See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235294249
The PALS School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support Model in Norwegian
Primary Schools – Implementation and Evaluation
Article in International Perspectives on Inclusive Education · May 2012
DOI: 10.1108/S1479-3636(2012)0000002006
CITATIONS
READS
11
2,099
4 authors:
Terje Ogden
Mari-Anne Sørlie
The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Development
The Norwegian Center for Child Behavioral Development
131 PUBLICATIONS 2,122 CITATIONS
32 PUBLICATIONS 343 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Anne Arnesen
University of Oslo
SEE PROFILE
Wilhelm Meek-Hansen
2 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
5 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Special education View project
Implementation of evidence-based programs and practices in Norway View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Terje Ogden on 04 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
International Perspectives on Inclusive Education
Emerald Book Chapter: The PALS School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support
Model in Norwegian Primary Schools - Implementation and Evaluation
Terje Ogden, Mari-Anne Sørlie, Anne Arnesen, Wilhelm Meek-Hansen
Article information:
bl
is
hi
ng
To cite this document:
Terje Ogden, Mari-Anne Sørlie, Anne Arnesen, Wilhelm Meek-Hansen, (2012),"The PALS School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support Model
in Norwegian Primary Schools - Implementation and Evaluation", John Visser, Harry Daniels, Ted Cole, in (ed.) Transforming
Troubled Lives: Strategies and Interventions for Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (International
Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 39 - 55
Pu
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3636(2012)0000002006
up
Downloaded on: 31-05-2012
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
d
G
This document has been downloaded 5 times since 2012. *
ro
References: This document contains references to 28 other documents
al
Users who downloaded this Chapter also downloaded: *
)E
m
er
Preston Green, Joseph Oluwole, (2006),"The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools", Frank Brown, Richard C. Hunter,
in (ed.) No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts (Advances in Educational Administration,
Volume 9), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 127 - 139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09007-X
(c
James E. Lyons, (2006),"Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools in Local School Districts", Frank Brown, Richard C.
Hunter, in (ed.) No Child Left Behind and other Federal Programs for Urban School Districts (Advances in Educational
Administration, Volume 9), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 3 - 21
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3660(06)09001-9
Hella Bel Hadj Amor, Amy Ellen Schwartz, Leanna Stiefel, (2006),"Do Good High Schools Produce Good College Students? Early
Evidence from New York City", Timothy J. Gronberg, Dennis W. Jansen, in (ed.) Improving School Accountability (Advances in
Applied Microeconomics, Volume 14), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 51 - 80
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0278-0984(06)14003-1
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
is
h
in
g
THE PALS SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE
BEHAVIOUR SUPPORT MODEL
IN NORWEGIAN PRIMARY
SCHOOLS – IMPLEMENTATION
AND EVALUATION
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
Terje Ogden, Mari-Anne Sørlie, Anne Arnesen and
Wilhelm Meek-Hansen
G
ABSTRACT
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
This chapter provides an overview of a programme or rather a model used
in Norwegian primary schools to meet the needs of children whose
behaviour difficulties interrupt teaching and learning. In this chapter we
give an overview of the PALS model and also present the general outline
of a longitudinal outcome study of the school model including some
information about the participating schools, staff and students.
INTRODUCTION
Emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD), including rule-breaking,
disruptive and acting-out behaviour are among the largest unmet challenges
Transforming Troubled Lives: Strategies and Interventions for Children with Social,
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 2, 39–55
Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-3636(2012)0000002006
39
40
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
in Norwegian primary schools. Children who are aggressive and violent at
school are at risk for later antisocial careers, particularly if they also have
academic problems (Mytton, DiGuiseppi, Gough, Taylor, & Logan, 2007).
Both serious EBD and less dramatic instances of norm and rule-breaking
behaviour among students are main concerns among teachers and parents in
many schools. Even though the prevalence of behaviour problems is not
monitored in Norwegian schools on a regular basis, the OECD PISA study
ranked Norway and Greece at the bottom of the list among 29 participating
countries when it came to disruption, noise and unrest in the classrooms
(Kjærnslie, Lie, Olsen, Roe, & Turmo, 2004). In addition to the high
prevalence of off-task behaviour, and other behaviours incompatible with
learning in Norwegian classrooms, there is also a small group of students
who have more serious EBD (Lindberg & Ogden, 2001; Wilson & Lipsey,
2007). The concern for the safety and well-being of other students has been
one of the main reasons for excluding these high-risk students from ordinary
classrooms and even schools. On the other hand, the broad political
consensus on the idea of inclusive schools in Norway conveys the message
that even if some students are very difficult to handle in ordinary classes,
placements in special units and groups should be limited or avoided. This
policy has led to an increased demand for school-based intervention
strategies that might work in regular schools and classrooms. Several
methods, strategies and programmes have been developed for that purpose,
but the empirical support of their effectiveness is still limited (Nordahl,
Gravrok, Knutsmoen, Larsen, & Rørnes, 2006). One of the promising
models is the school-wide positive behaviour support (SWPBS) model which
has been adapted to Norwegian primary schools and named PALS.
