Content uploaded by Violaine Kubiszewski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Violaine Kubiszewski on Sep 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
1
This is the post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of the following article:
Kubiszewski, V., Carrizales, A. & Lheureux, F. (2023). Can School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (SWPBIS) Improve Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Climate? Journal of School Psychology,
99, 101223.
The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101223
Can School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) Improve
Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Climate?
Violaine Kubiszewski1, Alexia Carrizales1, Florent Lheureux1
1- Psychology Laboratory (EA 3188), Research Federation of Education (FR EDUC), MSHE
Ledoux, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France.
Abstract
As school climate plays a key role in adolescents’ academic and socio-emotional outcomes,
interventions that can enhance this climate are of major interest. In considering research on
practices linked to a positive school climate, School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (SWPBIS) is a promising approach. To date, most SWPBIS studies have been
conducted in English-speaking countries and have been based primarily on adults’ perceptions
or reports (e.g., suspension rates, office discipline referrals). There is a dearth of research on
the effectiveness of SWPBIS among adolescents in different cultural contexts. Moreover,
little is known about its propensity to influence adolescents’ perceptions of school climate
dimensions. The present study examined the effects of SWPBIS on different dimensions of
school climate as perceived by French adolescents enrolled in Grades 6–9. An experimental
effectiveness study was conducted among 84 grades from 21 middle schools. Multilevel
analyses were conducted on data from a sample of 6765 adolescents (Mage = 12.3 years, SD =
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
2
1.23; 51% girls) from 40 control and 44 intervention grades, controlling for grade-level school
climate dimensions at baseline. The results suggest that SWPBIS had a positive effect on
educational, safety, and teacher-student school climate dimensions. No effects were found on
belonging, fairness, and between-students school climate dimensions. The findings suggest
that SWPBIS has a positive effect on adolescents’ perceptions of three school climate
dimensions regardless of their initial perception levels. These results may provide avenues for
school teams, researchers, and policymakers interested in ways to improve school climate.
Keywords: School climate; SWPBIS; adolescents; effectiveness study; program
evaluation; multilevel analysis
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
3
Can School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) Improve
Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Climate?
Introduction
School climate plays a major role in adolescents’ development as it influences their
socio-emotional trajectories and acts as a protective factor against student-level problems
(e.g., Coelho et al., 2020; Crowley et al., 2021; Singla et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2020).
Interventions that can foster positive perceptions of the school environment have therefore
attracted increasing interest (e.g., Bear et al., 2017). Considering theoretical and empirical
research on school practices that are likely to modulate school climate (e.g., Bear et al., 2017;
Voight & Nation, 2016), the components of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports (SWPBIS), a systemic and multi-tiered system of support designed in the United
States, provide a promising framework to foster positive perceptions of the school
environment. Many studies on the effects of SWPBIS have been undertaken in the US context
using school-level data and adults’ perceptions or reports of adolescents’ behavioral outcomes
(e.g., suspension rates or office discipline referrals; Gage et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018; Pas et
al., 2019). Given that this framework is now being implemented in education systems around
the world (e.g., Bissonnette et al., 2020; Borgen et al., 2021; Borgmeier et al., 2015; Deltour
et al., 2021; Hintz et al., 2020; Kahru et al., 2021; Nelen et al., 2020), it seems important to
determine whether SWPBIS is associated with positive school climate in different cultural
contexts. Additional studies are needed that examine the effects of SWPBIS around the world
when implemented in ecological conditions (as opposed to conditions highly controlled by
researchers) and using effectiveness studies. Moreover, little is known about the effects of
SWPBIS on adolescents’ perceptions of school climate when examined at the grade level. The
aim of the present study was to examine the effects of SWPBIS on adolescents’ perceptions of
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
4
six school climate dimensions at the grade level. These effects were investigated in the French
context using an experimental effectiveness study.
School Climate
The present study drew on an ecological perspective of adolescent development.
According to this perspective, adolescents are influenced by the interplay of contextual factors
in the different systems within which they interact, from microsystems (e.g., family, school)
to macrosystems (e.g., culture, government; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In the microsystem, the
school and its climate heavily influence adolescents’ outcomes (Aldridge & McChesney,
2018). Moreover, the school and its climate are of particular importance during adolescence
when students' need for support, safety, and independence are particularly pronounced (e.g.,
Eccles et al., 1993).
School climate is broadly defined as the quality and character of the school
environment. It is based on patterns of students’ and teachers’ experiences of school life and
encompasses the norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, practices, and
organizational structures of schools that are intended to promote a sense of social, emotional,
and physical safety (Cohen et al., 2009). One reason why this concept has gained increased
attention in recent years is that school climate is seen as an important factor influencing the
well-being and resilience of students. As suggested by the stage-environment fit theory
(Eccles et al., 1993), the functioning of individuals is affected by the interaction between their
needs and the ability of their environments to satisfy these needs. A school environment that
meets basic psychological needs, such as the needs for relatedness, autonomy, and
competence (Deci & Ryan, 2002), is an environment conducive to student well-being and
resilience (Briere et al., 2013; Loukas & Robinson, 2004; Eccles & Roeser, 2011).
Conversely, a school environment that is characterized by a mismatch between student needs
and school climate (e.g., degraded interpersonal relationships, a feeling that students are not
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
5
stakeholders in the decisions that affect them, a sense that rules are not fair and predictable,
difficulties in perceiving expected behaviors) is unlikely to meet these psychological needs
and likely to be unfavorable to students' social and emotional adjustment (Eccles & Roeser,
2011).
There is a consensus that school climate is a multidimensional construct that covers
many aspects of the school experience (such as safety or relationships) but there is no
agreement as to which dimensions should be considered in school climate studies (Grazia &
Molinari, 2020; Lewno et al., 2020; Wang & Degol, 2016). The present study was based on
the conceptualization of school climate proposed by Janosz and Bouthillier (1998). These
authors developed a theoretical approach and validated a six-dimension questionnaire for
school climate measurement in French-speaking countries (Janosz et al., 2007). Within this
conceptualization, school climate reflects the perceptions of what is generally done, expected,
and valued by others in each setting or situation. Thus, school climate encompasses and
disseminates the prevailing norms that shape the interpretation of situations by school
members and orient their behaviors (Janosz, 2017; Janosz & Bouthillier, 1998). These norms
can vary in accordance with six aspects of the school experience, including (a) between-
students social climate, (b) student-teacher social climate, (c) the educational climate, (d) the
climate of safety, (e) the climate of fairness, and (f) the climate of belonging (Janosz, 2017;
Janosz & Bouthillier, 1998). These experiences constitute the six school climate dimensions
of their multidimensional measurement. Between-students and teacher-student social climates
refer to the atmosphere that prevails in relationships, the warmth of interpersonal contact,
respect between individuals, and the assurance of support from others. The educational
climate refers to the value placed on education and the extent to which the school is perceived
to be dedicated to the success of students and their well-being or to giving meaning to
learning. The climate of safety refers to people's feelings of security and trust, their perception
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
6
of the risk of victimization, and a predictable and consistent daily environment. The climate of
fairness refers to the perception of the legitimacy and justice of the school rules, their
judicious application, or the feeling that merit or disapproval is attached to the behavior rather
than to the person. Finally, the climate of belonging refers to pride in the school, the school’s
importance as a living environment, and one’s adherence to its values.
