Supporting Universal Prevention Programs: A Two-Phased Coaching Model

Abstract

Schools are adopting evidence-based programs designed to enhance students' emotional and behavioral competencies at increasing rates (Hemmeter et al. in Early Child Res Q 26:96-109, 2011). At the same time, teachers express the need for increased support surrounding implementation of these evidence-based programs (Carter and Van Norman in Early Child Educ 38:279-288, 2010). Ongoing professional development in the form of coaching may enhance teacher skills and implementation (Noell et al. in School Psychol Rev 34:87-106, 2005; Stormont et al. 2012). There exists a need for a coaching model that can be applied to a variety of teacher skill levels and one that guides coach decision-making about how best to support teachers. This article provides a detailed account of a two-phased coaching model with empirical support developed and tested with coaches and teachers in urban schools (Becker et al. 2013). In the initial universal coaching phase, all teachers receive the same coaching elements regardless of their skill level. Then, in the tailored coaching phase, coaching varies according to the strengths and needs of each teacher. Specifically, more intensive coaching strategies are used only with teachers who need additional coaching supports, whereas other teachers receive just enough support to consolidate and maintain their strong implementation. Examples of how coaches used the two-phased coaching model when working with teachers who were implementing two universal prevention programs (i.e., the PATHS(®) curriculum and PAX Good Behavior Game [PAX GBG]) provide illustrations of the application of this model. The potential reach of this coaching model extends to other school-based programs as well as other settings in which coaches partner with interventionists to implement evidence-based programs.

Full text

1 23
Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review
ISSN 1096-4037
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
DOI 10.1007/s10567-013-0134-2
Supporting Universal Prevention Programs:
A Two-Phased Coaching Model
Kimberly D.Becker, Dana Darney,
Celene Domitrovich, Jennifer Pitchford
Keperling & Nicholas S.Ialongo

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Supporting Universal Prevention Programs: A Two-Phased
Coaching Model
Kimberly D. Becker •Dana Darney •
Celene Domitrovich •Jennifer Pitchford Keperling •
Nicholas S. Ialongo
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Schools are adopting evidence-based programs
designed to enhance students’ emotional and behavioral
competencies at increasing rates (Hemmeter et al. in Early
Child Res Q 26:96–109, 2011). At the same time, teachers
express the need for increased support surrounding imple-
mentation of these evidence-based programs (Carter and Van
Norman in Early Child Educ 38:279–288, 2010). Ongoing
professional development in the form of coaching may
enhance teacher skills and implementation (Noell et al. in
School Psychol Rev 34:87–106, 2005; Stormont et al. 2012).
There exists a need for a coaching model that can be applied
to a variety of teacher skill levels and one that guides coach
decision-making about how best to support teachers. This
article provides a detailed account of a two-phased coaching
model with empirical support developed and tested with
coaches and teachers in urban schools (Becker et al. 2013). In
the initial universal coaching phase, all teachers receive the
same coaching elements regardless of their skill level. Then,
in the tailored coaching phase, coaching varies according to
the strengths and needs of each teacher. Specifically, more
intensive coaching strategies are used only with teachers who
need additional coaching supports, whereas other teachers
receive just enough support to consolidate and maintain their
strong implementation. Examples of how coaches used the
two-phased coaching model when working with teachers who
were implementing two universal prevention programs (i.e.,
the PATHS

curriculum and PAX Good Behavior Game
[PAX GBG]) provide illustrations of the application of this
model. The potential reach of this coaching model extends to
other school-based programs as well as other settings in
which coaches partner with interventionists to implement
evidence-based programs.
Keywords Coaching Prevention Schools Teachers 
PATHS Good Behavior Game
Introduction
Children’s behavior problems and social emotional deficits
in elementary school are significant risk factors for a host of
academic and behavioral challenges across the life course
(Kellam et al. 2008). Classroom-based prevention programs
(e.g., behavior management programs, social emotional
curricula) have been shown to reduce problems and
strengthen resilience in the short- and long-term (Hahn et al.
2007; Park-Higgerson et al. 2008; Wilson and Lipsey 2007).
With increasing frequency, schools are adopting evidence-
based prevention programs (Hemmeter et al. 2011). How-
ever, teachers express the need for increased support when
using these programs (Carter and Van Norman 2010). Stu-
dent outcomes have been linked to the quality of program
implementation (Derzon et al. 2005; Ialongo et al. 1999);
therefore, supporting teachers in effectively delivering these
programs is of great importance.
K. D. Becker (&)
Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School
of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
e-mail: kbecker@psych.umaryland.edu
D. Darney
Department of Educational School, and Counseling Psychology,
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
C. Domitrovich
Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA, USA
J. P. Keperling N. S. Ialongo
Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University
Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
123
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
DOI 10.1007/s10567-013-0134-2
Author's personal copy

Typical teacher trainings involve one-time workshops
delivered as part of professional development. However, a
growing body of research in education and other fields
suggests that traditional workshop training may increase
knowledge about a particular area but rarely translates into
skilled implementation in the natural setting (Fixsen et al.
2005). In their seminal meta-analysis, Joyce and Showers
(2002) reported that training comprised of didactics,
demonstrations, practice, and feedback does little to impact
teacher practice unless it is coupled with classroom
coaching, a finding that has growing empirical support
(Cappella et al. 2012; Forman et al. 2009).
Coaching involves providing ongoing guidance to sup-
port skill development (Noell et al. 2005). In the literature,
the term ‘‘coaching’’ appears along with related concepts
such as ‘‘consultation’’ and ‘‘mentoring.’’ There is no
consensus regarding the distinction among these terms, nor
is there a consensus about the exact nature and intensity of
the activities involved in coaching. The goal of coaching
teachers is to improve their use of a specific practice, such
as the implementation of a program or general teaching
skills. To meet this goal, coaches might gather data on
teacher and classroom strengths and needs. One method of
data collection involves classroom observations to assess
student and teacher interactions and teacher implementa-
tion of the program. Another method of data collection
involves the review of program dosage documentation. The
data collected through needs assessments guide the
coaching process and help the coach monitor progress.
Modeling, or demonstrating core program activities, is
another commonly used coaching technique that provides
an opportunity for teachers to see the program in action in
their classrooms. Coaches might also provide instruction to
teachers on the components of an intervention, general
technical assistance that is informational in nature, and
constructive feedback. Collaborative problem solving
around a specific implementation barrier (e.g., finding time
in the day to implement) or student challenge (e.g., a
particular youth does not appear to be responding to the
program) is another common coaching activity. Conduct-
ing periodic, brief check-ins is another coaching technique
that provides the opportunity for coaches to prompt and
encourage teacher implementation of the program (for
reviews of coaching practices, see AIR 2004; Denton and
Hasbrouck 2009; Domitrovich et al. 2008). Research has
linked these and other practices with better student out-
comes (Curby et al. 2009; Pianta et al. 2008a).
The purpose of this paper is to describe a coaching
model designed with these strategies in mind. The model
was developed to build upon the strengths of existing
models in terms of its inclusion of key practices that have
been tested in the literature. It is flexible by design and can
be used with teachers at any level of implementation.
Additionally, its framework offers a series of decision
points that guide coaches to select coaching strategies that
have the best chance for success based on local evidence
(i.e., teacher and student data) and working hypotheses.
The focus of this paper is important because while some
exemplary frameworks exist, there is a dearth of models
articulating the practical components related to coaching
activities intended to provide teachers with ongoing sup-
port in their use of prevention programs in their classrooms
(Stormont et al. 2013). Perhaps the most widely cited
consultation model is the one proposed by Han and Weiss
(2005). This model is unique due to its depth of concep-
tualization regarding the process by which a number of
variables operating at the level of the teacher, classroom,
and school affect implementation. Han and Weiss con-
ceptualize the implementation process as a self-sustaining
feedback loop, with teacher success experiences and con-
sultant feedback playing an integral role in priming cog-
nitions (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, attributions
of change) that lead to further skill development, program
implementation and sustainability, and ultimately, student
behavioral change.
Noteworthy for its depth of conceptualization based on
individual data and well-specified procedures is the
Classroom Checkup (CCU) (Reinke et al. 2011). The CCU
is grounded in motivational interviewing and involves goal
setting, extensive data collection, observation, and per-
sonalized feedback. Another exemplary coaching model is
MyTeachingPartner (MTP; Pianta et al. 2008b). MTP
involves consultant observation of videotaped student–
teacher interactions and guided reflection regarding tea-
cher–student interactions in empirically supported
domains, which is reviewed and reflected upon by teachers.
Finally, BRIDGE (Cappella et al. 2012) and the coaching
model for the teaching pyramid (Hemmeter et al. 2011)
both utilize a cyclical structure of live observation, con-
sultation, feedback, and goal setting. BRIDGE also
involves video review and coach modeling (Cappella et al.
2012). One merit of these exemplary consultation and
coaching models is that as a group, they coalesce around
key evidence-based activities, including data collection,
goal setting, and performance feedback (Fixsen et al. 2005;
Herschell et al. 2010), despite having different targets (e.g.,
basic classroom practices, behavior management, social
emotional skill teaching).
Despite the work of the research groups described
above, there are still significant gaps in the coaching lit-
erature. For example, there is little explicit guidance
regarding the frequency and sequencing of coaching
activities such as modeling, observation, and performance
feedback. Moreover, it is unclear if and where coaching
activities such as engaging administrators, rapport build-
ing, modeling, and reinforcement fit into each of these
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