THE PALS SCHOOL INTERVENTION MODEL
PALS is the Norwegian acronym for ‘positive behaviour, supportive
learning environment and interaction in school’. The model is based on
the principles and procedures of the SWPBS model (Sprague & Walker,
2005) and adapted to Norwegian primary schools (grade 1–7) by Anne
Arnesen and Wilhelm Meek-Hansen at the Norwegian Centre for Child
Behavioural Development (NCBD) (Arnesen, Ogden, & Sørlie, 2006).
Comprehensive and intensive strategies targeting serious behaviour problems are combined with positive behaviour support and preventive
interventions aimed at the majority of well-behaved students. The general
idea behind PALS is to replace reactive and punishing approaches to
41
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
problem behaviour with proactive strategies which influence students
through teaching and learning activities, generous support of positive
behaviour and through the quality of the learning environment.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
Underlying the SWPBS and the PALS school model is the idea that the
ecology of cognitive and social learning influences the development of academic and social competence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). On the micro-social
level, social interaction learning model and social learning theory (Patterson,
1982) explain how children learn to control their aggression and act prosocially in a mutual learning process with their environment, including
parents, siblings, peers and teachers. Difficult children and negative parenting practices initiate coercive family processes in which reciprocal learning
produces socially unskilled children who become increasingly aversive in
their interactions with others. At school they experience academic failure and
tend to be rejected by their peers and confronted by their teachers. Rejection
and failure undermine their ‘social bond’ to the school. They easily turn to
students with similar problems for contact and support and start reinforcing
each other’s negative behaviours (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). According to
coercion theory, coercive cycles between parents and children increase the
risk of children initiating similar interactions with their teachers leading to
prolonged reciprocal interactions around disruptive behaviours (Forster,
2010; Nelson & Roberts, 2000; Patterson, 1982). The SWPBS model
(Sprague & Walker, 2005) is consistent with coercion theory, and was particularly influential in the process of developing the Norwegian PALS model.
CORE COMPONENTS
The main objective of the three-tiered positive behaviour support model is
to establish a positive school climate for all students and at the same time
promote long-term changes in the behaviour of higher-risk students
(Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans, & Leaf, 2008). The SWPBS model
aims to alter the school environments by targeting staff behaviours in order
to create systems and procedures that promote positive change in student
behaviour (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). Universal prevention at
level 1 addresses the whole school population with particular emphasis on
reaching the 80–90% of the students with few or none behaviour problems
42
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
(Muscott, Mann, & LeBrun, 2008). This primary tier involves the general
idea that students are taught behavioural expectations the same way as they
are taught academics (Darch & Kameenui, 2004). Consequently, behavioural expectations are defined, taught, monitored and rewarded across all
arenas of the school. Additionally, a clearly defined and consistently
implemented continuum of consequences for problem behaviours is
established. The monitoring of the students’ social behaviour is used for
planning and implementing changes in routines or practices. Secondary
prevention at level 2 of behaviour support is designed for the 5–10% of
students at risk for problem behaviour who barely respond to the universal
prevention strategies (Muscott et al., 2008). Tertiary prevention at level 3
addresses the remaining 1–5% of high-risk students and involves
individualized interventions that are based on Functional Behaviour
Assessment (FBA). The interventions often include family or community
collaboration, in order to prevent the emergence or continuation of more
serious problem behaviour. The PBS school-wide model has been evaluated
in several studies, some of which are summarized in a later section. Certain
adaptation of the SWPBS model had to be made in order for the model to
be implemented in Norway.
er
al
TEN PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE PALS MODEL
Em
Based on the theories and research outlined in the previous paragraphs,
10 intervention principles underlying the PALS model might be formulated.
(c
)
1. Evidence-based interventions. Evidence-based practice is based on what
is considered to be the best available research knowledge about what
works in order to develop positive behaviour support for all students.