Importance of School Climate for Students’ Outcomes
A positive school climate is related to a range of positive outcomes for adolescents
(Wang & Degol, 2016) including educational (e.g., school engagement or achievement; Fatou
& Kubiszewski, 2018; Konold et al., 2018) and health-related outcomes (e.g., fewer mental
health issues and risky behaviors; Aldridge & McChesney, 2018). In addition to the direct
links between school climate and these key outcomes, several studies have highlighted school
climate’s frequent buffering effect. A positive school climate protects against the harmful
effects of negative processes. For example, although moral disengagement promotes bullying
and sexual harassment impairs adolescents’ well-being, the magnitudes of these links are
significantly mitigated when school climate is positively perceived (Crowley et al., 2021;
Teng et al., 2020). Likewise, difficulties experienced by students belonging to a sexual
minoritized group are counteracted by a favorable view of the school environment (Denny et
al., 2016). Moreover, a positive school climate mitigates the pervasive link between socio-
economic status and academic achievement (Bergowitz at al., 2017).
Considering these findings, which also are evidenced by robust longitudinal and
experimental methodologies (e.g., Coelho et al., 2020; Dorio et al., 2020; Singla et al., 2021),
there is a growing interest worldwide regarding measures that may help promote school
climate. This area of research is experiencing notable growth given that school climate is
regarded as a more malleable variable than other major sources of influence outside the
school, namely biological, family, and socio-economic factors (Wang & Degol, 2016).
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
7
Practices to Improve School Climate
The literature highlights three kinds of evidence-based practices for improving school
climate. These are related to (a) educational practices, (b) the mobilization of multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS), and (c) professional development. First, several studies have
explored the relationship between educational practices and adolescents’ perceptions of
school climate. For example, Bear et al. (2017) found a positive association between students'
view of the use of praise and rewards by their teachers and students’ perceptions of school
climate (effect size = .40 at the student level and .78 at the school level). A similar positive
association was found regarding students’ perception of adults’ explicit efforts to teach the
socio-emotional skills expected in school (Bear et al., 2017; Charlton et al., 2021). Contextual
classroom predictors have also been linked to diverse school climate dimensions such as
fairness, safety, and the student-teacher relationship (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013). These
classroom predictors include establishing consistent behavioral expectations, reinforcing
behaviors consistent with these expectations, and ensuring that behavioral problems have
consistent and standardized consequences. In addition, giving students opportunities to be
meaningfully involved (e.g., helping to establish rules for living well together) is linked to a
stronger sense of connection to school and the perception of more respectful teacher-student
relationships (Shinde et al., 2018; Voight & Nation, 2016).
Second, there is strong evidence regarding the positive effects of MTSS on school
safety, belonging, and perceptions of school as a caring place (Charlton et al., 2021; Voight &
Nation, 2016). More precisely, an MTSS covers three levels of intervention adapted to
students’ specific needs, including (a) a universal level of intervention for all students in the
school, (b) a selective level for smaller groups of students with more pronounced needs who
would benefit from personalized interventions, and (c) a level of highly individualized
interventions. Within each level, schools may implement multiple actions and practices.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
8
Lastly, approaches that initially target adults in schools by means of professional
development are particularly promising. Recent intervention studies (Baumsteiger et al., 2021;
McIntosh et al., 2021) found positive effects on school climate after adult training even before
students had been directly targeted by the intervention (Baumsteiger et al., 2021; in this case
the intervention involved 1 year of teacher-focused training). This suggests that targeting
adults is critical in facilitating changes in students’ views of school climate. Systemic
approaches that focus not only on students’ skills but also on educators’ practices can be
highly effective. Both Baumsteiger et al. (2021) and McIntosh et al., (2021) encouraged the
use of approaches that reach beyond the classroom level and provide broader tools for
changing pedagogy, procedures, and school practices. Given these three kinds of evidence-
based practices for school climate improvement, we next describe School-Wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) and some of the promising evidence
supporting its use (Sugai & Horner, 2006).
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: A Relevant Approach for
Generating a Positive School Climate
SWPBIS is a form of MTSS (Sugai & Horner, 2006). More specifically, it is intended
to improve procedures that promote positive change in school functioning by initially
targeting adults’ practices through professional development. All adults in the school must
work together to adopt shared educational practices and to implement a three-tiered
intervention approach. Under the framework of SWPBIS, the universal-level interventions
include (a) the definition and teaching of social skills and behavioral expectations at school,
consistent with values chosen with students; (b) praise or reward for these behaviors; (c) the
use of student data for decision-making; and (d) a predictable and graduated problem-
behavior management system. At the selective level, interventions target students for whom
universal-level measures are ineffective or have been proven to be insufficient. Check-
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
9
In/Check-Out (CICO; Karhu et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2021) is an example of this
intervention level.
1
Finally, the third intervention tier draws on individual approaches such as
functional behavioral assessment (FBA; Gage et al., 2012).
2
The groundwork for SWPBIS is carried out with the school staff and involves the
creation of a core team. The school is guided by an external coach throughout the
implementation process. SWPBIS is often described as creating a positive school environment
by establishing the social culture and individualized behavior support needed in a school
(Bosworth & Judkins, 2014; Crowley et al., 2021; Sugai & Horner, 2009). For professionals,
this type of school-wide approach involves working together, collectively taking advantage of
the research findings behind SWPBIS, and adopting culturally appropriate practices.
SWPBIS is likely to improve perceptions of the six school climate dimensions
considered in this study. First, SWPBIS covers the three kinds of evidence-based practices
found to promote five of the school climate dimensions that were proposed by Janosz et al.
(1998; i.e., school belonging, fairness, safety, and between-students and teacher-student
positive social climates). SWPBIS can improve these perceptions in various ways. For
example, in the case of the teacher-student social climate, schools traditionally try to prevent
problematic student behavior by focusing on the associated punishment rather than by
engaging in communication about expected behavior (Bosworth & Judkins, 2014; Pas et al.,
2011). This often leads to confrontational student-teacher interactions that may damage the
perceived school climate (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013; Voight & Nation, 2016). In contrast,
1
CICO requires students to meet briefly and positively with an adult of the school at the beginning of
every school day to review previously set expectations, to carry a positive behavior checklist
throughout the day to be scored by each teacher, and to meet briefly again with an adult of the school
at the end of the school day to review their checklists and expectations.
2
FBA is a set of methods that collects information to identify environmental events, antecedents, and
consequences that predict or maintain problem behaviors. An FBA attempts to identify the function of
a challenging behavior to develop an intervention to reduce the occurrence of that behavior and to
increase the occurrence of an alternative replacement behavior resulting in the same or similar
outcomes.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
10
SWPBIS systematically highlights desired behaviors and requires school adults to attend to
these and to acknowledge them. Paying attention to positive behaviors, instead of taking them
for granted, requires the school staff to shift their thinking to foster positive adult-student
interactions.
To date, there are no empirical data examining the effectiveness of measures
promoting the perception of educational climate, which is the sixth school climate dimension.
Due to its wide scope, SWPBIS can lead to significant changes in practices in a school; these
changes can be perceived and observed by students, thus improving their perception of the
educational climate. The creation of a core team, regular visits by an external coach, school-
wide harmonization of communication about expected behaviors and the consequences of
poor behavior, explicit teaching sessions on expected behaviors, and regular data collection
from students are all ambitious measures. They all would highlight school-wide efforts to put
students first, which could encourage the latter to adopt a more positive view of the
educational climate.
Theoretically, SWPBIS can therefore have beneficial effects on different school
climate dimensions. Several empirical studies complement these theoretical considerations by
highlighting encouraging effects. For example, the implementation of SWPBIS for 3 years or
more enhances school safety, the instructional climate (Caldarella et al., 2011; Horner et al.,
2009), and the perception of organizational health (Bradshaw et al., 2008, 2009). However,
these pioneering studies have relied on adults’ perceptions and some studies have suggested
that adult-based data are limited by a frequent discrepancy between the school climate
perceptions of teachers and students (Mitchell et al., 2010). SWPBIS is ultimately intended to
target students’ perceptions and behaviors. Thus, having information on adults' perceptions is
crucial, but it is important to also obtain data from the students themselves. Consequently,
more studies are needed to explore and expand the limited student-related studies that are
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
11
beginning to emerge (Deltour et al., 2022; Elrod et al., 2022; McIntosh et al., 2021; Nelen et
al., 2021; Sorlie & Ogden., 2015).