existing models. It is important to specify the role of these
coaching activities, particularly as evidence accumulates
regarding the association between teacher implementation
and variables such as coach–teacher alliance (e.g., Wehby
et al. 2012). For example, perhaps rapport building activ-
ities promote a positive coach–teacher alliance that is
conducive for other integral coaching activities such as
observation and feedback (Kratochwill 2007). Addition-
ally, although the models of MTP, BRIDGE, Han and
Weiss (2005), and Hemmeter et al. (2011) are useful with
many teachers, it is not clear from published manuscripts
exactly how these models are tailored to address the
diverse needs of different teachers, particularly those who
are identified as needing significant support. The CCU is
explicitly tailored for teachers and its practical application
is for those teachers who exhibit low implementation of a
program. The theoretical underpinnings of the CCU in
motivational interviewing suggest that ambivalence is
hypothesized to influence low implementation and that
goal setting and feedback will reduce ambivalence and
facilitate progress. However, barriers aside from ambiva-
lence often interfere with implementation, and the strate-
gies for addressing other barriers within the context of the
CCU are not clearly specified. Finally, within the context
of these models, there is no explicit framework to guide
coach decision-making about what strategies to use with
which teachers and for what purpose.
Although the traditional stage model of scientific
development holds that interventions should be developed
and tested through rigorous efficacy studies before
deployment into the field, the needs of the coaching
workforce have quickly outpaced the research. One
explanation for this research–practice gap is the difficulty
of conducting rigorously controlled studies in which every
teacher receives the same coaching. In reality, the same
coaching for every teacher may not be desirable, given that
teachers and classrooms vary in their strengths and needs.
In an effort to address the ever-widening research-to-
practice gap (McHugh and Barlow 2010), the develop-
ment and testing of the coaching model described in this
paper was guided by a practice-based research approach
(Kratochwill et al. 2012). This approach involved a
dynamic process of collaboration with actual coaches,
teachers, administrators, and students in urban elementary
school settings, as well as experts in the field of pre-
vention science. This iterative process involved reviews
of the literatures related to behavior change, teacher
consultation, and training; standardization of procedures;
monitoring of integrity to the coaching model; data col-
lection; and use of data to inform modifications to our
model. Additionally, each year, detailed evaluations,
focus groups, and individual interviews were conducted
with school administrators, teachers, and staff to obtain
feedback and suggestions on the coaching model and
process.
In the sections that follow, background information is
provided to describe the context and development of the
coaching model. Then, a conceptual and practical frame-
work for coaching classroom-based preventive interven-
tions is provided, along with coaching examples from two
universal classroom-based interventions. Finally, the
coaching model is discussed within the larger context of
prevention science within and beyond school settings.
Background
The coaching model described in this paper evolved within
the context of 4 years of pilot studies and a 3-year ran-
domized field trial involving a total of 45 public elemen-
tary schools, nearly 400 teachers, and almost 9,000
students. These elementary schools are located in a major
urban school district that operates under significant
resource constraints. More than 70 % of students receive
free or reduced lunch, and in 2011, nearly 90 % of schools
failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals.
Seven individuals employed through a major urban
university served as coaches. Table 1presents the educa-
tion and experience of each coach. Coaches were primarily
female (n=6; 85.7 %) and Caucasian (n=5; 71.4 %).
Coaches were former educators (n=5; 71.4 %) or school-
based mental health clinicians (n=2; 28.6 %). Two of the
coaches had been teachers who received training during the
pilot trial and then were recruited to serve as coaches based
on their stellar implementation of PATHS and the PAX
GBG. Coaches were employed for a period of 2–3 years
each.
A recently published paper (Becker et al. 2013) pre-
sented empirical analyses involving longitudinal data on
coaching and teacher implementation quality of the PAX
Good Behavior Game (PAX GBG; PATHS implementa-
tion was not examined). Findings revealed that coaching
varied as prescribed by the different phases of the coaching
model. For example, as will be described, modeling is a
key coaching element during the universal coaching phase,
and it accounted for 24.9 % of coaching time during the
universal coaching phase, but dropped to 3.5 % of coach-
ing time during the tailored phase. Additionally, coaches
strategically varied their coaching practices based on tea-
cher implementation quality. On the one hand, coaches
provided less support to teachers with high implementation
quality. On the other hand, they provided additional sup-
port to teachers with low implementation quality, and
coaching was associated with improved implementation
quality for these teachers (Becker et al. 2013).
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

Intervention Descriptions
Coaches applied the coaching model described in this
paper to support teacher implementation of the Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS

curriculum;
Kusche and Greenberg 1995; Greenberg and Kusche 2006)
Curriculum and the PAX GBG (Embry et al. 2003).
PATHS is a universal curriculum and set of complemen-
tary elements targeting social emotional development that
has been shown in large-scale randomized controlled trials
to have a beneficial impact on off-task, aggressive, and
disruptive behaviors by improving prosocial cognitions and
socially competent behaviors (CPPRG 1999,2002,2010;
Greenberg et al. 1995; Kam et al. 2004; Riggs et al. 2006).
Developed by Barrish et al. (1969) and modified by
Embry et al. (2003), the GBG is a group-based token
economy in which groups or ‘‘teams’’ are reinforced for
their collective success in inhibiting inappropriate behav-
ior. Additional ‘‘PAX’’ elements primarily consist of
strategies to promote a positive classroom climate and
reinforce good behavior (Embry et al. 2003). The GBG has
a substantial body of literature supporting its efficacy
(Dolan et al. 1993; Ialongo et al. 1999,2001; Kellam et al.
2008; Petras et al. 2008).
Laying the Foundation for Successful Intervention
Implementation
The focus of this paper is on the direct coaching of
teachers, yet two other aspects of coaching were integral to
the successful implementation of PATHS and the PAX
GBG: (1) fostering administrator support and (2) promot-
ing the school-wide adoption of the values and activities of
PATHS and the PAX GBG. Therefore, a brief description
of coach efforts in each regard is important.
During an introductory meeting, each coach elicited from
school leaders their missions, values, and goals for their
schools. Coaches utilized opportunities during this discus-
sion to illustrate how PATHS and the PAX GBG could help
administrators achieve their visions for their schools. For
instance, when a principal stated that one of her concerns was
disruptive behavior and peer conflict resulting in students
being sent out of the classroom during academic instruction,
a coach might share research about how PATHS and the
GBG reduce student disruptive behavior and improve stu-
dent self-control and social problem solving. Administrator
concerns about the programs were also elicited and discussed
during the introductory meetings.
To bolster administrator involvement, coaches provided
each administrator with guidelines about how to promote
the success of PATHS and the PAX GBG. These guide-
lines included providing time for teachers to deliver the
programs and to meet with coaches for ongoing profes-
sional development, attending monthly administrator
meetings to connect with other school leaders and the
program staff to share feedback, and integrating PATHS
and the PAX GBG into daily routines and the school
improvement plan. Through discussion, coaches conveyed
that students and teachers whose school leaders followed
these guidelines typically achieve higher levels of results
than those reached by students and teachers whose
administrators did not provide significant support for
PATHS and the PAX GBG.
Administrators participated in monthly meetings with
leaders from other schools, the coaches, and the research
team to discuss school-wide implementation, coaching of the
programs, and any related concerns. Coaches also accom-
panied administrators on school-wide ‘‘walk-throughs’’ that
were guided by a checklist of core intervention components
for which to look. Walk-throughs provided an opportunity
for each coach to highlight high-quality PATHS and PAX
GBG implementation throughout the school and classrooms,
and to provide further explanation or clarification to the
principal if needed. Additionally, the coach could use this
time to share suggestions for ways to improve school-wide
implementation and further integrate PATHS and the PAX
GBG with the academic curriculum. Revisions and updates
to the coaching materials and procedures were based on the
feedback and data gathered from administrator meetings and
walk-throughs.
In addition to nurturing administrator support for
PATHS and the PAX GBG, from the first day of school,
coaches emphasized the potential for these programs to
Table 1 Coach demographic characteristics, education, and experience
Coach Degree
a
Field
b
Years
Exper.
c
Prior experience
coaching
teachers
Prior
experience
w/interventions
1 Ph.D. Edu 10 (Elem),
5
(Admin)
Yes No
2 M.S. Edu 9 (Elem) Yes Yes
3 M.S. Edu 5 (Middle) No No
4 M.A. Edu 5 (Elem) No No
5 B.S. (plus
graduate
classes)
Edu 8 (Elem) No Yes
6 M.A. MH 5 Yes Yes
7 B.S. (plus
graduate
classes)
MH 2 No No
a
Degree at the time of employment as a coach. Ph.D. doctorate; M.S. masters of
science; M.A. masters of arts; B.S. bachelors of science
b
Edu education; MH mental health
c
Years experience in chosen field prior to employment as a coach. Elem elementary
school; Middle middle school; Admin administration
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