Norwegian PALS schools are continuously trying to implement evidencebased practices like those applied within SWPBS in organizational
systems that are designed to promote the fidelity of implementation and
sustainability of effects (Horner et al., 2009).
2. School-wide interventions. The school-wide approach involves all students
and the whole staff and emphasizes that monitoring and interventions
should target all arenas of the schools. What goes on at the classroom
level shall reflect values and standards at the school level. The approach
stresses the importance of consistency in the communication of norms,
and common rules. Norms and expectations are filtered down the school
organization from leadership to the individual student.
43
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
3. Multi-modal interventions. Multi-modal interventions are implemented at
the individual level, the classroom or group level, the school level and
the system or organizational level. Interventions might target students
directly or indirectly through the staff.
4. Matching interventions to the students’ risk level. A three-tiered model of
assessment and intervention is differentiating between universal (primary), selected (secondary) and indicated (tertiary) interventions.
The universal interventions – Tier 1. Most students are well behaved,
but still they deserve a reasonable amount of praise, encouragement
and rewards for complying with school rules, norms and expectations.
Interventions for all students might include (a) school-wide rules
and procedures for encouragement of positive student behaviour,
(b) predictable consequences for problem behaviour and (c) proactive
classroom management, academic support and good directions.
The targeted group interventions – Tier 2. Approximately 5–10% of the
student body have difficulties in coping with the expectations from
teachers and peers. Among the interventions at this level are (a) additional social skills training, individually or in small groups, (b)
additional academic support to individual students or as small group
instruction, (c) the teaching of emotional regulation and effective
problem-solving skills to teachers, (d) proactive classroom management skills for teachers and (e) increased home–school cooperation.
The intensive individual interventions – Tier 3. Interventions at this level
include (a) individual and multi-systemic support plan based on FBA,
(b) intensive social skills training, (c) parent training and (d) behaviour
management training for teachers.
5. Positive behaviour support. Positive behaviour support emphasizes the
importance of communicating to the students rules and expectations
about what they are expected to do (rather than what they should not
do), and the systematic use of positive feedback and consequences in
order to promote positive behaviour. All students are taught positively
formulated rules and norms for expected behaviour which are followed
up with consequent, frequent and instant positive feedback both to the
students, their teachers and sometimes also their caregivers.
6. Action-oriented and skills-oriented interventions. This principle is based on
the assumption that students sometimes learn more from what teacher
and staff do, than from what they say. Although, increased teacher
awareness and reflection is emphasized in the PALS model, it is followed
by practical problem solving, planning and concrete action. Increased
student and staff competence are important outcomes, and both groups
44
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
are given ample opportunity through role play and experience based
learning activities to rehearse and practice new skills.
7. Problems-oriented and resource-oriented interventions. Assessment of
risk factors is combined with systematic attention to protective factors
and resources, both in the students and in the school environment. At
each school, the particular constellation of risk factors and resources is
used in the planning of interventions.
8. Interventions that aim at increasing academic and social competence.
Social and academic competence are mutually reinforcing, and either of
the two might be the cause of the other. Students with initial reading
problems develop behaviour problems, and children who enter school
with behaviour problems tend gradually to struggle with school work
(Morgan, Farkas, Tufis, & Sperling, 2008). Moreover, cognitive deficits, attention problems and a dysfunctional context may be common
underlying causes of academic as well as social and behavioural problems in school. Consequently, both academic skill deficits and social
skills deficits are targeted in an overall intervention strategy with
problem students.
9. Team-based intervention approach. Most successful prevention and
intervention programmes in school are based on team models in which
all important groups at the school are represented, including the school
leadership and the parents. Teams who are familiar with the
intervention components and well trained in the implementation
strategy are the link between the programme supervisor and the school
staff. The school team plans and implements interventions, introduces
the model to parents and staff, monitors the process and outcomes and
coordinates the school-wide assessment of risk and protective factors.
The teams receive monthly training and consultation from their
supervisor, while the teams train the school staff on a weekly basis.
10. Interventions implemented with fidelity. All the core components of the
programme model should be carried out as planned and consonant with
the programme’s goals and theoretical assumptions (Wilson & Lipsey,
2007). The PALS model is implemented in each school over a period of
3 years. The first year is a planning year where universal school-wide
and classroom planning occurs and the school staff receive training.