Several of these recent student-based studies have found mixed and inconsistent
results. For instance, McIntosh et al. (2021) found an encouraging effect of SWPBIS on an
overall school climate index, whereas other studies showed no significant correlation between
SWPBIS fidelity and subsequent global school climate (Elrod et al., 2022) or main effects of
SWPBIS on feelings of safety (Nelen et al., 2021) or on between-students and teacher-student
relations (Sorlie & Ogden, 2015). Additionally, various limitations also reduced the scope of
these studies. First, the multi-dimensionality of school climate was not considered, as only
safety climate, relational climate, or an overall climate measure (aggregating responses from
students, educators, and families; McIntosh et al., 2021) was analyzed. Second, it is difficult
to assess the specific effects of SWPBIS in the absence of a control group and baseline data,
which was the case in Nelen et al. (2021). Third, some of these studies have exclusively
considered elementary-school children (Nelen et al., 2021; Sorlie & Ogden, 2015) or have
diluted adolescent data (McIntosh et al., 2021). Finally, there is a dearth of studies examining
the effects of SWPBIS in cultural contexts other than in the United States, which is where
SWPBIS was developed.
The present study attempts to address these issues by considering the multi-
dimensionality of school climate and by using an experimental effectiveness design with
French adolescents. Early adolescence is an important period to consider as studies highlight
dynamic maturational changes between the ages of 10 and 14 years (Dahl et al., 2018), as well
as modifications at different levels, including cognitive, psychological, emotional, social, and
behavioral processes (Pfeifer & Allen, 2021). During early adolescence, increasing socio-
cognitive and brain changes may be associated with heightened sensitivity to the environment
(Blakemore & Mills, 2014). Furthermore, SWPBIS is now being implemented in countries
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
12
throughout the world (e.g., Borgen et al., 2020, 2021; Borgmeier et al., 2015; Deltour et al.,
2021; Hintz et al., 2020; Kahru et al., 2021; Nelen et al., 2020). Thus, it is necessary to
broaden existing knowledge on SWPBIS effects in other cultural contexts and to consider the
educational system and the policies specific to the context in which it is being implemented.
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support: A Promising Framework
for the French Education System
The organization of the education system in France is slightly different than in other
countries in which SWPBIS has been tested to date (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2008, 2009; Nelen
et al., 2021; Sorlie & Ogden, 2015). Specifically, in France, the education system and policies
are highly centralized (Powell et al., 2012). The French State plays a dominant role in the
organization and funding of education and manages the public education service. It is
responsible for education in the broadest sense, including the definition of educational
pathways, the setting of national curricula, the teaching organization and content, the
definition and awarding of national diplomas and conferring of university degrees, the
recruitment and management of personnel, the distribution of education resources, and the
control and evaluation of educational policies. This national system has been adopted to
ensure overall consistency throughout the educational system. In the 1980s, decentralization
laws gave local authorities more responsibility, but this was limited to funding and managing
mainly non-educational areas, such as school canteens (Mons, 2004). The centralized
management is intended to promote equality. However, it is not necessarily conducive to
equity, leaving little room for local adaptations to meet the specific needs encountered in each
school context (Caldwell, 1990 and Winkler, 1989, as cited by Mons, 2004). School
professionals and beneficiaries, such as teachers and students, would be hardly involved in
this system (Oates, 1972, as cited by Mons, 2004).
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
13
Moreover, every secondary school has a Principal Educational Advisor (PEA) who is
perceived as the reference person for dealing with problematic behavior and student life
outside of the classroom. Thus, PEAs are regarded as key persons in any discussion of school
climate. Nevertheless, their presence often results in a compartmentalization of educational
and pedagogical responsibilities in schools that is not conducive to cooperation between
adults (Grimault-Leprince, 2015; Mikaïloff, 2020). Put simply – and despite the existence of
recent official texts that do not take this perspective – education professionals still tend to
make a distinction between (a) pedagogical and teaching responsibilities (e.g., teaching,
didacticizing, assessing academic knowledge) that they attribute to teachers alone and (b)
educational responsibilities (e.g., citizenship education of students, management of students'
daily life in the school outside the classroom, involvement of students in the life of the school,
management of student outbursts in class, preventing bullying) that they attribute to the PEA.
The very low proportion of French teachers who consider themselves to be properly trained
and prepared for managing students’ behavior (22%, compared with a mean of 53% in
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries [OECD], 2019a) may
also contribute to this compartmentalization. In general, there is relatively little cooperation
between professionals in French schools compared with schools in other OECD countries
(DEPP, 2014). In France, secondary teachers also praise students sparingly (Guimard et al.,
2015; Hofstede, 1986; OECD, 2019b) and rarely participate in students’ non-instructional life
(Mikaïloff, 2020).
Finally, beyond features of the education system, there is still considerable room for
improvement in France in terms of students’ perceptions of their school environment. For
example, only 57% of students perceive their teachers to be interested in progress of each
student (compared with an OECD mean of 70%) and fewer than one in four students (one in
three in OECD countries) reported that adults point out students’ strengths to them (OECD,
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
14
2019b). Finally, France is the OECD country in which students' sense of belonging is the
lowest (i.e., 38% of students feel like they really belong in their school, compared with a
mean of 71% in OECD countries; OECD, 2019b).
In such an educational context, SWPBIS offers genuine promise regarding its potential
effects on school climate. First, it promotes educational principles and tools focused on
students’ needs, which the entire educational community must consider. Second, it
decompartmentalizes academic, pedagogical, and educational tasks in favor of an overall
cooperative approach around students. Third, in a context in which there is still room for
improvement in students’ perception of school climate, SWPBIS could have especially
positive effects.
The Present Study
The evidence that we reviewed here suggests that the SWPBIS framework may have
positive effects on the dimensions of school climate. However, to date no studies have
examined these effects among non-US adolescents while also considering the
multidimensionality of school climate. The present study was designed to investigate the
effects of SWPBIS on adolescents’ perceptions of school climate dimensions using an
experimental effectiveness study and multilevel analyses. SWPBIS is a systemic approach
applied across the several grades in a school setting, which is likely to influence adolescents’
view of their shared context. Thus, in the present study, school climate dimensions were
treated as group-level variables based on adolescents’ perceptions. Specifically, we chose to
include grade-level because, in France, it is an important context for secondary school
students. For instance, throughout the school year, students spend most of their time with
other students in the same grade, either in their regular class or in their elective classes, where
it is common for students from different classes to be grouped together (e.g., for modern
languages, Latin or Greek, physical education).
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
15
First, we hypothesized that SWPBIS would have a positive effect on the school
climate dimensions perceived by adolescents at the grade level (Hypothesis 1 [H1]). No
specific hypothesis was made about which school climate dimensions were more sensitive to
SWPBIS. As previously mentioned, this systematic framework would be likely to influence
each dimension.
Second, we hypothesized that SWPBIS would have a more beneficial effect on school
climate dimensions in grades with a lower baseline level of school climate (Hypothesis 2
[H2]). Indeed, in this case, we expected that these grades would specifically benefit from the
educational innovations introduced by SWPBIS and decrease the differences in comparisons
with grades reporting a higher baseline level of school climate.