have greater impact when implemented schoolwide, rather
than just by teachers inside their own classrooms. Coaches
provided all staff members (e.g., paraprofessionals, hall
monitors, cafeteria staff) with program materials (e.g.,
harmonica, posters promoting self-calming, and problem-
solving strategies). Coaches also trained all staff members
to use PATHS and PAX GBG language and principles in
different settings (e.g., hallway, playground, cafeteria) and
to integrate the language and principles with their academic
curricula and daily routines. As an example, blowing the
harmonica is the universal PAX quiet sign; therefore, it can
be used by any adult in the school building at any time.
Bringing the harmonica into the hallways, cafeteria,
resource classrooms, and other areas of the building
improve staff cohesion around the PAX GBG and PATHS.
Throughout the school year, building-wide activities (i.e.,
rewards, competitions, public recognition) enhanced support
for the programs. With regard to rewards, coaches carried a
variety of prizes (e.g., classroom supplies, $5 gift cards) and
notes for writing compliments to award when they observed
teachers and staff using program elements. Coaches also set
up competitions involving the use of specific program ele-
ments, such as the PAX GBG. For example, coaches iden-
tified a target number of games to play and all those who met
the goal won a specified prize (e.g., lunch bag, T-shirt).
Contests were also set up between classrooms or grade levels
as a way to promote friendly competition. For example, the
grade-level team that used the program elements the most
(e.g., delivered the most lessons, plays the most games) in a
specified period of time (usually 4 weeks) received a gift
certificate for a local teacher supply store. Results of com-
petitions were posted publically and identified winning
teams (but not the implementation of individual teachers).
Coaches promoted public recognition of program imple-
mentation by placing a bulletin board in a common area (i.e.,
teacher’s lounge, front office) where teachers and other staff
members recognized each other’s efforts with the programs
as well as general successes with written compliments. In
addition, each week coaches randomly selected a teacher to
spotlight as the ‘‘Teacher of the Week’’ which parallels a
PATHS routine called ‘‘Kid of the Day.’’ Every teacher was
selected for this type of noncontingent reinforcement at some
point during the year and was recognized through posted
written compliments and announcements over the school
intercom. Teachers appeared to enjoy the opportunities to
earn rewards and recognition, and these strategies promoted
the profile of the programs in each school.
Two-Phased Coaching Model
The remainder of this paper presents a two-phased
approach to promoting effective teacher delivery of
classroom-based programs (see Fig. 1). The coaching
strategies specified in the model reflect an initial universal
coaching phase that included coaching strategies that were
used with all teachers regardless of their skill level. During
the second phase, the tailored coaching phase, coaching
efforts and practices varied according to the specific needs
of each teacher (Becker et al. 2013).
Universal Coaching Phase (UCP)
The UCP represents a collaborative coaching approach that
included specific coaching activities and strategies used
with every teacher involved with delivering the program
and school-wide efforts to create a supportive workplace
environment for program implementation. The following
description begins with coaching activities that occurred
after the initial teacher training had taken place. As
depicted in Fig. 1and described in the sections that follow,
coaching activities were grouped into two stages that
reflect the primary focus of the coaching: connect and
cultivate (Chorpita et al. 2012).
Stage 1: Connect
The connect stage of the universal coaching phase laid the
foundation for successful implementation of the program
with its emphasis on developing rapport between the coa-
ches and teachers, preparing the classroom environment,
promoting positive expectations for program success, and
creating a climate of support for teachers in the school
building.
During this stage, which began the week after teachers
attended training and lasted approximately 2 weeks, coaches
built rapport with teachers and assisted them with preparing
their classrooms and students for the intervention. Rapport
building involved getting to know teachers as individuals as
well as educators. For example, coaches ate lunch in the
teachers’ lounge, asked teachers about their summer vaca-
tions, discussed interests, exchanged stories about teaching
experiences, and tried to make other connections based on
similarities and experiences. Coaches also clarified their
roles as collaborative team members, with an emphasis on
dispelling any perceptions that they were evaluating teachers
in order to report back to administrators. Additionally, coa-
ches facilitated open discussions to elicit and address teacher
perceptions about the implementation demands of the pro-
grams. However, the primary way that coaches connected
with teachers, and, in turn, connected teachers to the pro-
gram, was by embodying the principles of the program
(Embry et al. 2003). For example, coaches created a positive
working relationship by treating teachers with genuine
respect and empathy, engaging in collaborative problem
solving around implementation challenges, and offering
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

sincere verbal and written (and sometimes tangible) rein-
forcement for teachers’ efforts toward enhancing the social,
emotional, and academic skills of their students. In these
ways, the connections between coaches and teachers, as well
as the teachers and the program’s values, were strengthened
and solidified.
Classroom preparation involved demonstrating the
proper use of program materials (e.g., harmonica, timer)
and assisting teachers as they prepared the program mate-
rials and set up the physical space of their classrooms.
Coaches initiated discussions about program implementa-
tion and helped teachers identify specific times to use the
program and integrate the program into the daily routines
of the classrooms. Coaches provided teachers with pacing
guides that broke down the program into weekly activities,
thereby facilitating teacher efficacy with the program and
reducing the likelihood that teachers would feel over-
whelmed by a curriculum manual filled with tasks and
lessons. Coaches and teachers reviewed the initial program
lessons and activities together. This provided the oppor-
tunity for teachers to discuss the objectives, ask questions,
organize materials, and plan for introducing the material to
their students. Importantly, coaches inquired about poten-
tial barriers that might interfere with program implemen-
tation and helped each teacher develop a plan to address
barriers.
Coaches also instilled positive expectations for success
with the program. Coaches and teachers partnered to
introduce program concepts to the students, although many
teachers were so enthusiastic to begin that they did this on
their own and even worked ahead of the pacing guide.
Through reflection activities, students were introduced to
the program values. For example, students identified facets
of the classroom environment that promote as well as
hinder learning and social relationships.
As described earlier, coaches also forged relationships
with school leadership and staff to create a school-wide
environment that promotes a positive school climate and
student skill development. Through these initial activities,
the coach, school leadership and staff, teacher, and students
connected around a shared vision of a positive classroom and
school environment, thereby promoting the commitment of
teachers and students to achieving that vision. At the end of
approximately 2–3 weeks, most teachers felt comfortable
with the coach and with using basic program materials on
their own and were eager to enter the next phase of coaching
which involved the active use of program components.
Stage 2: Cultivate
During the 4-week cultivate stage, coaches focused on
increasing skill development and refinement, promoting
NO
Teacher and Staff Training
Connect
Rapport
Building
Promoting
Positive
Expectations
YES
YES NO
Classroom
Preparation
Modeling Reflection Data
Collection
Cultivate Teacher & Student
Progress?
Implement
Consolidate Course
Procedures
Checking In Generalization:
Observation,
Feedback,
Reflection
Addressing
Barriers
Revisit Universal
Coaching Phase
Procedures
Observation
& Feedback
Introductory Meeting:
Connecting with
Administrators
Implement
Intensive Course
Procedures
UNIVERSAL Coaching Phase TAILORED Coaching Phase
More Intensive
Coaching Needed?
Enhancing Administrator Support:
Monthly Administrator Meetings, Classroom Walk-Throughs
School-Wide Strategies to Promote Support for Interventions:
Rewards, Contests, and Public Recognition
Throughout Universal and
Tailored Phases
Throughout Universal and
Tailored Phases
Fig. 1 Two-phased coaching model
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