During the second year, staff combines universal interventions targeting
all students with selected interventions targeting at-risk students. In the
third year, the school staff continues the implementation at the
individual and group level, and staff adds FBA and interventions
targeting the high-risk students to the programme.
45
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
The 10 principles emphasize interventions that promote friendship,
positive social relations and social bonding to school. Through the teaching
and learning of necessary skills and generous doses of encouragement and
rewards for participation and positive behaviour, the students learn to cope
with the student role and participate in school activities.
RESEARCH ON THE SWPBS MODEL
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
Most evaluations of the SWPBS model have focused on the primary prevention tier, and promising results have been demonstrated, although
mostly in non-randomized studies in one or two schools or in a large group
of schools. There are exceptions to this, and Bradshaw et al. (2010) studied
the impact of the SWPBS model in a 5-year longitudinal randomized controlled effectiveness trial in 37 elementary schools in the United States. The
school-level analyses indicated a significant reduction in student suspensions
and office discipline referrals (ODRs) in the schools trained in SWPBS as
compared to schools not trained in the model. Some diffusion of particular
elements of the model occurred in the comparison schools, but they did not
sustain these efforts over the course of the trial. In another study by Bradshaw
et al. (2008), 21 schools were randomly assigned to receive training in PBS and
16 were untrained control schools. Trained schools evidenced significantly
higher levels of implementation fidelity while non-trained schools showed
some increases, but lagged behind trained schools on most subscales. In a
third randomized study which included 30 elementary schools and used a
wait-list control design, it turned out that evidence-based practices could be
implemented systemically at the whole-school level (Horner et al., 2009). But
the lack of pre-intervention information prohibited the establishment of
causal associations between the intervention and reductions in ODRs.
In a cohort of 28 early childhood education programmes and K-12
schools, the universal level of the SWPBS model was implemented with
fidelity within 2 years and sustained over the course of the following year
(Muscott et al., 2008). A substantial reduction in ODR and suspensions was
achieved, but as in the previous study, limitations of the study design made
it impossible to establish that changes in student behaviour were attributable to the SWPBS intervention. Legitimate concerns have also been
raised about the reliability of using ODR measures to document the effects
of the programme. Also the number of players involved in the process and
the complexity of interactions among them can be problematic for ensuring
consistent outcomes (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004).
46
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
Some studies have focused on the secondary level of interventions, and
particularly on the Check In–Check out (CICO) programme, which is
frequently used at this level. The results from such studies are promising,
showing a reduction in problem behaviour attributable to the CICO
intervention, but most of these studies have included very few students. Todd,
Campbell, Meyer, and Horner (2008) included four elementary school-age
boys, Hawken, MacLeod, and Rawlings (2007) did a study on 12 students, the
same number of students as in Crone, Hawken, and Horner (2004) study.
Moreover, in the Todd et al. (2008) study, generalization of the results were
difficult because the schools programmatically also used the SWPBS system.
An intervention targeting students at the tertiary level called the PreventTeach-Reinforce (PTR) model was tested in an RCT with 245 students in
Grade K-8 (Iovannone et al., 2009). Preliminary results showed that the
PTR group had significantly higher social skills, more academic engaged
time and significantly lower problem behaviour when compared with
students who received services as usual. On the downside, the study reported
that most teachers discontinued implementing the interventions after
problem behaviour decreased or the study was ended. The authors speculate
that maybe the teachers did not view behaviour as a skill requiring
continuous instruction as did reading, math or writing.
As can be seen from the studies reported, there are limitations to the outcome
research on the SWPBS model. First, several of the studies only evaluate one of
the three levels of intervention while the possible impact of the other
simultaneously implemented levels is not taken into consideration. Several of
the studies have no comparison group, and some studies have a very small
participant groups which makes significant conclusions and generalizations
difficult. Moreover, several authors have questioned the validity of ODR as an
outcome variable (Hawken et al., 2007; Muscott et al., 2008) partly because this
variable may not always correlate with observed reductions in problem
behaviour in the classroom (Hawken et al., 2007). In spite of the fact that
SWPBS has been implemented in over 9,000 American schools (Bradshaw
et al., 2010), there is still a lack of controlled effectiveness studies which
document positive outcomes in regular practice (Horner et al., 2009).
THE FIRST EVALUATION OF PALS
The PALS school-wide intervention model in Norway was initially
implemented and evaluated in a quasi-experimental design in which four
intervention schools were compared to four matched neighbouring schools.