There is evidence that adolescents’ school climate perceptions may differ according to
age or sex (e.g., Bear et al., 2017; Wang & Dishion., 2012), school size (e.g., Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2009), the socioeconomic status of their fellow students (e.g., Bear et al., 2017), their
parents’ participation in school life (e.g., Voight & Nation, 2016), and team mobility and
turnover (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2010). The hypotheses were tested controlling for these
predictors.
Method
Context and Procedure
In 2013, the French Framework Act on the Reform of the Schools of the Republic
emphasized improving school climate in schools. In the Académie of Besançon, a partnership
was established with the local education authority and the university to devise a “School
Climate Survey”.
3
This survey was administered starting in 2015 and included the scales used
in the present study to explore adolescents’ perceptions of school climate dimensions. The
results of these surveys showed that there was room for improvement regarding students'
3
The Académie of Besançon is a French educational district.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
16
perception of school climate. Academic authorities and researchers then identified SWPBIS
as a promising approach to improving school climate and implemented it on an experimental
basis. The trial was planned on the random assignment of 24 middle schools (20% of the
middle schools in the Académie) into intervention and control groups. Given the importance
of examining the effects of an intervention under natural conditions (Flay et al., 2005; Kim,
2019), intervention schools implemented SWPBIS in real-world conditions. SWPBIS
implementation was driven by the regional education authority and the regular education staff
rather than by researchers (see Kubiszewski, 2018, for a complete description of the SWPBIS
roll-out).
Baseline data were collected on two occasions, including during the first trimester of
2016 for 10 schools (four intervention and six control) and then during the first trimester of
2017 for nine schools (six intervention and three control). On average, baseline data were
collected 4 months prior to the start of SWPBIS in the intervention schools. Only one
intervention and one control school had baseline measures obtained in 2015, which was a year
before implementation. There were no significant differences in school climate baseline data
for schools and grades included in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
The post-test data were obtained during the first trimester of 2018. The average
implementation fidelity score in the intervention schools was 48% (SD = 11.3%), as measured
by the School Evaluation Tool (Horner et al., 2004). Following this post-test data collection,
SWPBIS implementation continued but was not examined for this study. On average, 90.5%
(SD = 5.2%) of students at each school participated in the study; no significant differences
were identified between control and intervention schools, t(19) = -0.45, p = .65. Reasons for
student non-participation included (a) the student's absences on the day of the test and on the
proposed make-up date, (b) parental or guardian objection to their child’s participation, or (c)
the student's own refusal.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
17
Data were collected via online self-report questionnaires administered during regular
school hours. The Institutional Review Board of Besançon education authority, as well as an
internal commission at the researchers’ university, approved the study procedure. Informed
consent was obtained from all study participants after their parents had been informed of the
survey and had passively approved their children’s participation (i.e., parents who did not
want their child to participate were asked to return the information form). Schools, parents,
and students could choose to withdraw from the study at any time. Participants did not receive
any compensation.
Participants
To be included in the study, schools had to have completed a school climate survey or
must have agreed to do so on several future occasions according to the study schedule. Of the
24 schools that met these criteria and agreed to participate, three schools dropped out during
the study. Two of these schools were in the control group and left because they no longer saw
the value of their involvement because subsequent access to SWPBIS could not be
guaranteed. The third school was in the intervention group and withdrew because of the
arrival of a new principal who had projects other than SWPBIS and opposed the school’s
continued participation in the study. The final school sampled included 21 middle schools (10
in the control group and 11 in the intervention group). The mean population per school was
322 students (SD = 122) with no statistically significant differences in school size between
intervention and control groups. Each school consisted of four grade levels (Grades 6–9) and
thus 84 grades were included in the present study.
Participants included 6765 students (49% boys, 51% girls; Mage = 12.3 years) from
these 84 grades and 21 schools. In total, 70% of students were living with both parents, 16%
were in joint custody, 11% were living with only one parent, and 4% were in a different
family structure. These distributions were representative of those observed at national level
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
18
(Inchley et al., 2020) and did not differ significantly between the intervention and control
schools. On average, 44.9% (range = 24%–68%, with no statistical difference between
intervention and control groups) of the students came from disadvantaged social backgrounds
4
(41% at national level; Ministry of Education, 2019). Of these adolescents, 3694 attended the
11 intervention schools (55% of total sample) and the remaining 3071 students attended the
10 control schools (45% of total sample).
Measures
School Climate Dimensions
Socio-Educational Environment Questionnaire. The Socio-Educational
Environment Questionnaire (SEEQ; Janosz & Bouthillier, 2007) was designed for adolescents
to self-report their perceptions school climate dimensions through 6 subscales. For the present
study, five of the six subscales were used, including (a) between-students social climate
5
(five
items; e.g., “In this school, students treat each other with respect”; α = .77), (b) teacher-
student social climate (five items; e.g., “Students and teachers talk to each other outside of
class hours”; α = .85), (c) educational climate (seven items; e.g., “In this school, there is a
feeling that student success is important to the adults”, “This school makes every effort to get
students to succeed”; α = .90), (d) climate of belonging (six items; e.g., “I am proud to be a
student of this school”; α = .85), and (e) climate of safety (five items; e.g., “There is a risk of
being assaulted in this school”; α = .76). For climate of fairness, items from another
questionnaire were used (see below). Students responded on a Likert scale ranging from 1 =
“Strongly disagree” to 6 = “Strongly agree”. For each dimension, a mean score was
calculated. The validity and reliability of the SEEQ were initially explored in a sample of
more than 70,000 French-speaking adolescents from 159 secondary schools (Janosz &
4
Students whose parents are non-working or belong to the working class.
5
For this dimension, no data were available at baseline.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
19
Bouthillier, 2007). The CFA results for the five-factor model fit the data well, χ2 (289) = 791,
CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04.
Feeling of Justice Questionnaire. Although the SEEQ contains a subscale of climate
of fairness, the Feeling of Justice Questionnaire (FJQ; Friant et al., 2008) was used at the
request of the education authority (seven items, e.g., “Generally speaking, this school is a fair
place to be”, α = .82, CFA results from the present sample: χ2 (14) = 42, CFI =0.98, RMSEA
= 0.06, and SRMR = 0.02). Students responded on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly
disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”. A mean score was calculated. The validity and reliability of
this questionnaire was first examined in a sample of 12,151 students from 402 secondary
schools (Friant et al. 2008).
Individual and Contextual Predictors
At the individual level (Level 1), we controlled for participants’ demographic
characteristics of sex (1 = girl, 2 = boy) and age. At the grade level (Level 2), we controlled
for six contextual characteristics in which grades were embedded, including (a) school size
(number of students enrolled); (b) resources allocated to the middle-school, with an indicator
assigned by the education authority to each middle school; this indicator (ranging from 1.01 to
1.49 in the académie of Besançon) provided a rating of the support that could be offered to
students and was reflective of the number of open classes, the size of each class, and the
amount of overtime available to be paid; (c) the proportion of students from disadvantaged
backgrounds in the school; (d) the academic backlog (i.e., proportion of students in the school
who already repeated one or more grades by the time they entered Grade 6); (e) team
instability (i.e., proportion of teachers who requested a transfer to another school); and (f)
parental involvement in school life (i.e., the proportion of parents who participated in the
election of their school representatives). The education authority provided official statistical
data regarding these potential contextual confounds.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
20
Data Analysis
Preliminary data analysis included examination of descriptive statistics for all
variables. Multilevel analyses in Mplus Version 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) were
performed to account for the nested structure of the data (i.e., students were nested within
grades) and thus to examine the effects of both individual (i.e., sex and age) and contextual
(e.g., school size in which grades were embedded) predictors on outcomes. The effects of
SWPBIS on educational climate, teacher-student social climate, between-students social
climate, climate of safety, climate of belonging, and climate of fairness at Time 2 (T2) were
examined controlling for those values at Time 1 (T1). Given that individuals were not
followed across time, the study used aggregates of individual perceptions according to grade
level. Although still not widespread, other studies are also beginning to examine the effect of
SWPBIS at grade level (e.g., Turner et al., 2022). Grade-level variables (i.e., contextual
variables, outcome of interest at baseline, and intervention status) were grand-mean centered.
