60
The BP-PBS focus on classroom intervention in elementary grades reflects a need
to intervene before smges in bullying that typically occm toward the end of elementary
school and into rlliddle school years (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Children's views on
dealing with aggressive peers undergo changes while long-standing pattems of
interaction become increasingly resistant to change around this time (Newman, Murray,
& Lussier, 2001), so BP-PBS has targeted the middle to upper elementary school years as
a particularly favorable time to influence bullying-related skills, beliefs, and behavior.
That said, with the growing need for bullying prevention and intervention at the middle
and high school level, BP-PBS can be adapted by making the program language more
"cool", and by discussing more subtle scenarios of problem behavior increasingly
relevant to older students, such as gossip, inappropriate COlmnents, cyber-bullying, and
exclusiolJ, An evaluation of the middle school version including these components is the
next step in the BP-PBS research agenda.
Finally, given the troubling effects of bullying and the promising results of this
study, EVERY school implementing school-wide positive behavior support should also
consider the implementation of a secondary level of support for bully prevention. With
the reduced resomces necessary, implementation of programs like BP-PBS can have very
pmverful effects for a little added effort.
Limitations
Limitations of the current study should prompt caution in interpreting the results.
First of all, with regard to the single subject pOltion of the study, no functional
61
assessment was conducted with observed students to determine that peer attention did in
fact serve to maintain their problem behavior. Even though each of the observed students
responded positively to the intervention, it is possible that some students will not.
Continued research is needed to determine how these students will respond to the
procedures of BP-PBS and how it can be strengthened to include other functions of
behavior, such as adult attention, tangibles, self-stimulation, or escape for the victim.
With regard to the data collection of student behaviors on the playground, because
of the short amount of time during lunch recess, direct observation data were limited to
la-minute observations of each student. Therefore, the data collected mayor may not
have generalized to other unstructured settings throughout the school including the
cafeteria, hallways, gym, bus, or library. In addition, although great efforts were made to
protect the identity of observed students, at times some students may have become aware
that they were being observed. Tlus recognition coupled with the implementation of BP-
PBS curriculum training may have had a dispropoI1ionate impact OIl their behavior.
To statistically evaluate the effect size of the multiple baseline design, percentage
of aU non-overlapping data POilllS (PAND) was calculated according to Parker, Hagall-
Burke, and Vannest (2007). While this approach is considerably more accurate than the
typical PND approach, several issues require careful consideration for interpretation.
First, the calculation of the effect size Phi requires the creation of a chi-square with
overlapping and non-overlapping data filling a 2 x 2 table. Although seemingly
appropriate, an assumption of the chi-square is that all observations are independent, and
unfortunately the data points in a single subject design can't be truly independent without
62
randomization. Second, it is debatable whether PAND is a measure of effect size or rather
a measure of the magnitude of confidence in a functional effect. PMID calculates
whether there is a true difference between the baseline and intervention phases but does
not take into consideration the magnitude of that difference. For example, if intervention
A decreases problem behavior by 80% and intervention B decreases it by 20%, there is
no question that intervention A has a larger effect size. But because PAND simply
calculates the number of overlapping data points between phases, it is very possible that
the two interventions could have an equivalent percentage of all non-overlapping data
and therefore equivalent Phi effect size calculations.
Linlitations should also be considered when evaluating the group design portion
of the study. In order to avoid issues of confidentiality, this study implemented a simple
pre-post, between subjects, non-experimental design. As no control group was included,
significant threats to internal validity must be considered, including threats of history,
maturation, and testing. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of BP-PBS
across many schools over an extended period of time, using pre-post, within subjects,
control group designs. It would also be quite valuable to determine the effects of SP-PBS
over multiple years and even into adulthood.
The practical implications of these data lie in the combined results of the problem
behavior, peer response, student perception, fidelity, and acceptability data. BP-PBS is au
example of a targeted intervention that was implemented witb high fidelity by regular
faculty and staff in 3 typical elementary schools. The intervention was associated with
significant improvements in perceptions of problem behavior, directly observed problem
63
behavior, and responses to problem behavior. Further, faculty and staff evaluated the
procedures as effective in improving behavior, "worth the time and effOli," "easy to
implement," and highly likely to recommend it to others.
As schools address the need to build environments that prevent problem behavior
and support adaptive behavior, one inlportant element will be the use of efficient,
targeted interventions. BP-PBS holds promise as one intervention that will meet this
need, especially for those students who engage in bullying behaviors maintained by peer
attention. Resources in schools are scarce, and intervention intensity must be matched to
the severity of problem behavior. As schools move to build school-wide discipline
systems that prevent problem behaviors, targeted interventions like BP-PBS will be an
important and useful component.
64
APPENDIX A
BP-PBS PILOT RESULTS
Figure Ai. BP-PBS Pilot Results: Incidents ofProblem Behavior on the Playground
during i 0 minute observation oflunch recess.
Baseline Phase Intervention Phase (BP-PBS)
II
Composite
Peer
\(}trl2
• Problem Behavior
(physical + verbal aggression)
II
II
II
~IIIIIIII
II
II
"II
8
6
4
2
0
8
e 6Q,I
-,.Q 4Q
l-;
~ 2
e..,..,
Q
0{I.l
Q,I 8
~
=:
~ 6
..-
{I.l
=: 4
~
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
School Days
Figure A2. BP-PBS Pilot Results: Conditional Probabilities
Probability of Recipient Response following Problem
Behavior
.~ 100 ..,....------------------r:II=-;=:;B-=-as:-e-;:li-ne~Ph;-a-s-e---,
i 80 • Intervention Phase
.Cl
e 60 0 Follow up
c.
~ 40
Q
E 20
"C
C
<5 0
65
stop walk positive negative no
response
Probability of Bystander Response following Problem
Behavior
~ 100
.Cl 80l'I:l
.Cl
Q 60...c.
i6 40c
Q
:'2 20
"C
C
Q 0u
stop walk positive negative
III Baseline Phase
• Intervention Phase
o Follow up
no
response
66
APPENDIXB
STAFF FIDELITY CHECKLIST
Appendix B. Stafffidelity checklist filled out daily by each playground supervisor.
Problem Behavior Outside the Classroom
Staff Name: _ School:
------
Today, how many of the following occurred:
Reports Practices of ODRs
Check- Positives of S,W,T Given out for
ins for slWrr Problem With students Problem
Date: Behavior Behavior
Comments:
------------------------
APPENDIXC
STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY PLUS (SES+)
67
68
Student Experience Survey: What Schoof (s
Like for Me (Attitude Scafes)
Administration of this survey should be prefaced by a brief discussion about the purpose
of the survey and guidelines about student behavior during the survey (for example, not
saying answers out loud and respecting others' privacy). Confidentiality also should be
addressed in the introduction. Students should be told that their answers will be
confidential, and only the staff involved in summarizing the information will have access
to the surveys (An astute student may ask about the identification codes on the survey.
You will need to assure the student that there will be restricted access to the key linking
identification codes with studen.t names.)
.Administration Script
Use the following script to introduce and administer the Student Experience Survey to students.
Introduction. Today we are giving a survey to students in third through fifth grades (or fourth
through sixth) to learn about what things are like for students here. This will take 15-20 minutes.