47
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
All comparison schools initiated some type of school improvement projects,
but the interventions were different from those implemented in the PALS
schools. The teachers’ assessment of student behaviour in the PALS schools
showed that the percentage of low-risk students (students with one or no
serious incidents reported this year) had increased from 78.5% to 86.6%
from the first to the second year of implementation. The proportion of
moderate-risk students (between two and five serious incidents reported this
year) had decreased from 10.5% to 8.1%, and the percentage of high-risk
students (six or more serious incidents reported by staff this year) from
9.5% to 5.3% (Arnesen & Ogden, 2006). Two years after the model was
introduced, the PALS schools reported reduced student problem behaviour
and increased social competence compared to the comparison schools
(Sørlie & Ogden, 2007). The encouraging results set the stage for a largescale implementation and evaluation project with an increased number of
schools and a more advanced research design.
ro
u
p
THE SECOND EVALUATION OF PALS
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
In 2002 four Norwegian primary schools implemented PALS and by 2007
when the second evaluation of the PALS model was initiated, 91 schools
were practicing the model. Additionally, from 2008 some schools implemented a compressed version of the model, referred to as the PALS ‘short
version’. A considerable number of schools were needed in order to evaluate
PALS, as school was the unit of analysis. A total of 65 schools contribute to
the current study; one group of 28 schools implement the full-scale PALS
model, a second group of 17 schools implement the PALS short version and
a third group of 20 schools function as comparison schools. In the planning
of the study, it was emphasized that (a) the number of schools should be
large enough to analyse group differences between schools, (b) the participating schools should be representative of Norwegian primary schools and
(c) schools in the different intervention conditions should be equivalent.
STUDY DESIGN
The study has a strengthened quasi-experimental design in which comparison schools are matched to the PALS schools on size and geographical
location. The comparison schools were recruited from the same municipalities as the PALS schools, while the PALS short version schools were
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
PALS Evaluation Timeline 2007–2012.
Pu
bl
Fig. 1.
is
h
in
g
48
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
recruited from other municipalities. Using two rather than one comparison
group increases the possibility to explore threats to the causal inference
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). In order to prevent programme
contamination, schools implementing similar prevention and intervention
programmes were not included in the study. Neighbouring schools to the
PALS schools were, for instance, not invited. Information is collected from
principals, teachers, teacher assistants, after-school personnel, students and
parents. A research contact was appointed at each school, and these persons
were trained and supported throughout the study by the research project
staff. To evaluate the short- and long-term effects of PALS, data are
collected at six time points during four successive school years (Fig. 1). A
double pre-test was included in the design to help examine selection bias
and attrition as sources of observed effects (Shadish et al., 2002). Adding a
repeated pre-test of the same construct on consecutive occasions prior to
treatment also helps reveal maturational trends, detect regression artefacts,
and study testing and instrumentation effects.
INTERVENTIONS AS IMPLEMENTED
An external PALS coach provided training and coaching to each school’s
PALS team monthly through 2 school years (2007–2009) for approximately
20 hours per year (2 hours/10 training sessions). In addition to building
49
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
leadership teams in each school from the first year of implementation, the
PALS teams were provided booster sessions and sustaining implementation
activities in four half-day regional or local network meetings per school
year. The external coach also offered follow-up phone calls to the schools’
local PALS coach and principal between the training sessions.
The PALS team was responsible for planning and monitoring the
implementation at their school. They trained the school staff in using the key
features and intervention components approximately 2 hours each month. The
team spent a minimum of 2 hours per week on the implementation activities.
Each year PALS teams and staff attended a national conference as part of the
sustaining activities. The PALS team further planned and implemented a
system of supports for high-risk students. Part of the team’s responsibility was
to collaborate with professionals in the district’s health or child care system to
develop local competencies. Evidence-based three-tiered interventions to
promote positive behaviour and social competence were implemented
depending on assessment of the students’ risk level. Data on discipline referrals
(DR) and FBA was used to determine the level of intervention.
The Universal Interventions – Tier 1: All students were taught the defined
school-wide rules and expectations across all settings on a daily basis
through the first 2 weeks. The staff provided systematic supervision and
immediate acknowledgement and encouragement of all students. They also
provided predictable responses to students’ inappropriate behaviour across
all school settings.