Individual variables (i.e., sex and age) were grade-mean centered. To account for the potential
non-normal distribution of the residuals, the MLR-estimator was used (Yuan & Bentler,
2000). The Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimator, which is a
recommended procedure for estimating parameters with incomplete data, was used to account
for missing data in Mplus. As is often the case for such complex multilevel models (e.g.,
Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2020; Larson et al., 2021), one model was computed for each separate
outcome at T2 (i.e., educational climate, teacher-student social climate, between-students
social climate, climate of safety, climate of belonging, and climate of fairness). Including all
outcomes simultaneously would have resulted in too many parameters to estimate and would
have resulted in model non-convergence.
The analyses were conducted in four steps. First, unconditional models were tested,
and intra-class correlations (ICCs) and design effects were examined. Second, the individual
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
21
and contextual predictors were included in the model to explain variance in the outcome
variable at Level 1 (i.e., individual) and Level 2 (i.e., contextual). Third, the grade level
outcome of interest at T1 (e.g., baseline educational climate perceived at the grade level) was
included (except for between-students social climate which was not available). We made this
choice because previous results (Brand et al., 2003; 2008) show that school climate ratings
remain relatively stable from 1 year to the next, even as the student membership changes
because of graduation or student mobility. Fourth, again at the grade level, intervention status
(Control vs. SWPBIS, coded as 0 and 1 respectively) and an interaction term (i.e., SWPBIS *
outcome of interest at baseline) were included to test whether the effects of SWPBIS on the
outcome of interest differed according to the initial school climate perception. This model-
building strategy allowed us to estimate the amount of variance in the outcomes that could be
attributed to (a) individual and contextual variables, (b) the outcome of interest at baseline,
and (c) the SWPBIS intervention group and its interaction with baseline school climate. Data
and syntaxes are available upon request from the first two authors.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and correlations for individual-level and grade-level variables
were computed separately for participants in intervention and control grades (see Table 1).
Mean levels of grade educational climate, climate of safety, and climate of belonging differed
between the two groups at baseline, with higher scores for controls. However, the effect sizes
were small (Cohen’s d = 0.19 for educational climate, 0.11 for climate of safety, and 0.22 for
climate of belonging). There were moderate to strong correlations (0.63–0.86) between school
climate dimensions at T1 and the same dimensions at T2.
Intra-class Correlations and Design Effects
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
22
Grade-level variations were small to moderate for the grade-related school climate
variables with ICCs ranging from 0.06 to 0.14 (all p values < .001). In addition, the design
effects ranged from 5.76 to 12.12 across school climate dimensions. These values were higher
than the one typically recommended (i.e., 2) for the purposes of ignoring the nested data
structure (Peugh, 2010). Taken together, these preliminary unconditional model results
revealed the importance of adopting a multilevel modeling approach to analysis (see Table 2
and Table 3).
Effects of SWPBIS on Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Climate Dimensions
The results of the multilevel models are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. SWPBIS
had positive main effects on the school climate dimensions of educational climate, teacher-
student social climate, and climate of safety. More precisely, there was a positive effect of
SWPBIS at the grade level (β = 0.13, p < .05) on educational climate. No effects were
detected for contextual variables or educational climate at T1 x SWPBIS interaction. This
model explained 68.6% of the between-grade variance. Level 2 predictors added at each step
of the analysis showed that most of this variance (50.8%) was explained by educational
climate at T1, followed by contextual factors (15.2%) and SWPBIS intervention (2.6%).
The grade-level effect of SWPBIS was also significant and positive for teacher-student
social climate (β = 0.14, p < .05). No effects were found for contextual variables (except for
rate of academic backlog at entry to Grade 6) and no teacher-student social climate T1 x
SWPBIS interaction effects were found. This model explained 63% of the between-grade
variance. Teacher-student social climate at baseline (T1) explained most of this variance
(37.5%), followed by contextual factors (21.7%) and then SWPBIS intervention (3.8%).
We also found that SWPBIS had a positive effect (β = 0.21, p < .001) on the climate of
safety at the grade level. No effects for contextual variables (except for the rates of
disadvantaged students and academic backlog at entry to Grade 6) and no climate of safety T1
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
23
x SWPBIS interaction effects were found. This model explained 59.9% of the between-grade
variance in climate of safety. In this case, most of the variance (38.7%) was explained by
contextual factors, followed by SWPBIS intervention (10.9%) and climate of safety at
baseline (T1; 10.3%).
No significant effects were found for SWPBIS on climate of belonging (β = 0.05, p =
.51), climate of fairness (β = 0.08, p =.16), or between-students social climate (β = 0.13, p =
.08). The full model for climate of belonging, climate of fairness, and between-students social
climate explained 65.8%, 57.6%, and 23.6%, respectively, of between-grade variance, with
most of the variance explained by respective climate factor at baseline (except for between-
students social climate) followed by contextual factors.
Discussion
Current evidence suggests that school climate tends to have a significant impact on
students’ academic and socio-emotional trajectories. This explains why there has been
considerable interest in interventions that enhance school climate and that allow cultural
adaptation. The objective of the present study was to examine the effects of a promising
multi-tier system of support (i.e., SWPBIS). These effects were examined based on six school
climate dimensions in an effectiveness study with a sample of 6765 French adolescents
enrolled in 44 intervention and 40 control grades (Grades 6–9). Overall, SWPBIS has a
positive effect on several dimensions of school climate (i.e., educational climate, teacher-
student social climate, and climate of safety). Moreover, this positive effect was independent
of the initial level of each school climate dimension calculated at baseline before SWPBIS
implementation.
Effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on School
Climate Dimensions
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
24
The results showed a positive effect of SWPBIS on three of the six school climate
dimensions, including educational climate, teacher-student social climate, and climate of
safety. However, it should be noted that the variance was primarily explained by baseline
school climate perceptions, except for climate of safety. This points to considerable inertia
within grades in the perception of these dimensions – inertia that has already been
documented elsewhere (e.g., Brand et al., 2003). Despite this, and despite controlling for this
important predictor, SWPBIS still significantly improved prediction of these three school
climate dimensions at T2. The present study thus extends current investigations in the
SWPBIS field by documenting convincing effects on adolescents’ perceptions within a non-
US cultural context. This is an especially important finding because contextual and cultural fit
are core principles of SWPBIS, whose applicability still needs to be examined more widely
outside the US.
The present results suggest that, even in its early stages, SWPBIS (which was still
being implemented at the time of the post-intervention) appeared to show positive effects in
the French school context. For example, at T2 SWPBIS had been in the implementation phase
for less than 2 years. It is also notable that, as is often the case in early implementation stages
(Borgen et al., 2020; Durlak & Dupre, 2008; Gage et al., 2017), schools had not yet reached
the commonly acknowledged fidelity threshold. Fidelity is the degree to which an intervention
is implemented according to the original protocol or as intended by the program developers
(Proctor et al., 2011). For SWPBIS, a fidelity threshold of 70%–80% (depending on the
measure used) and sustained implementation (in the order of 3–5 years) are frequently viewed
as requirements for intervention effects (e.g., Gage et al., 2017; Horner et al, 2004; Nese et
al., 2019; Sorlie et al., 2016). Thus, the present results for these three school climate
dimensions are very encouraging and highlight the need to consider the cultural specificities
of implementation. For example, these results suggest that, in cultural contexts where
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
25
educational practices can be markedly improved by SWPBIS, positive effects may be
observed within a shorter time frame and in earlier stages of implementation than those
reported thus far. It should be noted that these thresholds were established based on
preliminary observations in the US (e.g., Horner, 2004). The introduction of SWPBIS in
cultural contexts where there is considerable room for improvement may give rise to positive
effects more rapidly. Conversely, in school systems that are already aligned with SWPBIS
and where students are familiar with an SWPBIS-type educational paradigm, fidelity may
have little or no effect. The Dutch example (i.e., Nelen et al., 2021) supports this postulate. In
the Dutch context, schools have been described as already having favorable outcomes in
various respects and SWPBIS fidelity did not produce any added value for various outcomes.