teacher experiences of success, and fostering teacher
attributions of student functioning to program use. These
goals were achieved through the use of a standard protocol
that included the use of modeling, teacher reflection,
observation, regular data collection, and performance
feedback.
Coaches modeled program components in each class-
room. Modeling involved discussing with the teacher the
setup and rationale of each component as well as finding
opportunities to enlist the teacher’s assistance while mod-
eling. For example, when coaches modeled the PAX GBG,
they had teachers blow the harmonica to start and stop the
game, set the timer, observe behavior, and/or draw a prize
after the game. Although giving teachers an opportunity to
get their ‘‘feet wet’’ helped pave the way for them using
program components without the coach present, some
teachers preferred to observe and not participate. In these
situations, coaches provided teachers with a checklist list-
ing the core components of the game (or other program
element, depending on what the coach was modeling) to
guide them through different things to look for as the coach
modeled. These checklists focused the teacher’s attention
on the coach’s technique and helped ensure that teachers
did not do other work or leave the classroom.
Following modeling, coaches engaged teachers in
reflection (e.g., ‘‘What did you like about the Good Behavior
Game?’’ ‘‘What would you have done differently?’’ ‘‘How
do you think the students responded to the game?’’).
Reflection provided the opportunity for coaches to assess
teacher enthusiasm and ambivalence regarding the program,
identify modifications that might need to be introduced to fit
the program into the classroom, emphasize positive student
response to the program, identify barriers to using the pro-
gram consistently, and foster teacher self-efficacy about
implementation. Additionally, reflection helped shape
positive associations between student behavioral progress
and teacher implementation.
A key element of the initial modeling visit was to
encourage teachers to try the modeled element as soon as
possible after debriefing. Most teachers were enthusiastic
about this opportunity, which allowed coaches an oppor-
tunity to observe and offer support when needed. To
teachers who were hesitant to try out the skill, coaches
provided additional encouragement and assisted them with
using the program element. Coaches completed a checklist
nearly identical to the modeling checklist to provide data
for feedback and reflection after the observation ended.
Coaches again encouraged teacher reflection regarding
their successful use of the program and student response to
the program. Specific verbal praise was offered and the
coach also provided written praise notes that were posted in
the classroom. Most teachers only needed one visit with
modeling, observation, and feedback to grasp the key
aspects of the program and implement it with success,
although coaches sometimes conducted multiple modeling
visits or observations including feedback with a teacher.
After the modeling session, coaches continued to visit
each teacher on a weekly or biweekly basis (Becker et al.
2013). Coaching sessions involved observation of key
program elements (e.g., Kid of the Day routine, PATHS
lessons, PAX GBG). It was important to observe program
components early on and at a regularly scheduled time
identified by teachers in order to establish a routine around
the program components that was less vulnerable to
cancellations.
Implementation Monitoring and Support: Bridging
the Universal and Tailored Coaching Phases
Data Collection
Data collection began during the cultivate stage and con-
tinued through the remainder of the school year. Qualitative
and quantitative data were routinely collected regarding
program dosage (e.g., number of lessons delivered, number
of games played), implementation quality (e.g., fidelity rat-
ings), and student outcomes (e.g., student behavioral data).
Program Dosage
Teachers provided information to coaches on a weekly
basis regarding which PATHS lessons they delivered to
their students. The total number of lessons in the PATHS
curriculum was approximately 40, and coaches provided a
pacing guide to help teachers deliver lessons regularly. The
benchmark for lessons was two lessons per week. Teachers
also recorded the number of PAX GBG games played each
week, the duration of each game, and student behavior
during the game using a ‘‘scoreboard’’ designed for this
purpose. The benchmark for the PAX GBG was three
games per day.
Implementation Quality
A variety of data were collected during classroom visits.
Four times a year, independent observers accompanied
coaches to each classroom and completed extensive ‘‘rub-
ric’’ observations to assess each teacher’s implementation
quality. The first of these rubric observations occurred
approximately 6 weeks after training, following a period in
which coaches followed a standard protocol that included
modeling the program components, observing teachers’
first attempt at implementation, and initial feedback with
each teacher. During the rubric observation, teachers were
asked to deliver a PATHS lesson for which implementation
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

quality across four dimensions was rated using a 5-point
scale on the PATHS Implementation Rubric (Domitrovich
et al. 2006). The four dimensions are (1) thoroughness of
teaching PATHS concepts, (2) level of disruption during
lesson, (3) pacing of lesson, and (4) teacher affect and
energy during lesson. Higher scores are better and teachers
whose mean rating across all four dimensions was
approximately 3.0 or higher were generally regarded as
implementing with sufficient quality.
Teachers also were asked to play a 5–10-min PAX GBG
game during which implementation quality across seven
dimensions were rated on a 5-point scale using the PAX
Good Behavior Game Implementation Rubric (Schaffer
et al. 2006). These seven dimensions reflect core compo-
nents of the game such as preparing students for the game,
accurately recording student behavior, and responding
neutrally to misbehavior. Higher scores reflect higher-
quality implementation and teachers whose mean rating
across all seven dimensions was approximately 3.0 or
higher were generally perceived to be implementing with
sufficient quality. For additional information regarding
rubric scores, see Becker et al. (2013).
Given the wealth of information yielded by rubrics, it
would be ideal to have a coach use the rubric rating system
each time a classroom observation is conducted. Since time
and resource constraints often precluded the use of the
rubric for each classroom observation, coaches completed a
checklist after observations as an index of how thoroughly
a teacher delivered a program component. Coaches also
queried students about implementation (e.g., ‘‘What was
the prize after the most recent GBG?’’).
Student Outcomes
Particularly during the early period of teacher implementa-
tion, the integration of student behavioral progress into
coaching was an element critical to teacher engagement with
the program. During classroom observations, coaches coun-
ted disruptive student behaviors for a period outside of the
time that the teacher delivered the PATHS lesson and played
the PAX GBG. Ideally, these observations lasted 15 min, but
were shortened when necessary due to time constraints.
Disruptive behaviors included getting out of one’s seat
without the teacher’s permission, using classroom materials
inappropriately (e.g., using a pencil or ruler to drum on desk),
calling out without permission, and displaying verbally or
physically aggressive behavior toward a peer or teacher.
Using these data, coaches guided teachers through
reflection about the association between disruptive behav-
ior counts and teacher use of the PATHS lessons and PAX
GBG. For example, coaches helped teachers attribute
progress related to increased time on task and compliance
with classroom rules to the number of games played and
lessons delivered. The explicit link between implementa-
tion and student behavior progress reinforced teachers who
were already using PATHS and the PAX GBG frequently
and motivated teachers with high classroom levels of dis-
ruptive behavior to increase their implementation.
During program implementation, coaches also assessed
student outcomes by asking students about their knowledge
(e.g., ‘‘What is something you can do when you have a
disagreement with another student?’’) and use (e.g., ‘‘When
was the last time you used the Control Signals to calm
yourself down?’’) of program skills. During classroom
observations, coaches also looked for evidence of students
spontaneously demonstrating skills consistent with the
program and their ability to use program skills when
prompted by their teachers.
Overall, data collection by the coaches reflected a multi-
method, multi-trait, and multi-informant process that yiel-
ded a rich source of information that was shared with
teachers and helped shape future coaching sessions.
Performance Feedback
For each of the core components of both PATHS and the
PAX GBG, teachers were provided with written guidelines
that described what high-quality implementation of each
component looked like. The content of the guidelines was
aligned with the implementation rubric. Implementation
checklists that identified each performance criterion were
created so that when a core component was observed by a
coach, the results could be provided in written form and
used to facilitate a discussion about performance. Feedback
to teachers aligned with these data to ensure that teachers
were given guidance consistent with high-quality imple-
mentation of the program.
Each time observation data were collected, coaches used
it as an opportunity to guide teachers through self-reflec-
tion as part of the process of performance feedback. Coa-
ches elicited from the teachers their assessments about the
strengths of their performance, as well as areas for con-
tinued development. Self-reflection promoted teacher
insight and preserved the collaborative relationship, rather
than the coach acting as an expert and immediately iden-
tifying areas for improvement. Performance feedback was
also communicated both verbally and in written forms by
coaches to teachers. Coaches were encouraged to always
begin with identifying a teacher’s strengths before giving
any constructive feedback about their implementation.
Rather than an exhaustive list of next steps toward
improvement, constructive feedback prioritized one or two
areas for improvement that would help each teacher
experience success and achieve the ‘‘biggest bang for the
buck’’ in the classroom. Performance feedback was data
driven and had clearly identified benchmarks, so that
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