The survey asks your opinion about different things at school. For example, I'll ask you how hard it
would be to calmly tell kids to stop If they were teasing you. There are no wrong or right answers to
the questions; we are just interested in what you want to tell us.
We want your answers to be private. To keep your answers private, please gently tear off the first
page with your name on it and use it to coveryour answers as you go along. Your name will not be
on your survey.
Please don't say answers out loud or shaw your answers to others. You may skip any question that
you don't want to answer. Please do nat write the names ofother students when answering any of
the questions.
I am going to read the questions out loud. You may choose to follow along with me, oryou may go
ahead and work at your own pace. Raise your hand ifyou need help or have a question. Ifyou have a
hord time remembering or oren't sure of an answer, just make your best guess.
Let's start with the first page. The first question asks ifyou are a boyar girl-drcle your answer. The
next question asks what grade you are in-circle your grode. The next question asks how old you
are-circle your age. Make sure your circles are good and dark.
© 2004 Committee for Children Student Experience Survey Whal School Is Like for Me
Part 1. Now the rest of the questions on this page and the next one ask you how hard it would be to
do things. For example, there is a game you'd really like to have-how hard would it be to save
money to buy it yourself' Would it be not hard at all, a little bit hard, pretty hard, or really hard'
Circle how hard it would be for you. (Read questions 1-5 below on pages 1-2 of the survey-
emphasizing the word calmly.)
1. Kids at school are pushing you around. How hard would it be to calmly tell them to stop?
2. Kids at school are ganging up on you. How hard would it be to calmly tell them to stop?
3. Kids at school are teasing you. How hard would it be to calmly tell them to stop?
4. Kids at school are telling lies about you. How hard would it be to calmly tell them to stop?
5. Kids are passing mean notes about you in class. How hard would it be to calmly tell them
to stop?
Part 2. The questions on this page ask If something is, in your opinion, very true, pretty true, a little
true, or not true at all. The example says, "If we had free time at school, I would draw pictures." If
that's how you feel, circle "very true." If it's pretty much how you feel, circle "pretty true. " Ifyou
feel a little bit that way, circle "a little true. H If that is nat true at all for you, circle "nat true. "
(Read questions 6-14 on pages 3-4 of. the survey.)
6. My school is a safe place to be.
7. If I were being bullied, I would ask on adult at school for help.
8. Adults at my school know about kids being bullied.
9. If a bunch of kids at school were teasing another kid, I would calmly tell them to stop.
10. Adults at my school stop kids from being bullied.
11. If I saw someone being ganged up on at school, I would tell on adult.
12. If Illy friends were passing mean notes about another kid, I would tell them to stop.
13. If my friends were telling lies about another kid; I would tell them to stop.
14. If I saw someone being hit or pushed around at school, I would tell an adult.
Part 3. In this port, we want to know what you think about things that happen at school. I will read
a sentence, then you decide how much you agree with it. The example says, "It's okay to go to the
store by yourself" Some kids might think this is okay, others might not. What do you think? Do you
agree a lot, agree some, agree a little, or not at all? Circle the one that shows what you think. (Read
questions 15-21 on pages 5-6 of the survey.)
15. It's okay to soy something mean to a kid who's pushing you around.
16. It's okay to soy something mean to a kid who really makes you angry.
17. It's okay to say something mean to a kid who does something mean to you.
18. It's okay to hit a kid who hits you first.
19. If a kid makes yOil angry, it's okay to say that yOil won't like the kid anymore.
20. It's okay to hit a kid who's pushing you around.
21. It's okay 10 stop talking to a kid to get even.
69
Student Experience Survey: What School Is Like (or Me © 2004 Committee tor Children
Part 4. In this part, we want to know how often you have experienced certain thing,,' i
will read a sentence, then you decide how often you experienced it: never, once in P.
while, once a week, once a day, or more than once a day. The example says, "I cleanc ,I
my room." Some kids might clean their room once in a while, and others might do il
every day. Circle the aile that shows how often you clean your room. (Read quesliOII"
15-21 on pages 5-6 of the survey)
22. I said mean things, teased, or called other kids names.
23. Other kids kids said mean things, teased, or called me names.
24. t hit, kicked, or pushed other kids at school.
25. Other kids hit, kicked, or pushed me at school.
26. I told my friends secrets I heard about otherpeople.
27. Other kids told secrets about me.
28: When someone did something to me that I didn't like, I calmly told them to
stop.
29. When someone did something to me that I didn't like, I walked away.
30. Someone continued to do something to me that I didn't like, even after I told
them to stop and I walked away, so I told an adult.
Conclusion. Thank you for answering the questions on the survey. Your answers will help us learn
about what things are like for kids at this school. Do yau have any questions you'd like to ask i""'
70
© 2004 Commiltee for Children Student Experience Survey: What School Is Like (or Me
71
Examples of student queslions
Below are examples of possible questions students may ask, along with possible answers you can
offer. The most important things to convey to students are (a) there are no right or wrong
answers-just opinions, and (b) students' responses will be kept either confidential or anonymou:
depending on the evaluation strategy.
Why are you doing this?
We want to learn about students' experiences at school. You are the experts.
Why do you ask about so many bad things?
We want to know about different things that happen at school-the fun stuffand also the not-sofl
stuff like kids being teased. You know the most about those things. We want to hear from you abc
what happens.
What will you do with our answers?
We will look at how lots of different kids answered the questions. That will give us a big picture of
what things are like at schooL
What do the numbers at the top of each page mean? (referring to ID codes, in the case they
are used to track students from pre- to posttest)
The numbw are for us to keep track of whom we've given the SUfYey to. Remember that we are
keeping your answw private and that the swyeys will nat have your names an them. Ollly afew
people in the office (name the staff members, if possible) will be able to see the sUfYeys so they can
summarize or put together oil the information you have given us.
What do the numbers below each of the boxes mean? (referring to the numbers below the
response options for each question)
These numbers help us enter the information into a camputer.
Why are you asking us the same questions again? (at posttest)
We want to know if things have changed or stayed the same since the last time we asked you these
questions.
© 2004 Committee tor Children Sludent Experience Survey: What ScllOot Is Like for Me
What Schoof fs Like for Me
ID #~_~ _
Name _
72
iD#
What Schoof fs Like for Me
Page 1
73
Are you a boyar a girl?
What grade are you in?
Howald are you?
Boy
3
8
Girl
4
9
5
10
6
11 12 13
Part One
Please circle the answer that is most true for you. There are no right or wrong
answers. We just want to know what you think. You may skip any questions that
you don't want to answer.-
Example:
'There is a game that you'd really like to llave. How hard would it be to save the
money to buy it yourself?
not hard at all a little bit hard Pretty Hard REALLY HARD
1. Kids at school are pushing you around. How hard would it be to calmly tell them
to stop?
not hard at all
© 200~ Commiltee for Chiidren
a little bit liard Pretty Hard REALLY HARD
Go to next page
10 # Page 2
74
2. Kids at school are ganging up on you. How hard would it be to calmly tell them
to stop?