Nelen et al. hypothesized that there was a ceiling effect in their cultural context, leaving little
room for improvement. In the US, Elrod et al. (2022) and Mitchell and Bradshaw (2013;
through indirect results) found no effects of SWPBIS on school climate among students. It
therefore is possible that the effects of SWPBIS and the thresholds for positive outcomes
(particularly regarding school climate) are not universal and depend on the cultural and
educational context. This possible "non-universality of threshold" is yet to be discussed and
should be further examined in future studies from different countries.
This postulate, as well as the precise features of the context modulating the effects of
SWPBIS on school climate (e.g., culture, organization of the education system, teachers’
representations of their duties), has yet to be explored and requires more cross-cultural
research. In addition, further data collection will be necessary to determine whether the
encouraging effects described here are maintained at follow-up and are possibly more
pronounced after a longer implementation. For the time being, our results suggest that, in
France, students in grades benefiting from SWPBIS perceived three school climate
dimensions more favorably than those not exposed to it. In such an educational context,
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
26
SWPBIS therefore may create conditions favorable to adolescents’ success and well-being
(e.g., Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Halladay et al., 2020; Kutsyuruba et al., 2015; Martin &
Collie, 2019).
Finally, no interaction effects between baseline values and SWPBIS were noted for the
school climate dimensions considered at T2. This suggests that the positive contribution of
SWPBIS to educational climate, teacher-student social climate, and climate of safety did not
depend on how these dimensions were perceived prior to its implementation. A stronger effect
of SWPBIS for grades whose students had more negative perceptions of school climate
dimensions at baseline was expected, but these results show that the benefit was independent
of baseline levels. This suggests that, in educational contexts such as the French context, any
school (regardless of the school climate that prevails there) could benefit from SWPBIS
improving adolescents' perceptions of several dimensions of school climate (educational
climate, teacher-student social climate, and safety climate).
School Climate Dimensions Impervious to School-Wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports
In the present study, there was no significant effect of SWPBIS on between-students
social climate, climate of belonging, and climate of fairness. First, regarding between-students
social climate, these results are aligned with previous studies that found an absence of an
SWPBIS effect (Sorlie & Ogden, 2015). One possible explanation is that the introduction of
SWPBIS, which promotes positive changes in students’ behaviors by initially targeting staff
behaviors, may take time to bring about change in relationships between the students
themselves. Indeed, the three school climate dimensions that were positively influenced by
SWPBIS in our study can be conceived of as being more inherent to schools’ professional
practices (e.g., supervision for climate of safety, placing students at the heart of schools’
activities, providing support for the educational climate, and creating positive links with
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
27
students for teacher-student social climate) than to relationships between students. The
changes introduced by SWPBIS would only have a delayed impact on this school climate
dimension. Higher implementation fidelity may also be necessary to observe an effect on the
relationships between students.
Regarding climate of belonging, the direct role of adults also appears to be more
limited. It may take longer for conclusive effects on this dimension to be observed. Climate of
belonging could develop based on other school climate dimensions and it may evolve only
after the other school climate dimensions have changed (Janosz et al., 1998). Although this
has never been empirically examined, climate of belonging could be the result of a sequential
process. In this process, climate of belonging would be affected following increases of other
school climate dimensions. Longitudinal data collection would be needed to confirm this
hypothesis and, more broadly, to explore possible sequential processes linking the school
climate dimensions together.
Lastly, given that SWPBIS uses procedures that appear favorable to climate of fairness
(e.g., the creation of a predictable environment in terms of both school expectations and
consequences for problematic behavior), it is difficult to understand why there was no effect
on this dimension. Even if procedures are improved, there may be more stability in students'
perceptions of climate of fairness than in the other dimensions of school climate. The lack of
statistical significance adds to the body of mixed findings on the effects of SWPBIS on
diverse student outcomes (e.g., Borgen et al., 2021, Bradshaw et al., 2010; Ryoo et al., 2018).
Further work is needed to gain a better understanding of this result.
Limitations and Strengths
The present results are subject to several methodological limitations. First, it should be
noted that many factors likely to affect school climate were not controlled (e.g., the
neighborhoods in which the schools were located, ethnicity), some of which are considered
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
28
sensitive data in France (e.g., ethnicity). Second, no data on other programs that may have
been implemented in control schools were available. Nevertheless, the regional education
authority and principals of the control schools issued assurances that no other large-scale
interventions were taking place (such as, for example, school-wide systemic implementation
of an intervention, use of a multi-tier system of support, regular intervention of a coach).
Third, the present results were based on six independent analyses (i.e., one for each school
climate dimension). This may have increased the risk of a Type I error, but we made this
choice because the model was complex and tested with relatively few units at the grade level
(N = 44 and 40 grades). There were too many parameters to estimate if all six school climate
dimensions had been considered simultaneously. Moreover, variation for the school climate
variables at the grade level was quite low (ICCs from .06 to .14). This suggests that although
grades differed in terms of average school climate responses, there was also a considerable
amount of variation between students within the same grade. The introduction of “grade” as a
Level 2 unit of analysis is specific to how prevention and intervention programs are
implemented and evaluated in the French educational context. Studies generally target the
school level where ICCs for school climate variables are also quite low (often < .10 and rarely
> .20; Marsh, 2012; see also Bear et al., 2011, Konold et al., 2015, or Waasdorp et al., 2020,
with ICCs between .02 and .18). Therefore, these low ICCs highlight the need to account for
the variability of students' individual perceptions across time in addition to what has been
implemented at the grade level. However, given that the present study was not designed to
account for this variability, it appears necessary to replicate such findings with a study
collecting individual-level data from the same students over time. Moreover, the inclusion of
more schools over a longer period would allow for a more rigorous examination of the effects
of implementation fidelity in the intervention group (and go beyond simply examining the
effects produced by SWPBIS, whether implemented or not).
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
29
Beyond these limitations, the data and the results of the present study contribute in
various ways to both the SWPBIS and school climate research. Until now, most SWPBIS
effects had been found for variables such as suspension rates or office discipline referrals
(Gage et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018; Pas et al., 2019). School climate dimensions were
generally not considered despite their significant impact on students’ trajectories. In addition,
when school climate was measured, studies generally collected adults’ reports (Bradshaw et
al., 2008, 2009) and rarely considered students' perceptions. There is also a dearth of research
on the effects of SWPBIS outside the United States. The present study focused on six school
climate dimensions that were estimated by using data from adolescents’ perceptions.
Furthermore, it is one of the few studies to have documented the effects of SWPBIS in a
different cultural context than the one in which it was developed and designed. Lastly, the
high ecological validity of the effectiveness study design used here was also a strength that
allowed us to overcome some of the limitations of efficacy studies. In efficacy studies, the
intervention is driven by the researchers themselves in ideal, highly controlled conditions.
Although this type of design often yields convincing results, these results are not necessarily
replicated when the intervention is applied in real-life practice (Hagermoser-Sanetti &
Collier-Meek, 2019; Kim, 2019). In the present study, the results were obtained under the
most ecologically valid conditions possible: SWPBIS was imported, piloted, and directly
implemented by regular educational professionals and by their regional education authority.