teachers were aware of the standards for performance.
Additionally, coaches helped teachers make explicit links
between their implementation of PATHS and the PAX
GBG and student behavioral progress.
Extensive data collection optimized the ability of coa-
ches to make evidence-informed decisions about how best
to support teachers. By the end of the cultivate phase,
coaches arrived at an initial decision point regarding
whether a teacher was making adequate progress with
implementation and whether students were demonstrating
behavioral change (see Fig. 1). Progress assessments were
informed by data for each teacher related to program
dosage, implementation quality, and student behavior.
Although there was not a precise algorithm for determining
progress (see Becker et al. 2013 for more discussion of this
issue), meeting the identified benchmarks across dosage,
implementation quality, and student outcomes typically
indicated adequate progress. As is typical of most inter-
ventions, these benchmarks have not been empirically
validated, so it is unknown whether a certain dosage or
level of quality is necessary or sufficient to bring about
student gains. At this point, coaches entered the tailored
coaching phase in which coaching practices were individ-
ualized to meet the strengths and needs of each teacher.
Tailored Coaching Phase (TCP)
The TCP consisted of two different courses of action: The
first, referred to as the consolidate course, was designed for
teachers who demonstrated solid implementation following
the coaching elements delivered in the universal phase. The
consolidate course focused on strengthening and reinforc-
ing teacher implementation as well as promoting program
generalization and sustainability. Solid implementation
was determined by examining all sources of implementa-
tion data to ensure that adequate standards of program
quality and quantity of delivery were met. The second
course of action, referred to as the intensive course, was
used with teachers who were resistant to implementing
either program or whose quality of implementation was
poor. The assumption with these teachers was that the
teacher could benefit from more time or more intensive
coaching supports based on a strategic plan that involved a
four-step process grounded in behavioral assessment.
Consolidate Course
While on the consolidate course, which lasted the remainder
of the school year, coaches focused on helping teachers
sustain an effective level of proficiency through check-ins,
addressing barriers to implementation, increasing general-
ization of principles and skills through observation,
feedback, and reflection, and maintaining motivation with
the continued use of reinforcements (see Fig. 1).
Most teachers were proficient and enthusiastic in their
program implementation within 2 months of using the
programs (Becker et al. 2013). Helping teachers maintain
an effective level of proficiency required weekly or
biweekly check-ins lasting 10–15 min with teachers during
which teacher perspectives about the programs were elic-
ited, implementation data were collected, and minor bar-
riers to implementation (e.g., not enough time to deliver
lesson/play the game; particular student does not appear to
respond well to the game) were resolved. Check-ins
allowed coaches to monitor implementation efficiently so
that they could allocate more time toward teachers who
needed more intensive support. When barriers were
reported by teachers or noted by coaches, coaches and
teachers engaged in collaborative problem solving to
identify and implement solutions to reduce barriers.
With regard to generalization of skills, coaches encour-
aged teachers to look for naturally occurring opportunities
during daily school life for students to practice program
skills. For example, a classroom conflict provided an ideal
opportunity for students to discuss feelings, explore attri-
butions about intention, practice self-regulation, and apply
social problem-solving skills taught in PATHS lessons.
Having a new student join the class provided an excellent
means for solidifying friendship skills as peers were enlisted
to teach the new student program concepts. In the case of the
PAX GBG, as students and teachers became proficient at
playing the game during academic instruction, coaches
helped teachers identify other times when the game could
provide the opportunity for students to practice self-regula-
tion skills, such as while walking in the hallway, taking a
restroom break, or eating in the cafeteria.
Observation, feedback, and teacher reflection remained
critical elements, particularly with regard to enhancing the
generalization of the program principles. Consistent
reflection about the association between implementation
and student behavior promoted teacher self-monitoring and
prevented minor slips in program implementation from
becoming major lapses, thereby contributing to the sus-
tainability of the program. Observation and feedback also
provided the opportunity for coaches and teachers to col-
laboratively problem solve minor issues that arise, such as
what to do when a particular student appeared to have
challenges using skills taught in the program or how to
balance the program with competing demands (e.g., pre-
paring for standardized testing).
Intensive Course
The UCP was effective for helping most teachers introduce
and deliver the programs, and therefore, the consolidate
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

course of action was appropriate for helping most teachers
maintain their gains; yet, some teachers required more
intensive coaching support (Becker et al. 2013). With these
teachers, coaches shifted strategies and intensified their
coaching to support teacher skill development and
implementation.
A number of factors influence teacher proficiency and
implementation with any program: competing demands,
classroom composition, administrator support, teacher
stress/burnout or depression, engagement with the pro-
gram, etc. The intensive course involved a four-step pro-
cess grounded in behavioral assessment by which coaches
worked with teachers to (1) gather information on imple-
mentation, (2) develop a hypothesized working model of
the barriers to implementation, (3) create a plan for
addressing the factors hypothesized to influence imple-
mentation, and (4) establish assessment procedures and
timelines to measure teacher and student progress. This
four-step process is outlined in the Teacher Implementation
Support Planning Checklist in Table 2.
The following example is provided to demonstrate how
these steps were implemented by a coach with a particular
teacher using PATHS and PAX GBG:
I was working with Mr. F., an elementary teacher
who had a highly disruptive classroom. He frequently
remarked how students don’t respect adults and don’t
care about their education.
Step 1: Assess
Collect Data
Assessment began with ongoing, multi-method data col-
lection. Data were gathered through classroom observa-
tions, teacher and student report of program use (e.g., game
and lesson frequency), and discussions with the teacher
(e.g., teacher reporting implementation difficulties) and
students (e.g., ‘‘What have you learned recently about
feelings?’’). This information helped coaches assess the
depth and consistency of program implementation, as
exemplified by the following:
When I observed Mr. F., my observation ratings of
his program delivery were satisfactory (i.e., 3.1 on
rubric; benchmark: 3.0), suggesting that he had the
skills to play the GBG; however, he admitted and the
students confirmed that he rarely played the game in
class (i.e., \1 game/day; benchmark: 3 games/day).
Although he was on pace with his pacing guide for
lesson delivery (i.e., 2 lessons/week; benchmark: 2
lessons/week), the quality of the lessons needed to
improve (i.e., 2.3 on rubric; benchmark: 3.0). His
lessons were long (e.g., 45 minutes on average;
benchmark: 20-25 minutes), he did not elicit student
participation during the lessons, and he rarely linked
lesson content to students’ everyday lives. Disrup-
tions in the classroom were frequent and included
verbally and physically aggressive behaviors.
Identify Teacher Strengths
The next step involved identifying the strengths of the
teacher based on their own perspective and that of the
coach. Identification of strengths allowed a coach to build
upon what the teacher was doing well and helped build a
positive working relationship between the coach and the
Table 2 Teacher implementation support planning checklist used
with tailored coaching model
Assess Collect data Use behavioral observation of
teacher and student behavior,
teacher and student report of
program implementation and
effect, etc.
Identify teacher
strengths
Consider teacher’s strengths with
regard to personal and
professional characteristics and
program implementation
Identify
implementation
challenges
Define implementation challenges
in behavioral terms
Develop hypotheses Consider the influence of these
factors:
a. Rapport with coach
b. General teaching skills
c. Values reflected in the program
d. Understanding of program
components
e. Competing demands
f. Motivation
g. Ability to manage personal
stress
h. Classroom composition
i. Administrative context
Plan Establish and
prioritize goals
Break long-term behavioral goals
into smaller, weekly behavioral
goals. Prioritize those that will
deliver a quick effect with low
effort
Establish procedures
for assessing
progress
Consider the data (e.g.,
observation, teacher report,
student report) that will be used
to monitor progress
Do Implement steps associated with
short-term goals
Evaluate Evaluate and monitor
plan effectiveness
Collect data and assess progress.
Return to earlier steps until
goals are achieved
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