3. Kids at school are teasing you. How hard would it be to calmly tell them
to stop?
not hard at all
not hard at all
a little bit hard
a little bit hard
Pretty Hard
Pretty Hard
REALLY HARD I
i
________J
1
I
I
REALLY HARD I
4. Kids at school are telling lies about you. How hard would it be to calmiy tell them!
to stop?
not hard at all a little bit hard Pretty Hard REALLY HARD
-- I
5. K'd' 'ce p,,,'og meap PO'" al,"", ym '0 da". How Imd would it bo 10 calmly I
tell them to stop?
noillard at all a little bit hard Pretty Hard REALLY HARD
3
© 2004 Committee for Children Go to next page
10# _
Part Two
Circle the answer that is most true for you.
Example:
-'f we had free time at school, I would draw pictures.
Page 3
75
Very TRUE Pretty true a little true not true
6. My school ;s a safe place to be.
Very TRUE Pretty true a little true not true
7. If I were being bullied, I would ask an adult at school for help.
Very TRUE Pretty true a little true not true
8. Adults at my school know about kidsbeing bullied.
Very TRUE Pretty true a little true not true
9. If a bunch of kids at school were teasing another kid, I would calmly tell
them to stop.
Very TRUE
© 2004 Commillee for Children
Pretty true a little true
·1
not true
Go to nexi page
ID #~~__~~~~~~~
10. Adults at my school stop kids from being bullied.
Page "1-
76
VeryTRUE Pretty true a little true not true
~f I saw someone being ganged up on at school, I would tell an adult. l
L~ery TRU E Pretty true a little true not true
12. If my friends were passing mean notes about another kid, I would tell them
to stop.
VeryTRUE Pretty true a little true not true
13. If my friends were telling lies about another kid, I would tell them to stop.
Very TRUE Pretty true a little true not true
14. If I saw someone being hit or pushed around at school, I would tell an adult.
Very TRUE
© 2004 Commiltee for Children
Pretty true a little true not true
Go to next paga
77
ID#~~~~_~ __~_~ Page 5
Part Three
Circle the answer that shows how much you agree with each sentence.
Example:
'It's okay to go to the store by yourself.
Agree A LOT Agree some agree a little don't agree
15. II's okay to say something mean to a kid who's pushing you around.
don't agreeagree a littleAgree someAgree A LOT J'----~~~---=-~~~~~---;:---~~~~---:---:~~~~-----;;-~-
16. It's okay to say something mean to a kid who really makes you angry.
Agree A LOT Agree some agree a little dan'! agree
17. It's okay to say something mean to a kid who does something mean to you.
Agree A LOT Agree some agree a little don't agree
'-------c----------c----------------:----J
18. It's okay to hit a kid who hits you first.
Agree A LOT Agree some agree a little don't agree
© 2004 Committee for Children Go to next page
10# Page 6
78
0~f a kid makes you angry, it's okay to say that you won't like the kid anymore
L:gree A LOT Agree some agree a little don't agree
3
20. It's okay to hit a kid who's pushing you around.
Agree A LOT Agree some agree a little don" agree
21. It's okay to stop talking to a kid to get even.
Agree A LOT Agree some
Part Four
agree a little don't agree
Circle the answer that shows how often you experience the following.
Example:
* I clean my room.
Never Once in a while Once a week Once a day More than
once a day
22. I said mean things, teased, or called other kids names.
Never Once in a while Once a week Once a day More than
once a day
Go to next paC"
79
ID # ~ Page 7
23. Other kids said mean things, teased, or called me names. 1
Never Once in a while Once a week Once a day More than
once a day
24. I hit, kicked, or pushed other kids at school.
Once a dayOnce a weekOnce in a whileNever More than
once a day
'-- J
25. Other kids hit, kicked, or pushed me at school. I
Never Once in a while Once a week Once a day More than
once a day
26. 1told my friends secrets I heard about other people.
Never Once in a while Once a week Once a day More than
once a day
27. Other kids told secrets about me.
Never Once in a while Once a week Once a day More than
once a day
Go to next pa~j8
80
10# Page 8
Once a dayOnce a weekOnce in a whileNever
28. When someone did something to me that I didn't like, I calmly told them to stop
More than
once a day
Once a dayOnce a weekOnce in a whileNever
29. When someone did something to me that I didn't like, I walked away.
More than
once a dayL-______________________________.J
Once a dayOnce a weekOnce in a whileNever
30. Someone continued to do something to me that I didn't like even after f told them
to stop and I walked away, so I told an adult.
More than I
once a day
L-- J
Thank You. Please Wait Quietly.
APPENDIXD
BULLY PREVENTION IN POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT MANUAL
81
82
Before We Intervene.....
Prior to implementing BP-PBS in your school, it is important to understand the signals and layout
most ideal for your specific setting. By giving these issues adequate consideration, the program will have
a higller likelihood of being embraced by the students and staff.
The Stop Signal
As discussed, Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior Support describes a 3 step response to problem
behavior, Including "Stop". "Walk", and 'Talk. This terminology is adequate for most settings, but for
some (particularly older students), this language may seem childish or "uncoo"'. Therefore, the language
used for each of tile Hlree steps should be discussed prior to program implementation. Older students
may wish to vote on the signals or staff may decide what signals will work best for their school, but two
critical elements must be kept in mind. First, the signals must be short, easy to remember, and easy to
produce. Complicated signals will only reduce the amount they are used. Second, whatever signal your
school decides on, the ENTIRE school must implement it. Different classrooms or grades must not have
their own signal Doing so will eliminate the clarity of the response sequence.
The following are examples of statements that may be used in the place of "stop":
"enough"
"time-out"
"quit-it"
"overboard"
"too far"
"un-cool"
The hand signal tllat accompanies the "stop" command should also be discussed, and might
include:
BP-PBS: Before We Intervene ;;-1
83
Curriculum Delivery Layout
In addition to the specified language, it is important to understand how Bully Prevention in Positive
Behavior Support can be taught most effectively. For this purpose, the program has been broken into 6
lessons. Lesson I includes most of the curriculum components including the stop/walk/talk response,
and also includes a good deal of class-wide practice. This lesson is the longest of the 6 and takes
approximately 50 minutes to complete. The second lesson, ideally delivered on the following day, only
takes 30 minutes, and Includes how to reply when someone delivers the stop/walk/talk response to you,
and also includes some essential group practice
The following 4 sections of the manual cover specific examples of how to use the stop/walk/talk
response appropriately, and should be delivered for 10-15 minutes one or two times a week. More
specifically, following 3 sections involve practice around how to respond to gossip, inappropriate
remarks, and cyber-bullylng. The 4'" is a generic practice lesson for use with other specific problem
behaviors that may surface at your school.
Section 6 is the supervision curriculum. This section clarifies how supervision should be
Conducted in unstructured settings suCh as the cafeteria, gym, henlways, and playground. Delivered in
each applicable setting, this practice involves reviewing how to respond to reports of problem behavior,
how to reinforce appropriate use of stop/walk/talk, and how to check in with chronic targets and
instigators. This is a critical part of GP-PBS as supervisors play an enormous role in the generalization of
lessons learned inside the classroom. If we fail to respond to reports of problem behavior outside the
classroom appropriately, the likelihood that children will use the program components will drop
significanlly
Section 7, the faculty follow-up, is an opportunity to check how the program is working, Based
on the responses to a small survey, changes can be made in how the program is implemented.