Conclusion
After controlling for individual and contextual variables, SWPBIS was found to have
positive effects on three school climate dimensions perceived by adolescents: educational
climate, teacher-student social climate, and climate of safety. These positive associations were
independent of baseline school climate values. This suggests that, even in groups where these
dimensions are perceived positively, implementing SWPBIS may prove beneficial. These
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
30
encouraging conclusions may be of particular interest in cultural contexts where educational
practices are further removed from what SWPBIS proposes. Overall, these results suggest that
SWPBIS may provide a promising approach that can capture the attention of administrators,
researchers and policymakers who are considering measures to improve school climate.
Acknowledgments
The authors would especially like to thank the secondary schools, students and teaching staff
who took part in this project. Special thanks also to the Besançon Board of Education,
especially Cécile Beisser-Voignier and her team, Antoine Neves, Lucille Mollier and Valérie
Pardonnet as well as André Canvel from the French Education Ministry and the research
assistants who helped to collect data.
Funding
This research was made possible by funding of Burgundy Franche-Comté Regional Council
[no. 2019-Y-09084], MGEN (Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale; no. 2017-0143)
and the EDUC Research Federation (Franche-Comté University).
Declarations of interest
None.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
31
References
Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and
adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International
Journal of Educational Research, 88, 121–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012
Baumsteiger, R., Hoffmann, J. D., Castillo-Gualda, R., & Brackett, M. A. (2021). Enhancing
school climate through social and emotional learning: effects of RULER in Mexican
secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09374-x
Bear, G. G., Gaskins, C., Blank, J., & Chen, F. F. (2011). Delaware School Climate Survey—
Student: Its factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School
Psychology, 49(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001
Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Mantz, L. S., & Harris, A. B. (2017). School-wide practices associated
with school climate in elementary, middle, and high schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 63, 372–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.012
Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the
associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425–469.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
Bissonnette, S., Bouchard, C., St-Georges, N., Gauthier, C., & Bocquillon, M. (2020). Un
modèle de réponse à l’intervention (RàI) comportementale: le soutien au
comportement positif (SCP) [A model of response to intervention (RTI): Positive
behavior support (PBS)]. Enfance en Difficulté, 7, 131–152.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1070386ar
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
32
Blakemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural
processing? Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187–207.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202
Borgen, N. T., Kirkebøen, L. J., Ogden, T., Raaum, O., & Sørlie, M. A. (2020). Impacts of
school‐wide positive behaviour support: Results from National Longitudinal Register
data. International Journal of Psychology, 55, 4–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12575
Borgen, N. T., Raaum, O., Kirkebøen, L. J., Sørlie, M. A., Ogden, T., & Frønes, I. (2021).
Heterogeneity in short-and long-term impacts of school-wide positive behavior
support on academic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, and criminal activity. Journal of
Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(2), 379–409.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1862375
Borgmeier, C., De Pry, R. L., Pruitt, R., Francis, D., & Hashemi, M. (2015). School wide
positive behavioural interventions and supports in Qatar: Building capacity for
culturally relevant and sustainable change. International Journal of Positive
Behavioural Support, 5(2), 5–15.
Bosworth, K., & Judkins, M. (2014). Tapping into the power of school climate to prevent
bullying: One application of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports.
Theory into Practice, 53(4), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947224
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of
school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the
organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4),
462–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012883
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate
through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
33
group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10(2), 100–115.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide
positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a
randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798
Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school
improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of
climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(3), 570–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.570
Brand, S., Felner, R. D., Seitsinger, A., Burns, A., & Bolton, N. (2008). A large-scale study of
the assessment of the social environment of middle and secondary schools: The
validity and utility of teachers' ratings of school climate, cultural pluralism, and safety
problems for understanding school effects and school improvement. Journal of School
Psychology, 46(5), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.12.001
Brière, F. N., Pascal, S., Dupéré, V., & Janosz, M. (2013). School environment and adolescent
depressive symptoms: a multilevel longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 131(3), e702-e708.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2172
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Caldarella, P., Shatzer, R. H., Gray, K. M., Young, K. R., & Young, E. L. (2011). The effects
of school-wide positive behavior support on middle school climate and student
outcomes. RMLE Online, 35(4), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2011.11462087
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
34
Charlton, C. T., Moulton, S., Sabey, C. V., & West, R. (2021). A systematic review of the
effects of schoolwide intervention programs on student and teacher perceptions of
school climate. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(3), 185–200.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720940168
Coelho, V. A., Bear, G. G., & Brás, P. (2020). A multilevel analysis of the importance of
school climate for the trajectories of students’ self-concept and self-esteem throughout
the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(9), 1793–1804.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01245-7
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research,
policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Crowley, B. Z., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2021). School climate moderates the association
between sexual harassment and student well-being. School Mental Health, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-021-09449-3
Dahl, R. E., Allen, N. B., Wilbrecht, L., & Suleiman, A. B. (2018). Importance of investing in
adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, 554(7693), 441–450.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25770
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination theory research.
University of Rochester Press.
Deltour, C., Dachet, D., & Baye, A. (2022). Cultural Fit and the Effects of Schoolwide
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in High-Need Schools: A Quasi-
Experimental Study. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 12(1), 1611–1642.
https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.22.or057
Deltour, C., Dachet, D., Monseur, C. & Baye, A. (2021). Does SWPBIS increase teachers’
collective efficacy? Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Frontiers in Education, 6,
720065. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720065
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
35
Denny, S., Lucassen, M. F., Stuart, J., Fleming, T., Bullen, P., Peiris-John, R., ... & Utter, J.
(2016). The association between supportive high school environments and depressive
symptoms and suicidality among sexual minority students. Journal of Clinical Child
& Adolescent Psychology, 45(3), 248–261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.958842
DEPP. (2014). TALIS 2013 – Enseignant en France: Un métier solitaire? [Teaching in
France: A lonely profession?] Note d’information MEN, 23, 1–4. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/fr/education/scolaire/France-
DEPP_NI_2014_23_TALIS_2013_Enseignant_France_metier_solitaire_333502.pdf
Dorio, N. B., Clark, K. N., Demaray, M. K., & Doll, E. M. (2020). School climate counts: A
longitudinal analysis of school climate and middle school bullying behaviors.
International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2(4), 292–308.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00038-2
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 327-350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit
on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,
48, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/10254-034
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2010.00725.x
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
36
Elrod, B. G., Rice, K. G., & Meyers, J. (2022). PBIS fidelity, school climate, and student
discipline: A longitudinal study of secondary schools. Psychology in the Schools, 59,
376–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22614
Fatou, N., & Kubiszewski, V. (2018). Are perceived school climate dimensions predictive of
students’ engagement? Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 427–446.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9422-x
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., ... & Ji, P.
(2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination.
Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y
Friant, N. (2008). Équité des systèmes éducatifs et sentiments de justice des élèves de quinze
ans en Europe [Equity of education systems and feelings of justice among 15-year-old
students in Europe]. [Master’s thesis - Mons-Hainaut University].
Friant, N., Laloua, E., & Demeuse, M. (2008). Sentiments de justice des élèves de 15 ans en
Europe [Feelings of justice among 15-year-old students in Europe]. Education &
Formation, (e-288), 7–23.