The Targeted Group Interventions – Tier 2: The students who did not
profit from the tier 1 interventions were identified (typically in range of 3–5
major DRs) and provided interventions based on the particular need of the
student. Schools used different interventions for targeted students based on
school discipline data and available resources. Typically, elements from the
First Step to Success (Golly, Sprague, Walker, Beard, & Gorham, 2000) and
the behavioural education programme CICO were used to meet students’
needs for positive support and feedback more efficiently.
Intensive Individual Interventions – Tier 3: For the most challenging
students (typically having more than six major DRs), individual support
teams were established. These teams planned, implemented, monitored and
evaluated the students’ progress and response to the intervention and
support. The high-risk students were provided an individualized behaviour
support plan based on functional assessment. Actually, the intervention
most frequently used for improving the students’ social skills was the
cognitive behavioural programme Stop-Now-And-Plan (SNAP) (Augimeri,
Farrington, Koegl, & Day, 2007).
50
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
THE PALS SHORT VERSION
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
Recruitment of schools to the PALS short version took place in 2008 by
an open invitation to all primary schools in strategically selected urban
municipalities in which no PALS or comparison schools were located. Prior
to the invitation all schools were stratified into three subgroups according
to school size (small, medium, large). The schools which volunteered for
participation received a 30 hours practice-oriented course for the whole
school staff in how to prevent and manage problem behaviour. The staff in
the 17 schools in four sites (1–7 schools per site) attended four full-day
courses through the school year 2008–2009. The courses took place at each
of the four sites and contained all key features (components þ interventions)
for implementation of the school-wide PALS model. The training sessions
provided a combination of lectures, demonstration, training, coaching and
‘home-work’. The participating schools received the PALS manual as a
compendium and all training materials could be downloaded from the
Internet. Contrary to the full-scale PALS schools, the PALS short version
schools were not offered any external coaching and implementation or
technical support.
Research hypotheses: The key research hypothesis for the evaluation study
is that students attending the PALS schools will demonstrate fewer
externalizing problems and higher social competence than students in the
comparison schools. Expectations are also that the students attending the
PALS schools implementing the long version will over time develop more
positive behaviour compared to the comparison students. Moreover, it is
expected that the interventions will be more effective at lower grade levels
than at higher levels, that boys will benefit more than girls, and that students
with the highest risk level will change more than students at lower risk levels.
Based on the previous pilot study (Ogden, Sørlie, & Amlund-Hagen (2007), it
is also expected that students with Norwegian as their second language will
improve more on the social skills outcome variable than their peers.
PARTICIPANTS
After recruiting 65 schools for participation in the study, the characteristics
of the schools, their staff and students were analysed. The distribution of
small, medium and large schools in the sample correspond fairly well with
the national distribution (8.4% o100 students, 39% 100–299 students,
52.6% W300 students, Statistics Norway, 2009a). In accordance with the
51
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
selection procedure, no differences between the PALS, PALS short version
and comparison group were found on these variables. The number of staff
participants at baseline amounted to 2,380 and the overall response rate was
81.1%. It was higher in the PALS schools (86.8%) than in the PALS short
version schools (79.9%) and the lowest response rate was registered in the
comparison schools (73.5%). No baseline differences were found among the
groups on any of the staff indicators measured, indicating that the three
groups of participating schools were comparable on these variables. The
baseline descriptive data of staff corresponded well with national data in
that most of the staff participants were middle aged (60% older than
35 years) and experienced teachers (86% had worked more than 5 years in
school) and 8 out of 10 were female.
Among the 10,681 students in 4th to 7th grade, written consent to
participation was given for 8,236 and 7,761 participated in the baseline
assessment, which is a 77% participation rate and 94% of those who had their
parents consent to participate. According to the school principals, 5.3% had
received special education the previous school year, which matches the mean
national level of 5.5%. Moreover, an average of 4.5% had been referred to
school psychological services and 7.6% had minority background (mainly
from Pakistan, India, Somalia and Eastern Europe). The PALS short version
schools as a group had a higher percentage of immigrant students than the
PALS and comparison group. The principals reported the proportion of
students with moderate to serious behaviour problems to be 7.8%; relatively
more such students in the PALS schools (9.2%) than in the PALS short
version (8.8%) and the comparison schools (4.9%).