Finally, section 8 includes all the Citations used throughout the manual as well as resources
applicable to the effective and efficient use of the program.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
;;-2 Introduction: Bp·PBS
84
Student Curriculum (Part I)
Time:
50 minutes
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Bully Prevention Introduction
Objectives:
Establish rules and expectations for group discussions
Teach 3-5 school-wide rules for outside the classroom
Teach Social Responsibility Skills (Stop/Walk/Talk)
Practice
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Procedure: Notes:
1. Establish rules for instr'uction based on 3-5 school-
wide positively stated rules
Examples might include:
@ Be Safe - Keep hands and feet to self during lesson
@ Be Respectful - One person speaks at a time
~ De Responsible - Use v,'hat you learn'
II. Discuss what school-wide rules look like outside
the classroom
Examples might include:
@ Saying nice things to other students
@ Walking in hallways or the cafeteria
@ Keeping your hands and your feet to yourself
BP-PBS: Student Curriculum 1- I
85
86
rrr. Discuss examples of not following school-wide
rules in specific settings
Notes:
txamplesmight include:
Runrung in the Hallways or
Cafeteria
Throwing o.bjeds at another
stu(lent
Hi';
Talking behind someone's
back
l1ireatening another student
Whileplaying .basketball 4-
.squ are, or kickball
Calling sOn1eOl\eJlatnes
l;----------
1-----------_.
TV. Discuss why kids exhibit problem behavior
outside the classroom
Proce(lure; '.... . .'. .....
L ·Corhp"re.fite andpr6hl~mhehav;dr with the diiss «HghttI,cdlildle)
.. Bbtqca1)bebtight and both can hurt· .' .
2. Expl,.qn.hoVi; prohJeinbehaVior neec:i.speer attClltion.tb keep'&oirigjust
likeat~dl~neei!\;axygeli.tu stay lit. . . ' .
o. DisCttSsth"j:h<inyJqrhisofpeer iIttention
Arg9thg v,iUlsbnieone that teases you
•• t';Jghing.aJ someone beir;;g picked on .
·VVat.chi[lg problem behavior and doihg nothing about it.
4. E",plab.).:J;ior\f f~kjng.a~'aypeer attentiDn isliket<lking the oxygen
awayfrOIttilCandlHcbver the lit caJldle with the.dearglai;s cup, and
Iyatchas the flame slowly dies out).
5. Sti.tdenfscanfakeawaythe peer attention that keepsprdblem
behavicirgoing by:
TeUii1gsomeori.i" leasing you to"stop"
. Walking away froIl1 problem behavior
HiJipmg andf:ller student by saying "stop" or by i,valking away
from problem behavior with them.
Telling an adult
1-2 Student Curriculum: BP-PBS
-----------
---_._------
1-----------
1-------------
1-----------
Notes:V Teach Social Responsibility Skills
(Stop/Walk/Talk)
Describe the 3 steps for responding to problem behavior
r-------,-----------------,-------Lo-~.---------
Be sure to practice each step with the stude/its and ensure tltatthey
are fluent. This 'should include at least 3 correct examplesalid at
least 2 Ilon~exa.mples (}'.!Jzw not to lise the 3-step response)
87
I. The Stop Signal
@ Teach students the school-wide "stop signal" (verbal
and physical action) for problem behavior.
~ Model the use of the stop signal when they experience
problem behavior or when they see another student
experiencing problem behavior
@ Practice the Stop Signal, calling volunteers to the front
of the class.
Include at least 3 examples of the right time to
use the stop signal
Positiveexa;mpJ~sot;whentouse the stop sigff!fhit.igb~iltcmde:
Johriny ~oke$ S<tllY.in the bac/< overanl(ov¢rwhiIt.; in line
StlSiR le . " yanqcalls hera defogatpi,:yn~m¢.
Jo~yte . While playing twool1' . . .
S,wlste.·· ....,.....•.. ljal1~awayfr~J1nFmdWJ\· lOt p]ayin!:i
hgat%~.~~~ii1y(;)lyesst~?iling: . . .
Include at least 1-2 examples of when not to
use the stop signal
Negative e:>;a1lt fles: whl'nnot to use the stop signal
Johnh:yaq:iqentally breaks the doublecdribblel]li!ein
baskd$il,IJ ." . . '/".
Kelly nlakes asuggestionfor a game that Fredaoesn6t like
Sam steals the ba:llaway from Fred when they are playing
basketball: a game where stealing is appropriaH~
Sally continues to poke Susie in line; e,'en ·after Susie has
deli,,'ered the stop signal
J--~~----~~-
t--~~~~---
BP-PBS: Student Curriculum 1-3
88
2. WalkAway
Sometimrs, e(len u.,hen students tell othas to "stop", p/"Dblem
bchal'ior will continue. When this happells. sludfl/ts are to
"walk away" from the problem behavior.
f@ Model "walking away" when students experience
continued problem behavior 01" when they see another
student experiencing continued problem behavior
Remind students that walking away removes
the reinforcement for problem behavior
Teach students to encourage one another when
they use the appropriate response
f@ Practice "walking away" with student volunteers at the
front of the class
Include at least 3 examples of how to "walk
away" and at least one example of when not to.
3. Talk: report problems to an adult
Teach students that e(lCll when they use "stop" and they "walk
away" from the problem, sometimes students will continue to
behave inappropriate/I/ toward them. 1NI11~1l that happens,
studwts should" talk" to a/1 adult
f@ Model the "talk" technique students should use when
they experience continued problem behavior or when
they see another student experiencing continued
problem behavior
Be sure to discuss the line between "talking" andtattlillg.
"Talking" is when you have tried to solve the problem
yourself, and have used the "stop" and "walk" steps first:
Did you request "stop"?
Did you "walk away"?
Tattling is when you do not use the "stop" and "walk away"
steps before "talking" to an adult
Tattling is when your goal is to get the other person in trouble
1-4 Student Curriculum: BP-PBS
Notes:
89
Important Note: _
-If any student is in danger, the"stQp" and "walk away" steps
should be skipped, and the incident shquldbe reported
immediateiy.
@ Describe to students how they should expect adults to
~espond to "Talk"
1. Adults will ask you what the problem is
2. They will ask if you said "stop"
3. They wi!! ask if you "walked away"
calmly
@I Practice "talk" with student volunteers at the front of
the class
Again, be sure to include at least 3 examples of
how to "talk" and at least one example of when
not to "talk"
4. Review StopjWalk,ITalk
@I Test students orally on how they should respond to
various situations that invoh'e problem behavior
[neIude questions that involve-each pdssi{jles~ettano:
Using "Stop", "Walk", and "Talk"
Responding to "Stop", "Walk", and Fralk"
1-----------
1---------
l----------
BP·PBS: Student Curriculum 1-5
1-6 Student Curriculum: BP-PBS
90
Student Curriculum
Time:
30 minute lesson to be conducted on the day after lesson 1
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Objectives:
Review the Social Responsibility Skills (Stop/Walk/Talk)
Teach students how to reply when someone uses Stop/Walk/Talk
Group Practice
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Procedure: Notes:
Review rules for instruction based on 3-5
school-wide positively stated rules
Examples might include:
@ Be Safe - Keep hands and feet to self
@ Be Respectful - When giving examples of things that
have happened to you, rather than saying the names
of others, say, "Someone [ know ... "
@ Be Responsible - Practice what you learn when you
are outside the classroom
Review what school-wide rules look like
outside the classroom
Examples might include:
@ Saying only nice things about other people
@ Following the rules of the game you are playing
@ Waiting your turn
SP-PBS: Student Curriculum 2- J
91
Notes:
----
Review the Social Responsibility Skills
(StopjWalkjTalk}
Discuss /he 3 steps for responding to problell1 lJehaviOl
@ Review the school-wide Stop/Walk/Talk signals
(verbal and physical action) to be used when students
experience problem behavior or when they see another
student experiencing problem behavior
Remind students that Stop(Walk(falk removes
the reinforcement for problem behavior
Teach students to encourage one another when
they use the appropriate response
Responding to Stop/WalkjTalk
Teach students that at same paint the stop/walk/talk procedure
willlJe used with EVERY student and it is impartallt to respolld
appmpria tely, even if you dOll' t agree
@ Model how to respond if someone else uses "stop",
"walk", or "talk"
1. Stop what you are doing
2. Take a deep breath and count to 3
3. Go on with yoW" day
Good examples ojrespolUlinglos top!walk/talkshdl1Idinqtud(!; , ',' ,',' .