teacher. Strengths reflected personal (e.g., friendly) and
professional qualities (e.g., demonstrates high-quality
teaching skills) or program implementation (e.g., uses
harmonica regularly). Coaches provided explicit feedback
to teachers on their strengths in addition to building on
these in their support strategies. Continuing the example,
the coach identified many strengths for Mr. F., including
valuing being an effective teacher and his openness to
consultation:
I could see that Mr. F. was frustrated because he
wanted to be a good teacher, but felt powerless to
manage student behavior and to change what he
perceived as ‘‘the way kids are today.’’ I appreciated
his willingness to share his concerns and I was able to
empathize because I had similar experiences when I
was a teacher.
Identify Implementation Challenges
Next, implementation challenges identified by both the
coach and the teacher were defined in observable, mea-
surable, behavioral terms. For example, rather than indicate
that a teacher was ‘‘disorganized’’ with the lesson, it was
much more accurate and informative to say that the teacher
‘‘did not have the opportunity to read/prepare the lesson
ahead of time’’ or ‘‘did not have necessary materials ready
during the lesson.’’ Operationalization of teacher imple-
mentation in behavioral terms reduced the internal attri-
butions made by coaches about teacher implementation
(e.g., teacher is lazy). It also framed implementation
challenges in a way that feedback could be provided using
objective data in a nonblaming and nonjudgmental manner
(e.g., ‘‘I noticed that you had to spend a few minutes in the
middle of the lesson to look for materials’’). Operational-
ization facilitated a collaborative approach between the
coach and teacher toward developing specific strategies to
address the issue (e.g., disorganized is vague and can be an
overwhelming problem to work on).
Develop Hypotheses
After identifying implementation challenges, coaches
worked with teachers to identify factors that might influ-
ence their behavior (examples listed in Table 1). The key
to the implementation support process was the develop-
ment of function-based hypotheses about how these various
factors interfere with a teacher’s ability to implement the
program. Examples of hypotheses include ‘‘If the teacher
did not view the program as interfering with academic
instruction and student achievement on standardized tests,
she might devote more time to the program’’ and ‘‘If the
teacher were less anxious about being evaluated by the
coach, she would allow the coach to observe lessons and
provide feedback more frequently.’’ Certainly, program
implementation could be influenced by multiple factors;
however, the goal was to develop an evidence-informed,
hypothesis-driven model of what might be contributing to
low program implementation, as in the case of Mr. F.:
To me, one of Mr. F.’s biggest challenges were his
views that the problem was too overwhelming to
tackle, thereby resulting in him not implementing
much of the program due to the belief it wouldn’t
work. Additionally, his lessons were too long, lacked
student participation, and were not linked to everyday
life. I hypothesized that if he could shorten the les-
sons, increase student participation in the lessons, and
relate the content to the students’ lives, he would
engage students, and thereby decrease disruptive
behavior. Increased student participation might also
help him connect with his students and gain per-
spective on their lives so that he would view them in
a more positive light.
While it was often the case that hypotheses generated by
a coach could be shared with a teacher, there might be
situations in which this would be counterproductive to the
support process because it might make a teacher feel self-
conscious or defensive which could undermine the working
alliance with the coach. For example, the coach might
hypothesize that the teacher’s lack of confidence playing
the PAX GBG was related to her avoidance of playing the
game. Making this hypothesis explicit to the teacher was
less important for the coach than taking steps to provide the
teacher with positive experiences as a way to test the
hypothesis.
Step 2: Plan
Establish and Prioritize Goals
Goals for teacher implementation reflected the stated goals
of the teacher, the needs of the classroom (as indicated by
teacher, students, data), and benchmarks such as the level
of implementation that the majority of teachers are able to
achieve. The process of goal development was usually
coach-initiated at this stage of the coaching model because
teachers in this phase of coaching typically had demon-
strated difficulty setting and achieving goals. Through
collaborative discussion, coaches and teachers developed a
working draft of the goals, identifying and prioritizing
specific and attainable goals for the upcoming week(s).
Coaches guided teachers toward goals that would give the
teachers the ‘‘biggest bang for their buck’’ in terms of
helping them see immediate results if possible. Short-term
goals reflected manageable behavioral changes (e.g., to
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

meet with coach to co-plan the lesson the day prior to the
lesson) toward long-term goals (e.g., to deliver lessons on a
weekly basis and have all materials available during the
lesson). Ideally, these short-term goals also addressed the
factors hypothesized as interfering with implementation
(e.g., absence of an organization system). For example:
Based on Mr. F.’s vision for his classroom and my
observations in his classroom, one of the long-term
goals I thought would fit his vision was to increase
positive student-teacher and student-student relation-
ships. He agreed that positive relationships are
important in effective classrooms but that he thought
he was failing in that regard. I normalized these chal-
lenges (e.g., ‘‘When I was a teacher…’’ and ‘‘Lots of
other teachers I’ve coached…’’) and instilled hope that
things would improve (e.g., ‘‘Upper elementary
classrooms are challenging and I think that you are on
your way to acquiring some new tools that will build
those connections between your students as well as
with you. I am here to support you too, so let’s put our
heads together and figure out where to start’’).
Mr. F. and I developed a series of short-term goals to
address the long-term goal of increasing positive relationships
in the classroom. The initial goals included greeting students
when they entered the classroom and having at least one stu-
dent share a personal example during the day. Then, we
planned for students to write praise notes to whomever they
wanted during the most difficult time of the day: when they
returned fromlunch. Our plan was to then focus on enhancing
student engagement in the PATHS lessons by settinga timer to
go off after 20 min (at which point Mr. F. would wrap up the
lesson), having him ask for 3 volunteers to share experiences
during the lesson, and planning ahead oftime how the content
might be related to academic material or events in life.
Assess Progress
This step involved identifying ways to assess teacher pro-
gress (e.g., observation, teacher report, student report)
toward short- and long-term goals. For example:
When I was in the classroom, observation was a key
data source, as well as teacher self-report on the days
when I was not present. I also asked students about
their most recent lesson or to whom they had written
a praise note to get a sense of their involvement.
Step 3: Do
In this step, coaches and teachers implemented strategies
identified in the plan to achieve the short-term goals. For
example:
Mr. F. and I implemented our plan together the first
two days. He greeted students by name and many
shook his hand or gave him a high-five. Afterwards,
he said that even those interactions had made him feel
more connected with his students. I wrote Mr. F. and
his class a note thanking them for starting the day off
positively. The next week, Mr. F. incorporated the
after-lunch praise notes writing activity into the daily
routine. This helped the students calm down and
prepare for afternoon instruction. Mr. F. was pleas-
antly surprised when students wrote notes thanking
him for being a caring teacher, thereby reinforcing
this activity and enhancing his relationship with stu-
dents. When I saw him write praise notes to students,
I gave him some markers to use in his classroom as a
reward. Within three weeks, Mr. F. was focused on
enhancing his lesson delivery. He forgot to use a
timer, but then assigned that as a classroom job to one
of his students. His lessons still went over time,
usually because so many students wanted to share
their own examples.
Step 4: Evaluate
This step involves repeated progress monitoring toward
goals. If progress was apparent, coaches continued to
implement strategies to assist the teacher in achieving
short- and long-term goals. When progress was consistent,
the coach might determine that the teacher had entered the
consolidate phase of coaching. If progress was not appar-
ent, coaches might need to implement strategies more
consistently or intensively, or return to earlier steps and
reformulate hypotheses that would better reflect teacher
implementation challenges. In the case of Mr. F., it was
clear that progress was being made in certain areas but that
additional strategies were necessary:
We observed students being more respectful towards
one another and Mr. F. reported he felt more con-
nected with his students. Student participation had
increased and disruptive behavior had decreased
during the lessons. Horseplay after lunch had also
decreased. However, there were still periods of dis-
ruptive behavior, such as morning arrival and during
classroom instruction. Mr. F. suggested that students
write praise notes during morning arrival. Mr. F. also
agreed to try the PAX GBG and was pleased with the
initial results. During the game, according to the
behavioral data I collected, disruptive behavior
decreased dramatically. However, student behavior
did not improve outside the PAX GBG during the
first week. I normalized this experience, saying that
consistency is the key to success. Over the course of
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