After having recruited the participant schools, two important questions
were raised. The first was, as outlined above, whether the three groups of
schools differed at baseline as regards school, student and staff characteristics. The second question was addressing whether the participating schools
were representative of primary schools in Norway. Few group differences
were found among the three groups of schools (PALS, PALS short version
and Comparison) at baseline. The participant schools were compared to
national averages on more than 50 learning environment variables in the
national registry database for schools. Group differences were only found on
eight variables. The baseline comparison led to the conclusion that there were
far more similarities between the school groups than differences, and that the
sample was representative of Norwegian primary schools. The recruitment
procedure and research design thus seemed to reduce some known weaknesses
of non-randomized studies and contributed to creating a representative
sample of Norwegian primary schools and comparable groups of schools.
52
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
MEASURES
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
The primary outcome variables of the evaluation study are measures of
problem behaviour in school based on teacher observations. The measures
‘Problem Behaviour in the School Environment last Week’ and ‘Problem
Behaviour in the Classroom last Week’ were originally developed by Grey
and Sime (1989) and require teachers, assistants and after-school personnel
to report how many times they have observed negative behaviour incidences
during a randomly selected week. The observations take place in the
classrooms or on other areas in school like in the hallways and on the
playground. The third measure requires teachers to report the number of
students seriously hindering learning and teaching activities in class during
the present year (‘Behaviour Problematic Students in Class this Year’;
Kjøbli & Sørlie, 2008; Ogden, 1998; Sørlie & Ogden, 2007). Additionally,
teachers assess individual students according to selected items from the
‘Teacher’s Report Form’ (TRF: Achenbach, 1991) and from the ‘Student/
Child Problem Behaviour Scale’ (Gresham & Elliott, 1990; Sørlie &
Nordahl, 1998).
al
d
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
(c
)
Em
er
In response to the increasing demand for school-wide intervention strategies
that match students’ needs and level of functioning in Norwegian schools,
PALS has proved to be a good model. The model promotes school-wide
social competence, positive behaviour and interaction through teaching,
skills training, classroom management, monitoring, supervision and home–
school collaboration. Students and staff formulate, teach and learn a set of
positively formulated rules that conveys clear expectations for positive
behaviour.
Consistent use of encouragement and incentives contributes to the
recognition of pro-social behaviour while negative behaviour is met with
predictable consequences. At the school level, monitoring of student
behaviour lays the foundation for the identification of problems, problem
solving, planning, implementation and evaluation. The principle of
matching interventions to the students’ risk level signals the blending of
preventive and ameliorating interventions. The majority of students mostly
abide by school rules and expectations and should be consistently complimented and rewarded for doing so. At the same time, effective strategies
are needed in order to manage and reduce more serious emotional and
53
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
behavioural difficulties among students. Individualized positive behaviour
support should be the vehicle for turning problem students around.
The SWPBS model has been extensively evaluated, but there is a need of
controlled effectiveness studies documenting positive outcomes in regular
practice (Horner et al., 2009). In the first Norwegian evaluation of PALS, the
outcomes were encouraging, but the number of schools was small (Sørlie &
Ogden, 2007). The increasing number of primary schools implementing the
PALS model in Norway has made it possible to recruit schools which are
representative of Norwegian primary schools, to a large-scale evaluation
study. In a quasi-experimental longitudinal design, the selection of schools
seems to have resulted in equivalent groups of schools with more similarities
than differences. Two of these groups implement the PALS model or the
PALS short version programme and one group serve as a comparison group.
p
REFERENCES
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR and TRF profiles.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Arnesen, A., & Ogden, T. (2006). Skoleomfattende kartlegging av problematferd [School-wide
assessment of problem behaviour]. Spesialpedagogikk, 2, 18–29.
Arnesen, A., Ogden, T., & Sørlie, M.-A. (2006). Positiv atferd og støttende læringsmiljø i skolen
[Positive behaviour and supporting learning environments in school]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Augimeri, L. K., Farrington, D. P., Koegl, C. J., & Day, D. M. (2007). Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 16, 799–807.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioural interventions and supports on student outcomes. Results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive
Behaviour Interventions, 12, 133–148.
Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008).
Implementation of school-wide positive behaviour interventions and supports (PBIS) in
elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of
Children, 31, 1–26.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiment by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in school.
The behaviour education program (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Darch, C., & Kameenui, E. (2004). Instructional classroom management: A proactive approach to
behaviour management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Forster, M. (2010). When cheap is good: Cost-effective parent and teacher interventions for children
with externalizing behaviour problems. Dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala.
Golly, A., Sprague, J., Walker, H., Beard, K., & Gorham, G. (2000). The first step to success
program: An analysis of outcomes with identical twins across multiple baselines.