, ~:~~~~iJr~~iropnateIY even when YOUdOtlllthrnkYOu:~.a
Resp(.mylingapprop:r~atdyeven ify6uJhinldhe other~tudtit1t
is-just trying to get you in trouble " , ,
Group Practice
Break up the class into group5 of2
@ Instruct the students to prilclice the "stop" sIgnal, as
well as how to reply to someone else using the"stop"
si nal with 'OLI.
2-2 Student Curriculum: BP-PBS
92
Students should take turns being the taeget Notes:
and the instigator of problem behavior --------
Students should first practice a given problem
behavior scenario
Once students have completed the first
practice, they may be allowed to practice a
scenario that they have personally
encountered.
@ After 5 minutes, bring class back together and discuss
questions of comments that arose during practice
Group Practice (Part 2)
@ Briefly remind students how they should expect adults
. -to respond when problem behavior is reported.
Separate the class again, this time into groups of4 with 1 person in each
group acting as, a target ofproblem behatJior, an instigator ofproblem
behavior, a bystander, and a playgrou1ld supcmisor.
@ lnstlllct the students to practice the entire
Stop/Walk/Talk sequence, how to reply when
someone else Llses the "stop" signal with you, and how
adults wiI! respond to reports of problem behavior.
Students should take tu.rns being each of the roles
Once students have compleled a given practice
scenario, then they may be allowed to practice a
scenario that they have personally encountered.
Bp·PBS: Student Curriculum 2-3
93
94
Review StopjWalkjTalk
@ Finally, Test students orally on how they should
respond to various situations that involve problem
behavior
@ Reward Students for Appropriate Behavior
Notes:
2-4 Student Curriculum: BP-PBS
Gossip
rev ntion
Student Curriculum - Gossip
95
Time:
20 minute lesson
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • e • • • • • • • • •
Objectives:
Review the Social Responsibility Skills (Stop/Walk/Talk)
Using Stop/Walk/Talk with Gossip
Group Practice
• • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • eo. • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • e • • e • • • •
Procedure:
Review rules for instruction based on 3-5
school-wide positively stated rules
Examples might include:
@ Be Safe - Keep hands and feet to self
@ Be Respectful - When giving exaIllples of things that
have happened to you, rather than saying the naIlles
of others, say, "Someone r know ... "
@ Be Responsible - Practice what you learn when you
are outside the classroom
Discuss what school-wide rules have to do
with gossip
g Being Respectful means saying onll' nice things
about other students
g Being Kind means encouraging others and making
them feel good even when they are not present.
Notes:
-----
BP-PBS Student Curriculum· Gossip 3- 1
96
Gossip'
~~~~~ ~~~__~_~~~~~-l.-"---
'Exqtll13{esOfN.oTbeingrespec.tf1!l•.ar1c!!J4·f~~t~~stUedents
" ;. " Telling a negative storYaboutsom~qtieelse, regardless ,of
\vhetherit istbJeornot.>.
Sharing secret5thatsomeQUe1(ildyou '
Blaming ncgative'bchaVjq~,b?Sqil1f0riec1se
Review the Social Responsibility Skills
(StopjWalkjTalk)
Discuss the 3 steps for responding to gossip
@ Review the school-wide Stop/Walk/Talk signals
(verbal and physical action) to be used when students
hear something not kind or respectful about another
student.
How can Stop/Wall<fTalk be used when
someone says something di-srespectful about
another student?
Often, the target of gossip wiII not hear the
negative remark, so it is important for others
that DO hear the remark to say "stop",
Sometimes this means saying stop to your
friends, which can be very difficult to do.
Group Practice
Break up the class into pairs ilicludlllg 11 bystallder and ail instigator.
@ Instruct the students to practice using the"stop" signal
ane! the reply to "stop" when someone says something
unkind or disrespectful about another student.
Students should first practice an instructed
scenario prior to trying a scenario they have
encountered.
3-2 Student Curriculum - Gossip: BP-PGS
-~------~~-
. Gossip
97
Group Practice (Part 2)
l@ After 5 minutes of practicing in pairs, bring the class
back together and discuss questions and comments
that arose during practice
Next, separate class into groups of3, with 1 pc/son in each group acting
as a playgroulld sllperviso/, an instigator ofgossip, aHd a bystander.
@ Instruct the students to practice the entire
Stop/Walk/Talk sequence to be used with gossip, how
to reply when someone uses the "stop" signal with
you, and how adults will respond to reports of gossip.
Notes:
------
Students should take hlrns being each of the
roles
Once students have completed an instructed
practice scenario, then they may be allowed to
practice a scenario that they have personally
encountered.
Review StopjWalkjTalk with Gossip
@ Test students orally on how they should respond to
various situations that involve gossip
@ Reward Students for their participation and
Appropriate Behavior
DiClude questions that lIlVolve eath possible scenario:
Using "Slap", "Walk", and "Talk"
Responding to "SlOp", "VValk", and "Talk"
BP-PBS: Student Curriculum - Gossip 3-3
Inappropriate Remarks
rev ntion
Student Curriculum - Inappropriate Remarks
98
Time:
20 minute lesson
• • • • • • • • 0 • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Objectives:
Review the Social Responsibility Skills (Stop/Walk/Talk)
Using Stop/Walk/Talk with Inappropriate remarks
Group Practice
•• e • • e-••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Procedure:
Notes:
Review rules for instruction based on 3-5
school-wide positively stated rules
Examples might include.-
(') Be Safe - Keep hands and feel to self
(') Be Kind - When giving examples of things that have
happened to you, rather than saying the names of
others, say, "Someone [know ___ "
@ Be Responsible - Practice what you learn when you
are outside the classroom
Discuss what school-wide rules have to do
with inappropriate remarks
(') Being Respectful means saying only nice things
about other students
@ Being Kind means encouraging others and making
them feel good_
GP-PBS: Student Curriculum - Inappropriate Remarks 4- 1
99
"loapPEQPfiabe,Remarks,
IQt,~illdt{}~~thej,.students .' ,"
",inim effotJ>top~{ttheillQoi>.'iJ,
",.illan"eff~ttlqBu'tlhemdovm:
rdedin <Iti~ffbrtt() put taem dOWIL
," to.p,il;t;a:i1i.i~lledown, not only are
atealsoconneotiriga negative
" isr¢~pcdful to 'yornell,
f¢,gay,'
Review the Social Responsibility Skills
(StopjWalkfTalk)
Discuss the 3 steps jor responding 10 I'mblem behaI,inr
@ Review the school-wide Stop/Walk/Talk signals
(verbal and physical action) to be used when students
say something inappropriate about another student.