three weeks, based on behavioral observation data,
we determined that student behavior had decreased in
frequency and severity throughout the day. Mr. F.
was also able to generalize lesson material a bit more
and use events in daily life (e.g., classroom conflict)
as teachable moments during which he reinforced
social emotional skills.
Discussion
The purpose of this paper was to describe a two-phased
coaching model with broad applicability such that it could
be used by any coach with a teacher at any level of
implementation. The first phase, the universal coaching
phase, reflects coaching activities that can be used with all
teachers to promote proficiency and program implementa-
tion regardless of their skill level. The second phase, the
tailored coaching phase, includes two pathways that pro-
mote individualized tailoring of coaching practices to fit
the strengths and needs of each teacher. On the one hand,
for teachers demonstrating high implementation, minimal
coaching is required to consolidate their skills and maintain
their implementation. On the other hand, a data-driven
hypothesis-testing framework guides coaching activities
for teachers who could benefit from additional implemen-
tation supports. Together, the phases of this coaching
model support evidence-informed coach decision-making.
Presentation of a conceptual coaching model along with
details about the practical application of the model
addresses gaps in the coaching literature. There is a
growing literature on practices that can enhance skill
development, including observation, rehearsal, implemen-
tation monitoring, and performance feedback (e.g., Fixsen
et al. 2005; Han and Weiss 2005; Scott and Martinek
2006), but only a few well-specified coaching models (i.e.,
CCU, MTP, BRIDGE). The present model differs from
existing models in a few notable ways. For example, the
CCU (Reinke et al. 2011) targets teachers who are dem-
onstrating low implementation and uses data and motiva-
tional interviewing to assist teachers with setting and
achieving goals. Yet, the CCU does not explicitly state
which additional coaching practices might be applied to
help teachers achieve their goals and does not provide
guidelines regarding the frequency and sequencing of
coaching practices. The current model affords the oppor-
tunity to coach all teachers learning an intervention
regardless of their implementation levels. The current
model also has a toolbox of coaching practices that can be
strategically applied to support teacher skill development
and address interfering factors. Whereas the CCU uses
motivational interviewing to guide teachers through self-
reflection, the current model does not explicitly incorporate
MI. Of note, however, a pilot test of the integration of the
current coaching model with the CCU demonstrated pre-
liminary success (Reinke et al. 2012). Additionally, the
CCU presents a menu of options for teachers to determine
what they might like to work on, whereas the current model
is also collaborative in nature, but coaches typically guide
the selection of which practices to improve.
The current model shares features with the MTP (Pianta
et al. 2008a,b), such as an emphasis on data collection,
teacher reflection, goal setting, progress monitoring, and
feedback. Both models appear to be applicable to teachers
across skill levels. Differences between the models include
the MTP as a web-based coaching tool that requires
adaptation of certain coaching practices (e.g., observation
through videotape) and precludes the use of others (e.g.,
classroom modeling, in vivo prompting, incentives). As
such, the MTP may offer fewer opportunities for individ-
ualizing practices for different teachers, but clearly offers
the opportunity to tailor the focus of the coaching toward
teacher and classroom strengths and needs.
The current model also shares a number of features with
the BRIDGE model (Cappella et al. 2012), including needs
assessment, planning, modeling, observation, goal setting,
and feedback. Both models offer coaching to teachers
across skill levels. As of yet, published materials have not
been explicit about how the coaching model is tailored to
meet individual needs of teachers and its effectiveness for
teachers with varying levels of skill. Additionally, none of
these models explicate coaching strategies to promote
administrative and school-wide support for interventions.
Tailoring of coaching practices to meet the strengths and
needs of teachers and their classrooms are normal and even
desirable. The current model provides an explicit method
for collecting and interpreting data and using data to inform
coaching practices that can be adapted to fit the needs of
the teacher and classroom. Providing explicit details about
coaching is important, given that a recent review of the past
20 years of coaching and consultation literature found that
there is minimal detail provided on what coaches do on a
daily and weekly basis with teachers to increase program
implementation (Stormont et al. 2013). Due to space lim-
itations, descriptions of coaching activities could not be
more detailed; however, the ideas presented begin to paint
a picture for the reader about how to apply these strategies
when working with teachers.
One of the unique strengths of the current model is that
it provides a framework to guide coaches through coaching
activities within the context of an evidence-informed
model that makes explicit the decision-making points and
action steps. First, coaches proceed through two phases
(i.e., connect,cultivate; Chorpita et al. 2012)ofuniversal
coaching activities, each with a specific purpose, that set
the stage for successful implementation for most teachers.
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

Then, a decision point is reached at which coaches must
determine whether teachers are demonstrating adequate
implementation based on a variety of data sources. Coaches
then transition into the tailored coaching phase. If teachers
are demonstrating adequate implementation, coaches use
strategies to consolidate teacher skills and maintain
implementation (Chorpita et al. 2012).
If a teacher is experiencing implementation challenges,
there is relatively little guidance from the literature for coa-
ches, yet this is one of the most frequent issues that coaches
encounter. The current model provides a framework (i.e.,
intensive course) that offers a series of steps (i.e., assess-plan-
do-evaluate) to help coaches develop working hypotheses and
action plans for reducing significant barriers to implementa-
tion, such as competing priorities for teacher time and effort or
classroom composition that is overwhelmingly disruptive. As
in other coaching models, progress monitoring, collaborative
goal setting, and performance feedback are integral, yet the
deliberate decision-making framework and the flexible tai-
loring of coaching activities are the contribution of this model
to the current literature.
Another strength of the current model is that it applies to
all teachers at all stages of intervention implementation. It
can be used at the outset of implementation with teachers
who have no prior experience with a program, with those
who pick up a program relatively quickly, and with those
who appear ‘‘stuck’’ with regard to implementation.
Analysis of coaching data indicated that doing a few key
practices (e.g., modeling, observation, feedback) over the
course of a few coaching contacts was enough to get many
teachers up to speed (Becker et al. 2013). Coaches pro-
vided continued and more intensive support to others and
that support resulted in improved quality of implementa-
tion (Becker et al. 2013).
Furthermore, a strength of this coaching model is that it
was developed through an iterative process that benefitted
from collaboration with coaches in the field, educators in
urban schools, and experts in prevention science. The long
duration (i.e., 7 years) of the pilot and randomized trial
studies provided an optimal context for developing, testing,
and refining this coaching model. Detailed feedback from
community collaborators was readily incorporated into the
coaching materials and procedures. For example, one
suggestion from a teacher was to develop detailed weekly
pacing guides that would provide an overview of the pro-
gram ‘‘roll out’’ and a structure to follow over the course of
the year. Coaches worked over the summer to develop
grade-specific pacing guides that adjusted the expectations
for program delivery based on the academic calendar. This
was useful for promoting teacher buy-in and motivation
when it was reviewed. As another example, coaches
observed in their implementation data a decline in program
dosage following the winter and other school breaks.
Therefore, coaches timed their incentives and competitions
to cover those time periods to motivate teachers to use the
programs. The iterative and collaborative development
process enhances the real-world validity of this coaching
model.
This coaching model also provides strategies for pro-
moting administrator support for the interventions through
an introductory meeting, monthly administrator meetings,
and a framework for conducting classroom walk-throughs.
Additionally, numerous strategies for enhancing school-
wide support are provided within this model, including
training for all staff, individual rewards, contests, and
public recognition for implementation efforts. Coaching
practices related to administrators and school-wide efforts
are rare in the literature.
These strengths have the potential to extend the reach of
the proposed coaching model to other school-based pro-
grams as well as other settings in which coaches work.
Certainly, the proposed model could be applied to most
classroom-based social, emotional, and behavioral inter-
ventions. Moreover, it could be used by individuals
coaching school-based programs with an academic focus,
such as literacy coaching (Atteberry and Bryk 2011).
Coaches are being employed as workforce development
supports in a variety of settings including nursing (e.g.,
Rahman et al. 2012), primary care (e.g., Simkin-Silverman
et al. 2011), and the workplace (e.g., Ladegard 2011). It
stands to reason that decision-making frameworks such as
the proposed model could advance the science and practice
of coaching across numerous settings.
At the same time, there are notable limitations to the
current coaching model. This coaching model assumes that
at least a minimum amount of time can be devoted to
coaching; therefore, this model may require modifications in
substantially under-resourced school environments in which
the coach has multiple professional roles and responsibili-
ties. For example, perhaps team meetings or staff meetings
could be a venue for discussion of program implementation
and teacher reflection rather than individual meetings when
coaches and teachers are pressed for time. It is important to
note that this model was developed within an under-re-
sourced urban school district, thereby providing evidence for
its feasibility despite significant resource constraints.
Another limitation is that this model lacks comparative
effectiveness data. Although there is empirical evidence that
coaches using this model could effectively support teachers
with a variety of skill levels (Becker et al. 2013), its effec-
tiveness relative to other coaching interventions has yet to be
demonstrated empirically. Yet, the ideals of practice-based
research suggest that one of the best sources of evidence is
local evidence. Coaches who opt to use this model would be
well-served by collecting data to determine whether this
model is effective for the teachers with whom they work.
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