Behavior Disorders, 25, 170–182.
54
TERJE OGDEN ET AL.
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system (Manual). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Grey, J., & Sime, N. (1989). Findings from the national survey of teachers in England and
Wales. In Elton (1989). Discipline in schools. Report of the Committee of Enquiry chaired
by Lord Elton. Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office. London: Her
Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, K. S., & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the Behaviour Education
Program (BEP) on office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of
Positive Behaviour Interventions, 9, 94–101.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza,
J. (2009). A randomized wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide
positive behaviour support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behaviour
Interventions, 11, 133–144.
Iovannone, R., Greenbaum, P. E., Wang, W., Kincaid, D., Dunlap, G., & Strain, P. (2009).
Randomized controlled trial of the prevent-teach-reinforce (PTR) tertiary intervention
for students with problem behaviours. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders,
17, 213–225.
Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. G. (2004). The validity of
office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioural status and effects of
school-wide behavioural interventions. Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 6, 131–147.
Kjærnslie, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R. V., Roe, A., & Turmo, A. (2004). Rett spor eller ville veier?
Norske elevers prestasjoner i matematikk, naturfag og lesning i PISA 2003. Oslo,
Universitetsforlaget.
Kjøbli, J., & Sørlie, M.-A. (2008). School outcomes of a community-wide intervention model
aimed at preventing problem behaviour. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 365–375.
Lindberg, E., & Ogden, T. (2001). Elevatferd og læringsmiljø 2000 [Student behaviour and
learning environment 2000]. Oslo: Læringssenteret.
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antiscocial behaviour, academic failure, and school climate.
A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 8, 130–140.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Tufis, P. A., & Sperling, R. A. (2008). Are reading and behaviour
problems risk factors for each other? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 417–436.
Muscott, H. S., Mann, E. L., & LeBrun, M. R. (2008). Positive behavioural interventions and
supports in New Hampshire. Effects of large-scale implementation of schoolwide
positive behaviour support on student discipline and academic achievement. Journal of
Positive Behaviour Interventions, 10, 190–205.
Mytton, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D., Taylor, R., & Logan, S. (2007). School-based
secondary prevention programmes for preventing violence (Review). Evidence-Based
Child Health, 2, 814–891.
Nelson, J. R., & Roberts, M. L. (2000). Ongoing reciprocal teacher-student interactions
involving disruptive behaviours in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioural Disorders, 8, 27–37.
Nordahl, T., Gravrok, Ø., Knutsmoen, H., Larsen, T. M. B., & og Rørnes, K. (2006).
Forebyggende innsatser i skolen. Rapport fra forskergruppe oppnevnt av Utdanningsdirektoratet og Sosial- og helsedirektoratet om problematferd, rusforebyggende arbeid,
læreren som leder og implementeringsstrategier. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.
Ogden, T. (1998). Elevatferd og læringsmiljø. Læreres erfaringer med og syn på elevatferd og
læringsmiljø i grunnskolen. [Student behaviour and learning environment. Teachers’
55
The PALS SWPBS Model in Norwegian Primary Schools
(c
)
Em
er
al
d
G
ro
u
p
Pu
bl
is
h
in
g
experiences and view of student behaviour and learning environment.] Oslo: Norwegian
Ministry of Education.
Ogden, T., Sørlie, M.-A., & Amlund-Hagen, K. (2007). Building strength through enhancing
social competence in immigrant students in primary school. A pilot study. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 12, 105–117.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach. Coercive family process (Vol. 3). Eugene,
OR: Castalia Publishing Company.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sprague, J. R., & Walker, H. M. (2005). Safe and healthy schools. Practical prevention strategies.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sørlie, M.-A., & Nordahl, T. (1998). Problematferd i skolen. Hovedfunn, forklaringer og
pedagogiske implikasjoner. [Behaviour problems in school. Main findings, explanations,
and pedacogical implications]. Hovedrapport fra forskningsprosjektet ‘‘Skole- og
samspillsvansker. Rapport 12a/98. Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst,
velferd og aldring.
Sørlie, M.-A., & Ogden, T. (2007). Immediate impacts of PALS: A school-wide multilevel
programme targeting behaviour problems in elementary school. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 51, 471–492.
Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of targeted
intervention to reduce problem behaviours. Elementary school implementation of check
in–check out. Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 10, 46–55.
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School based interventions for aggressive and disruptive
behaviour: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
33(Suppl. 2), 130–143.
View publication stats