How can Stopf\'Valk(ralk be used when
someone uses an inappropriate remark
Often, those that use inappropriate remarks
do not recognize that they are being
disrespectful.
Sometimes this means discussing why certain
terms are inappropriate
Group Practice
Break the class lip into groups of2
g Instruct the students to practice using the"stop" signal
and the reply to "stop" when someone says something
inappropriate
Students should first practice an instTucted
scenario prior to trying a scenario they ha ve
encountered,
4--2 Student Curriculum - Inappropriate Remarks: GP-PGS
100
Group Practice (Part 2)
@ After 5 minutes of practicing in pairs, bring the class
back together and discuss questions and comments
that arose during practice
Next, sepamtc class into groups of 4, with 1 person ill each group acting
as a playgroul1d supervisal', a target ofall inappropriate remark, an
instigator, and a bystander.
@ rnsh·llct the students to practic;e the entire
Stop/Walk/Talk sequence, how to reply when
someone uses the "stop" signal with you, and how
adults will respond to reports of inappropriate
remarks.
Once students have completed an instructed
practice scenario, then they may be allowed to
practice a scenario that they have personally
encountered.
Review StopjWalk(Talk
@I Test students orally on how they should respond to
various sit"llations that involl'e inappropriate remarks
@ ReWind Students for their participation.
Bp·PBS: Student Curriculum - Inappropriate Remarks 4-3
Prevention
Student Curriculum - Cyber-Bullying
Time:
20 minute lesson
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Objectives:
Review the Social Responsibility Skills (Stop/Walk/Talk)
Using Stop/Walk/Talk with Cyber-Bullying
Group Practice
• • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • 0 • • 0 0 • • • 0 • • • eo. • • • • • • •
Procedure:
101
Review rules for instruction based on 3-5
school-wide positively stated rules
Examples might include:
(i) Be Safe - Keep hands and feet to self
(i) I3e Respectful - When giving examples of things that
have happened to you, rather than saying the names
of others, say, "Someone I know ... "
(i) Be Responsible - Practice what you learn when you
are outside the classroom
Discuss what school-wide rules have to do
with text messaging, emails, and other
digital technologies
@ I3eing Kind and Respectful means saying only nice
things about other students, in your words as well as
in your use of digital media.
Notes:
-----
or-PBS: Student Curriculum - Cyber-Bullying 5- I
Review the Social Responsibility Skills
(StopjWa/k!TalkJ
Discuss the 3 steps for responding to Cyber-BullYlng
@ Review the school-wide Stop/Walk/Talk signals
(verbal and physical action) to be used when students
use tedmology to be disrespectful to other students .
. How can StopjWalk(falk be used when -
someone uses technology to be disrespectful or
unkind to others?
Here, walking away may not be feasible, in
which case, skipping to the talk step would be
an appropriate response.
102
Group Practice
Break the dass up into groups of2, and have the studEnts pass a piece of
paper back and forth to one allother, siml/lating digital media.
@ rnstruct the students [0 practice using a "stop" signal
when someone does something disrespectful using
digital media. Also, students should practice how to
respond whell someone delivers a "stop" response to
them.
Examples ofreplyingtostoplwalk/tnlk shOuldiiwlJ41e .. .
RespondingappropriatelYE>ven when you don't think you did
anything wrong .
Responding appropriately even if you think the other student
is just trying to get you in trouble
5-2 Student Curriculum - Cyber-Bul/ying: BP-PBS
------------
103
Group Practice IPart 2)
~ Alter 5 minutes of practicing in pairs, bring the class
back together and discuss questions and comments
that arose during practice
Next, separate class ill to groups of4, with 1 persall ill each group actillg
as a supervisor, a target ofcyber-bullyillg, all instigator, awl a
bystander. Here, 'wve the students pass a piece ofpaper back alld forth
to simulate digital media messages.
~ lnstnlct the students to practice the entire
Stop/Walk/Talk sequence, how to reply when
someone uses the "stop" signal with you, and how
adults will respond to reports of Cyber-Bullying
Once students have completed an instructed
practice scenario, then they may be alIowed to
practice a scenario that they have personally
encountered.
Review StopjWalk;'Talk with eyber-Bullying
~ Test students orally on how they should respond to
various situations that involve Cyber-Bullying
@ Reward Students for their participation and
Appropriate Behavior
Notes:
-------
BP-PBS: Student Curriculum - Cyber-Bullying 5-3
104
Supervising Behavior
nti n
,~~
"'7." '='i~ 't 0~ ;J;- "'"H f0 '0 :It ':T () 'R< ~';
Objectives:
Pre-Correction
Rewarding use of the 3 step response
Responding to Reports of Problem Behavior
Introduction Notes:
------
---------
How supervisors respond to problem behavior can make or break
the results of the BUlly Prevention in Positive Behavior Support
program. Because tlleir role is so important. a separate, specific time
is allotted for practice in the settings where bullying occurs: the
cafeteria, hallways, gym, playground, etc. During this time,
supervisors practice (a) pre-cor-recting students before incidents
occur, (b) frequently reward students for their use of the curriculum
components, and rc) consistently responding to reports of problem
behavior As generalization is a major concern, it is critical that
supervisors be prepared to reward students the first time they use
one of the BP-PBS strategies. In addition, during the practice session,
the supervisors SflOUld walk around in each setting, discussing how
they will pre-correct, reward appropriate behavior, and respond to
problematic behavior Hle supervisor practice session should ideally
take place prior to teaching the student curriculum so tflat they are
prepared for tile first time that students use what they have learned. _
.. " .'., ',.-.
, ' Supervising Behavior
@ Practice modeling "walking away" when students
experience continued problem behavior orwhen they
see another student experiencing continued problem
behavior
Staff should remind students that walking away
removes the reinforcement for problem
behavior
Teach students to encourage one another
when they use the appropriate response
The Stop Signal I! -
@ How the stop signal should look dnd sound '
o Firm hand signal I'
o Eye contact
o Clear voice
@ Practice modeling the stop signal for students that ----------
experience problem behavior orwhen they see other
students experiencing problem behavior
WalkAway
.. Sometimes- even when students tell others to "stop';
problem behavior will continue. When this h'lppens.
students are to 'walk away' from the problem behavior.
!
1-------I~~-
Talk: report problem to an adult 1--------
Even when students use "stop"and tl7ey "walk away"from I
the problem, somettfnes sWden[s will continue [0 behave It ---------
inappropriately toward [hem. When that 17appens-
sWdents should "talk" to an adult. I
I
~----
Supervising Behavior: [;i'·H}'.