Naturally, coach data collection was constrained by time and
resources to some extent. Rubric observations were con-
ducted four times per year, but it would be helpful for coa-
ches to use the rubric framework to assess teacher
implementation during every classroom observation. Addi-
tionally, a system for regularly observing student behavior
and collecting brief reports from students about their
knowledge of program content and skills would be desirable.
However, even intermittently graphing student data and
sharing that information with teachers could enhance teacher
perception of the value of the programs and motivate
teachers to increase or sustain implementation.
Given that students benefit from high-quality program
implementation (Curby et al. 2009; Derzon et al. 2005), the
benefits to students can be enhanced through the dissemi-
nation of coaching models such as the one presented in this
paper. Yet, more work needs to be done. It is important for
future research of coaching models to delineate the amount
of time coaches spend in different coaching activities with
teachers (Becker et al. 2013). Additionally, it is important
to identify methods for distinguishing between teachers
that benefit from universal support and teachers with more
significant needs (e.g., burnout, stress, depression, weak
instructional skills) who could benefit from more intensive
coaching supports. Further development of strategies to
influence potentially modifiable barriers to implementation
(e.g., poor rapport with coach, competing demands) is also
critical to increasing the effectiveness of classroom-based
interventions. Research on the tailored coaching phase is
complicated because every teacher receives different
coaching supports; therefore, testing the efficacy of indi-
vidual components within factorial designs or multiple
baseline designs may be useful for determining the effec-
tiveness of tailored coaching interventions. Finally, testing
existing coaching models with school staff rather than
outside consultants who serve as coaches will help define
the parameters of coaching. Additional research on
coaching and its parameters has the potential to enhance
the decision-making framework proposed in this paper to
improve the effectiveness of coaching and, ultimately, the
outcomes for students.
Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by grants
from the Institutes for the Education Sciences (R305A080326) and
the National Institute of Mental Health (P30 MH086043 T32
MH018834). We wish to acknowledge the wonderful contributions of
our teacher and administrator colleagues in the Baltimore City Public
School System as well as the tremendous efforts of our coaches:
Sandy Hardee, Brenda Kelly, Michael Muempfer, Kelly Schaffer, and
Tiffany Stuart. We also appreciate the invaluable contributions of
Dennis Embry, Ph.D. and Mark Greenberg, Ph.D. Dr. Domitrovich is
an author on the PATHS Curriculum and has a royalty agreement
with Channing-Bete, Inc. Dr. Domitrovich receives income from
PATHS Training LLC. This has been reviewed and managed by Penn
State’s Individual Conflict of Interest Committee.
References
American Institutes for Research. (2004). Conceptual overview:
Coaching in the professional development impact study. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Atteberry, A., & Bryk, A. (2011). Analyzing teacher participation in
literacy coaching activities. The Elementary School Journal, 11,
356–382.
Barrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. (1969). Good behavior game:
Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on
disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 2, 119–124.
Becker, K. D., Bradshaw, C., Domitrovich, C., & Ialongo, N. (2013).
Coaching teachers to improve implementation of the good behavior
game. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental
Health Services Research,.doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0482-8.
Cappella, E., Hamre, B., Kim, H., Henry, D., Frazier, S., Atkins, M.,
et al. (2012). Teacher consultation and coaching within mental
health practice: Classroom and child effects in urban elementary
schools. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80,
597–610.
Carter, D., & Van Norman, R. (2010). Class-wide positive behavior
support in preschool: Improving teacher implementation through
consultation. Early Childhood Education, 38, 279–288.
Chorpita, B., Becker, K. D., Phillips, L., Ebesutani, C., Cromley, T.,
& Daleiden, E. (2012). Practitioner guides. Satellite Beach, FL:
PracticeWise.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact
of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: II.
Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 67, 648–657.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). The imple-
mentation of the Fast Track Program: An example of a large-
scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 30, 1–17.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010). The effects of
a multi-year randomized clinical trial of a universal social-
emotional learning program: The role of student and school
characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
78, 156–168.
Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C. (2009).
Teacher–child interactions and children’s achievement trajecto-
ries across kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101, 912–925.
Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional
coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educa-
tional and Psychological Consultation, 19, 150–175.
Derzon, J., Sale, E., Springer, J., & Brounstein, P. (2005).
Estimating intervention effectiveness: Synthetic projection of
field evaluation results. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26,
321–343.
Dolan, L., Kellam, S., Brown, C., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G.,
Mayer, L., et al. (1993). The short-term impact of two
classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and
shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 14, 317–345.
Domitrovich, C., Bradshaw, C., Poduska, J., Hoagwood, K., Buckley,
J., Olin, S., et al. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality
of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A
conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Health
Promotion, 1, 6–28.
Domitrovich, C. E., Greenberg, M. T., Schaffer, K., Darney, D.,
Rouiller, S., & Ialongo, N. (2006). The PATHS to PAX
implementation rubric. Unpublished technical report. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University.
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy

Embry, D., Staatemeier, G., Richardson, C., Lauger, K., & Mitich, J.
(2003). The PAX good behavior game (1st ed.). Center City,
MN: Hazelden.
Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., Friendman, R., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL:
The National Implementation Research Network, Louis de la Parte
Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
Forman, S., Olin, S., Hoagwood, K., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009).
Evidence-based intervention in schools: Developers’ views of
implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health,
1, 26–36.
Greenberg, M., & Kusche, C. (2006). Building social and emotional
competence: The PATHS curriculum. In S. R. Jimerson & M.
J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school
safety: From research to practice (pp. 395–412). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Greenberg, M., Kusche, C., Cook, E., & Quamma, J. (1995).
Promoting emotional competence in school-aged children: The
effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopa-
thology, 7, 117–136.
Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J., Crosby, A.,
Fullilove, M., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of universal school-
based programs to prevent violent and aggressive behavior: A
systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
33, s114–s129.
Han, S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation
of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 33, 665–679.
Hemmeter, M., Snyder, P., Kinder, K., & Artman, K. (2011). Impact
of performance feedback delivered via electronic mail on
preschool teachers’ use of descriptive praise. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 26, 96–109.
Herschell, A., Kolko, D., Baumann, B., & Davis, A. (2010). The role
of therapist training in the implementation of psychosocial
treatments: A review and critique with recommendations.
Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 448–466.
Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The
distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on
conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 146–160.
Ialongo, N., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S., Brown, C., Wang, S., & Lin,
Y. (1999). Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive
interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance
abuse, depression, and anti-social behavior. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 27, 599–641.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff
development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development.
Kam, C., Greenberg, M., & Kusche, C. (2004). Sustained effects of
the PATHS curriculum on the social and psychological adjust-
ment of children in special education. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 12, 66–78.
Kellam, S., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J., Ialongo, N., Wang, W.,
Toyinbo, P., et al. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom
behavior management program in first and second grades on
young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 95S, S5–S28.
Kratochwill, T. (2007). Preparing psychologists for evidence-based
school practice: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. American
Psychologist, 62, 829–843.
Kratochwill, T., Hoagwood, K., Kazak, A., Weisz, J., Hood, K.,
Vargas, L., et al. (2012). Practice-based evidence for children
and adolescents: Advancing the research agenda in schools.
School Psychology Review, 41, 214–235.
Kusche, C., & Greenberg, M. (1995). The PATHS curriculum. Seattle,
WA: Developmental Research and Programs.
Ladegard, G. (2011). Stress management through workplace coach-
ing: The impact of learning experiences. International Journal of
Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 9, 29–43.
McHugh, R., & Barlow, D. (2010). Dissemination and implementa-
tion of evidence-based psychological interventions: A review of
current efforts. American Psychologist, 65, 73–84.
Noell, G., Witt, J., Slider, N., Connell, J., Gatti, S., Williams, K., et al.
(2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consul-
tation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies.
School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.
Park-Higgerson, H., Perumean-Chaney, S., Bartolucci, A., Grimley,
D., & Singh, K. (2008). The evaluation of school-based violence
prevention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Health,
78, 465–479.
Petras, H., Kellam, S., Brown, C., Muthe
´n, B., Ialongo, N., &
Poduska, J. (2008). Developmental epidemiological courses
leading to antisocial personality disorder and violent and
criminal behavior: Effects by young adulthood of a universal
preventive intervention in first- and second-grade classrooms.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95(Suppl. 1), 45–59.
Pianta, R., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F.
(2008a). Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajecto-
ries in elementary school. American Educational Research
Journal, 45, 365–397.
Pianta, R., Mashburn, A., Downer, J., Hamre, B., & Justice, L.
(2008b). Effects of web-mediated professional development
resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten
classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431–451.
Rahman, A., Schnelle, J., Applebaum, R., Lindabury, K., & Simmons,
S. (2012). Distance coursework and coaching to improve nursing
home incontinence care. Journal of the American Geriatrics
Society, 60, 1157–1164.
Reinke, W., Herman, K., Darney, D., Pitchford, J., Becker, K.,
Domitrovich, C., et al. (2012). Using the classroom check-up
model to support implementation of PATHS to PAX. Advances
in School Mental Health Promotion, 5, 220–232.
Reinke, W., Herman, K., & Sprick, R. (2011). Motivational
interviewing for effective classroom management: The class-
room check-up. New York: Guilford Press.
Riggs, N., Greenberg, M., Kusche, C., & Pentz, M. (2006). The
mediational role of neurocognition in the behavioral outcomes of
a social-emotional prevention program in elementary school
students: Effects of the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science,
7, 91–102.
Schaffer, K., Darney, D., Rouiller, S., Embry, D., & Ialongo, N. (2006).
The PAX good behavior game implementation rubric.Unpub-
lished technical report. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Scott, T., & Martinek, G. (2006). Coaching positive behavior support
in school settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8,
165–173.
Simkin-Silverman, L., Conroy, M., Bhargava, T., & McTigue, K.
(2011). Development of an online diabetes prevention lifestyle
intervention coaching protocol for use in primary care practice.
The Diabetes Educator, 37, 263–268.
Stormont, M., Reinke, W. M., Newcomer, L., Darney, D. & Lewis, C.
(2013). Coaching teachers’ use of social behavior interventions
to improve children’s outcomes: A review of the literature.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wehby, J., Maggin, D., Partin, T., & Robertson, R. (2012). The
impact of working alliance, social validity, and teacher burnout
on implementation fidelity of the good behavior game. School
Mental Health, 4, 22–33.
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for
aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, s130–s143.
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev
123
Author's personal copy