105
1. Stop what you are doing
2. Take a deep breath and count to 3
3. Go on with your day
106
Note that if any student is in danger, the ·stop·
and ·walk away" steps should be skipped, and
telling an adult should happen immediately
Responding to StopjWalkjTalk
Atsome point the stop/walk/talk procedure will be used
wtth ('very studentand it is important for them to respond
appropriately even ifthey don '[ agree with why the
student is saYing stop, walking away or telling an adult. , _
~ Practice modeling how to respond if someone else uses'
"stop", "walk". Of' "t<1lk" .
!----------
Supervising Behavior ':;-.<
!Notes:
I~~~~
Checking In
In addition to understanding and teaching the appropnate
re'[Jonse to problem behavior. It is important to remind
some students about how they should respond. either when
they exhibit problem behavior. or when problem behavior is
exhibited toward them.
@ For chronic victims of problem IJehavior
I. At the beginning of non-classroom times
(morning break, recess, etc.), check in with the
student and remind them about how to
respond to problem behavior.
2. At the end of non-elassroom times, check in
again, ask about how it went and reward them
for their efforts.
@ For chronic perpetrators of problem IJehavior
I. At the beginning of non-classroom times, check
in with the student and remind them about
how to respond if another student tells them to
stop, or walks away.
2. At the end of non-elassroom times, check in
again, ask about how it went, and reward them
for their efforts.
Rewarding Appropriate Behavior
Effective Generalization Requires the prompt reinforcement
of appropriate behavior after the FIRST time it is attempted
107
,. Look for students that use the 3 step response
appropriately and reward
2. Students that struggle with problem behavior
(either as victim or perpetrator) are less likely to
attempt new approaches.
3. Reward them for efforts in the right direction.
Responding to Reports of Problem Behavior
When any problem behavior is reported. follow this specific
response.
@; Reinforce the student for reporting the problem
bellavior (i.e. 'I'm glad you told me:1
Supervising Behavior:
108
Q Ask who, what when and where.
@ Ensure the student's safety.
Is the bullying still happening?
Is the reporting student at risk?
Fear of revenge?
What does the student need to feel safe?
What is the severity of the situation
Q 'Did you tell the student to stopr {If yes, praise the
student for using an appropriate responsel
Q "Did you walk away from the problem behavior?" {If
yes, praise student for using appropriate response}
When the Student Does it Right..,
Adults initiate the following interaction with the Perpetrator:
i
I Notes:I -~~~-
I
I,
!
!==-----=---=--=--=!
@ Reinforce the student for discussing the problem
behavior (i.e. Thanks for talking to me."J
@ "Did tell you to stop?"
If yes: "How did you respond?"
If no: Practice the 3 step response.
@ "Did walk away?"
Ifyes: "How did you respond?"
If no: Practice the 3 step response.
@) Practice the 3 step response.
The amount of practice depends on the
severity and frequency of problem behavior
------------I
I
I
I
!-~-~~
I
I---~~---~,
I
I~~~­1---
I
t
~ .
Supervising Behavior ~.J
109
~n lPosBtBve Behavior Support
reventi
Follow-upFacul
Faculty Follow-up
• e • • • • • • 0 • • • • e e • * • 0 • • • see ~ • • • • • • • • • • • •
Objectives:
Introduction
BP-PBS effectiveness survey
BP-PBS decision making flow chart
• • • • • • • • • 0 e • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • •
Introduction Notes:
-----_.
o
No intervention is perfect. so it is critical tllat ongoing evaluations
are conducted to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
Doing so provides for program adaptation and valued decision
making, which can greatly improve potential student and staff
outcomes. Within the faculty follow-up section, tile SP-PBS program
provides both a staff survey as well as a decision making flow chart.
The staff survey can be filled out on a weekly. monthly. or even
semiannual basis by the entire staff or by the PBS team, depending
on the needs of the school and the concerns about problem
behavior outside the classroom. The survey is simple to complete.
inclUding only 6 questions to be answered on a I to 5 scale. In
addition, each question is directly related to the decision making flow
chart. The flow chart points out adaptations that can be made in the
program based on the answers that are given on the survey. Again,
very simple to follow, the flow chart can assist in meaningful
decisions that greatly impact the outcomes of the BP-PBS program.
BF·PBS; Faculty Follow-up 7- 1
110
Bu' Pre noon
in Positive Behavior Support
Faculty Follow-up Survey
I. Are students able to identity our school-wide expectations7
No
1 2 3
----
Yes
4 ---=5'---
2. Do students use the BP-PBS "stop- signal when appropriate7
No
1 2 3 4
Yes
5
3. Do faculty use the BP-PBS "pre-correct- routine when appropriate7
No
1 2 3 4
Yes
5
4. Do faCUlty use the BP-PBS "review routine when appropriate?
Yes
543
------
2
No
1
5. To what extent do students perceive our school as a safe setting7
Not Safe
1 2 3 4
Very Safe
5
---
6. Has there been a decrease in aggression since we instituted BP-PBS7
No Decrease
1 2 3 4
Big Decrease
5
7-2 Faculty Followup: BP-PBS
111
ti
In Positive Behavior Support
Decision Making Flowchart
Ouestions: Responses
Do Students know the School-wide
Expectations and the "stop" signal?
..~
..)" Re-teach School-wide expectations
[">l and the "stop" signal.
~"-r------------.~Review pre-eorrection strategy
and reward staff for its
implementation.
..~,.~,I"" Re-teach the review routine to
staff and reward them for using
it with students.1
Do faculty/staff use pre-correction
strategy with students?
~Q§.
Do faculty/staff use the review
routine when students report
problem behavior?
~Q.§J
Are there specific settings where
BP-PBS strategies are
not used effectively? ~'" Conduct Student Booster in
">f.. applicable settings.
Do students "at risk" for aggression
behave more appropriately?
These students may require more
intense indiVIdual interventions
and a Functional Behavior
Assessment
BP-PBS: Faculty Follow-up 7-3
112
REFERENCES
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C., (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Merrill Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River:
New Jersey.
Andreou, E. (2000). Bully/victim problems and their association with psychological
constructs in 8 to 12 year old Greek schoolchildren. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 49-
56.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and
victimization, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3,237-254.
Beale, A. V. (2001). Bullybusters: Using drama to empower students to take a stand
against bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 4, 300-306.
Berthold, K. A., & Hoover, 1. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among
intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International,
21(1),65-78.
Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development: vol. 1. A systematic and
empirical theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive
and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal
ofApplied Behavioral Analysis, 1, 175-191.
Bully Police USA: A watch-dog organization advocating for bullied children and
reporting on state anti bullying laws. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from
http://www.bullypolice.org.
Bullying. No Way! Australian school communities getting to the heart of the matter.
Retrieved March 14, 2008, from bttp:l/www.bullvingnoway.com.au/
Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (2001). Restorative justice in school discipline: Mutually
exclusive? In 1. Braithwaite & H. Strang (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society
(pp. 180-194). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
113
Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on
understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology
International, 22,364-382.
Chard, D., Smith, S., & Sugai, G. (1992) "Packaged discipline programs: a consumer's
guide", Oregon Conference Monograph, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Cohen, 1. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colvin, G., & Kame'enui, E. 1. (1993). Reconceptualizing behavior management and
school-wide discipline in general education. Education and Treatment of
Children, 16, 4, 361-81.
Cornell, D. G., Sheras, P. L. & Cole, 1. C. Assessment in Bullying. In Jimerson, S. R., &
Furlong, M. 1. (2006). Handbook ofschool violence and school safety: from
research to practice. Mahwah, New Jersey; Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crone, D. A. & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in
schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Dishion, T. 1., McCord, 1., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups
and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755-764.
Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt, P., & Currie,
C. (2005). Bullying symptoms among school aged children: International
comparative cross-sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal ofPublic
Health, 15, 128-132.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization:
What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 23, 365-383.
Field, E. M. (1999). Bully busting. Lan Cove, NSW: Finch Publishing.
Frey, K. S., Dietsch, B. 1., Diaz, M., MacKenzie, E. P., Edstrom, L. Y., Hirschstein, M.
K., & Snell, 1. L. (2004). The student experience survey: What school is like for
me. Seattle, WA: Committee for Children.
Furlong, M., Morrison, G., (2000). The school in school violence: definitions and facts.
Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8,2, 71-82.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social skills rating system (SSRS).
Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
114
Griffin, R S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings
and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 379-
400.
Hanewinkel, R (2004). Prevention of bullying in German schools: An evaluation of an
anti-bullying approach. In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.) Bullying in
schools: How successful can interventions be? New York: Cambridge.
Hartung, C. M., & Scambler, D. 1., (2006) Dealing with bullying and victimization in
schools. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 77-80.
Hawkins, 1. D., Catalano, R F., Kosterman, R, Abbott, R, & Hill, K. G. (1999).
Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during
childhood. Archives ofPediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153,226-234.
Hawkins, 1. D., Pepler, D. 1., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer
interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based
evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97-132.
Horner, R H. (2000). Positive behavior supports. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 15(2),97-105.
Horner, RH., Sugai, G., Todd, A.W., & Lewis-Palmer, T (2005). School-wide positive
behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara
& L. Kern (Eds.). Individualized supports for students with problem behavior:
Designing positive behavior plans. New York: Guilford Press.
Jones, C. & Horner, R H. Embedding bully proofing in school-wide PBS. Presentation
delivered at the PElS forum in Chicago, October, 2006.
Lewis, T 1., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a
school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-
wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School
Psychology Review, 27, 446-459.
Limber, S. P., Maury, N., Allison, 1., Tracy, T, Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V. (2004).
Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in the southeastern
United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K., Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools:
How successful can interventions be. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
115
Merrell, K., Gueldner, B., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. (2008) How effective are school
bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23, I, 26-42.
Metzler, C.W., Biglan, A., Rusby, 1. C., & Sprague, 1. R. (2001). Evaluation ofa
comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive
behavior support. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 24, 448-479.
Morrison, B. (2002). Bullying and victimization in schools: A restorative justice
approach. Trends and Issues, 219.
Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully victim problems and their association with
Eysenck's personality dimensions in 8 to 13 year olds. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67, 51-54.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simmons-Morton, B., & Scheidt,
P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285,2094-2110.
National School Safety Center (1995). School bullying and victimization. Malibu, CA.
Newman, R. S., Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Confrontation with aggressive peers at
school: Students' reluctance to seek help from the teacher. Journal ofEducational
Psychology, 91, 398-410.
O'Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: insights and
challenges for intervention. Journal ofAdolescence, 22, 437-452.
O'Connor, M., Foch, T., Todd, S., & Plomin, R. (1980). A twin study of specific
behavioral problems of socialization as viewed by parents. Journal ofAbnormal
Child Psychology, 8, 189-199.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1999). Bullying prevention program. In D. S.
Elliott (Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention book nine (pp. 1-79). Golden,
CO: Venture Publishing and C & M Press.
O'neill, R. E., Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, 1. R., Storey, K., & Newton, 1. S.
(1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
116
Ortega, R, Del Rey, R., & Mora-Merchan, 1. (2004). Save model: an anti-bullying
intervention in Spain. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K., Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in
schools: How successful can interventions be. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Osher, D., & Dwyer, K. (2006). Safe, supportive, and effective schools: Promoting
school success to reduce school violence. In Jimerson, S. R., & Furlong, M. 1.
(2006). Handbook ofschool violence and school safety: From research to
practice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Parker, R 1., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping
data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal ofSpecial Education, 40,4, 194-
204.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and
victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school.
British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 20, 259-280.
Pepler, D.1., & Craig, W. M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic observations
. of aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording. Developmental
Psychology, 31, 548-553.
Pepler, D. 1., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti-
bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal ofCommunity Mental
Health, 13,95-110.
Repp, A. C., & Homer, R. H. (1999). Functional Analysis ofProblem Behavior: From
Effective Assessment to Effective Support. New York: The Guilford Press,
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Rigby, K., (2006) What we can learn from evaluated studies of school-based programs to
reduce bullying in schools. In Jimerson, S. R, & Furlong, M. 1. (2006).
Handbook ofschool violence and school safety: From research to practice.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rigby, K., Bagshaw, D. (2001) 'The Prevalence and Hurtfulness of Acts of Aggression
from Peers Exp~rienced by Australian Male and Female Adolescents at School',
Children Australia, 26, 36-41.
Roberts, W. B. (2000). The bully as victim. Professional School Counseling, 4, 148-156.
Robinson, G., & Maines, B. (1997). Cryingfor help - the no blame approach to bullying.
Bristol, England: Lucky Duck.
117
Roland, E. (1993). Bullying: A developing tradition of research and management. In D.
P. Tattum (Ed.), Understanding and managing bullying (pp. 15-30). Oxford,
England: Heinemann Educational.
Ross, S. W., Horner, R. H, Stiller, B. (2008). Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior
Support Manual. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Salmivalli, C. (2002). Is. there an age decline in victimization by peers at school?
Educational Research, 44,269-277.
Schwartz, D., & Gorman, A. H. (2003). Community Violence Exposure and Children's
Academic Functioning. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 95, 163-73.
Sprague, 1. R. & Horner, R. H. (2006). Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports. In S. R.
Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The handbook ofschool violence and school
safety: From research to practice. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slee, P. T, & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and
self-esteem to bully/victim behavior in Australian school boys. Personality and
Individual Differences, 14, 371-373.
Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of
research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1-9.
Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying. Canadian
Journal ofPsychiatry, 48(9), 591-599.
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994). School bullying: Insights andperspectives.
London: Routledge.
Smokowski, P.R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types,
effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children and Schools,
27,101-110.
Soutter, A., & McKenzie, A. (2000). The use and effects of anti-bullying and anti-
harassment policies in Australian schools. School Psychology International, 21,
96-105.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T 1., Nelson, C. M., Scott,
T, Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D.,
Wilcox, B. & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional
behavioral assessment in schools. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 2,
131-143.
118
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-
ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 23, 2,316.
Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Homer, R. H, Sugai, G., Sampson, N. K., & Phillips, D.
(2003). The School-wide Evaluation Tool: SET implementation manual.
University of Oregon.
Thorsborne, M., & Vinegrad, D. (2003). Restorative practices in schools. Geelong,
Australia: Margaret Thorsborne and Associates.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A report ofthe
surgeon general. Rockville, MD.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, 1. R., Bricker, D., &
Kaufman, M. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior
patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal ofEmotional Behavior
Disorders, 4(4), 194-209.