Gage, N. A., Grasley-Boy, N., Peshak George, H., Childs, K., & Kincaid, D. (2019). A quasi-
experimental design analysis of the effects of school-wide positive behavior
interventions and supports on discipline in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 21(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718768208
Gage, N. A., Leite, W., Childs, K., & Kincaid, D. (2017). Average treatment effect of school-
wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on school-level academic
achievement in Florida. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(3), 158–167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693556
Gage, N. A., Lewis, T. J., & Stichter, J. P. (2012). Functional behavioral assessment-based
interventions for students with or at risk for emotional and/or behavioral disorders in
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
37
school: A hierarchical linear modeling meta-analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2),
55–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700201
Grazia, V., & Molinari, L. (2020). School climate multidimensionality and measurement: A
systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education, 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1697735
Grimault-Leprince, A. (2015). Réguler les désordres au collège. Pourquoi la coopération entre
enseignants et conseillers principaux d’éducation est-elle problématique? [Regulating
disorder in middle school. Why is cooperation between teachers and Principal
Educational Advisor problematic?]. Recherches & Education, 11, 51–65.
https://doi.org/10.4000/rechercheseducations.2049
Guimard, P., Bacro, F., Ferrère, S., Florin, A., Gaudonville, T., et al. (2015). Le bien-être des
élèves à l’école et au collège : validation d’une échelle d’évaluation
multidimensionnelle et analyses. [Student well-being in school and college: validation
of a multidimensional rating scale and analyses]. Education & Formation, 88, 163–
184.
Hagermoser-Sanetti, L. M., & Collier-Meek. M. A. (2019). Increasing implementation
science literacy to address the research-to-practice gap in school psychology. Journal
of School Psychology, 76, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.07.008
Halladay, J., Bennett, K., Weist, M., Boyle, M., Manion, I., Campo, M., & Georgiades, K.
(2020). Teacher-student relationships and mental health help seeking behaviors among
elementary and secondary students in Ontario Canada. Journal of School Psychology,
81, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.05.003
Hintz, A. M., Paal, M., Licandro, U., Vierbuchen, M. C., Speck, K., & Hatton, H. (2020,
March, 11). Addressing diversity in preschool settings within a culturally-sensitive
SW-PBS framework in Germany. [Paper presentation]. 17th International Conference
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
38
on Positive Behavior Support, Virtual conference, United Stated.
https://www.apbs.org/conference/files/2020presentations/Poster-105.pdf
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320.
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 behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 11(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709332067
Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L. K., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. B. (2004).
The school-wide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-
wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3–
12. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007040060010201
Inchley, J., Currie, D., Budisavljevic, S., Torsheim, T., Jåstad, A., Cosma, A., et al. (2020).
Spotlight on adolescent health and well-being. Findings from the 2017/2018 Health
Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey in Europe and Canada.
International report. Volume 1. Key findings. WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Janosz, M. (2017). The school socioeducational environment model: background, utility and
evolution. In J. Marcionetti, L. Castelli & A. Crescentini (Eds.), Well-being in
education systems (pp 17–21). Hogrefe Editore.
Janosz, M., & Bouthillier, C. (2007). Report on the validation of the Socio Educative
Questionnaire for secondary schools. University of Montreal. Available at:
https://docplayer.fr/46563053-Rapport-de-validation-du-questionnaire-sur-l-
environnement-socioeducatif-des-ecoles-primaires-qes-primaire.html
Janosz, M., Georges, P., & Parent, S. (1998). L'environnement socioéducatif à l'école
secondaire: Un modèle théorique pour guider l'évaluation du milieu [The socio-
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
39
educational environment in secondary school: A theoretical model to guide
environmental assessment]. Revue Canadienne de Psycho-Education, 27(2), 285–306.
Karhu, A., Paananen, M., Närhi, V., & Savolainen, H. (2021). Implementation of the inclusive
CICO Plus intervention for pupils at risk of severe behaviour problems in SWPBS
schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36, 758–772.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1809801
Kim, J. (2019). Making every study count: Learning from replication failure to improve
intervention research. Educational Researcher, 48(9), 599–607.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19891428
Kim, J., McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., & Nese, R. N. (2018). Longitudinal associations
between SWPBIS fidelity of implementation and behavior and academic outcomes.
Behavioral Disorders, 43(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917747589
Konold, T. R., & Cornell, D. (2015). Measurement and structural relations of an authoritative
school climate model: A multi-level latent variable investigation. Journal of School
Psychology, 53(6), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.001
Konold, T., Cornell, D., Jia, Y., & Malone, M. (2018). School climate, student engagement,
and academic achievement: A latent variable, multilevel multi-informant examination.
Aera Open, 4(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418815661
Kubiszewski, V. (2018). L’approche du « Soutien au Comportement Positif » en France :
description, apports théoriques et planification de l’étude de ses effets (Rapport
intermédiaire). [SWPBIS in France: description, implementation and study of effects.).
Besançon: Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14065.74081
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
40
Kutsyuruba, B., Klinger, D. A., & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate,
school safety, and student achievement and well‐being: A review of the literature.
Review of Education, 3(2), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3043
Laninga-Wijnen, L., van den Berg, Y. H., Mainhard, T., & Cillessen, A. H. (2021). The role
of defending norms in victims’ classroom climate perceptions and psychosocial
maladjustment in secondary school. Research on Child and Adolescent
Psychopathology, 49(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00738-0
Larson, K. E., Pas, E. T., Bottiani, J. H., Kush, J. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2021). A
multidimensional and multilevel examination of student engagement and secondary
school teachers’ use of classroom management practices. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 23, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720929352
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects:
A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326158
Lewno-Dumdie, B. M., Mason, B. A., Hajovsky, D. B., & Villeneuve, E. F. (2020). Student-
report measures of school climate: A dimensional review. School Mental Health,
12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09340-2
Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2004). Examining the moderating role of perceived school
climate in early adolescent adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(2),
209–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01402004.x
Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2019). Teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement
in high school: Does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers
matter? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 861–876.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000317
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
41
McIntosh, K., Girvan, E. J., McDaniel, S. C., Santiago-Rosario, M. R., St. Joseph, S.,
Fairbanks Falcon, S., ... & Bastable, E. (2021). Effects of an equity-focused PBIS
approach to school improvement on exclusionary discipline and school climate.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(4), 354–
361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1937027
Mikaïloff, N. (2020). Le conseiller principal d’éducation accompagnant au cœur de collectifs
de travail [The principal educational advisor at the heart of work groups]. Carrefours
de l'éducation, 1, 31–45.
Ministry of Education. (2019). L’état de l’école en 2019 [The state of the school in 2019].
https://www.education.gouv.fr/l-etat-de-l-ecole-2019-11246
Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student
perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary
discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 599–610.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.005
Mitchell, B. S., Lewis, T. J., & Stormont, M. (2021). A daily check-in/check-out intervention
for students with internalizing concerns. Journal of Behavioral Education, 30(2), 178–
201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09365-7
Mitchell, M. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of
school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School
Health, 80, 271–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00501.x
Mons, N. (2004). Politiques de décentralisation en éducation: Diversité internationale,
légitimations théoriques et justifications empiriques [Decentralization policies in
education: International diversity, theoretical legitimations and empirical
justifications]. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 146, 41–52.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
42
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
https://www.statmodel.com/
Nelen, M. J., Scholte, R. H., Blonk, A. M., van der Veld, W. M., Nelen, W. B., & Denessen,
E. (2021). School‐wide positive behavioral interventions and supports in Dutch
elementary schools: Exploring effects. Psychology in the Schools, 58(6), 992–1006.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719876096
Nelen, M. J., Willemse, T. M., van Oudheusden, M. A., & Goei, S. L. (2020). Cultural
challenges in adapting SWPBIS to a Dutch context. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 22(2), 105–115.
Nese, R. N., Nese, J. F., McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., & Kittelman, A. (2019). Predicting
latency of reaching adequate implementation of tier I schoolwide positive behavioral
interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 106–116.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718783755
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019a). Résultats de TALIS
2018 (Volume I): Des enseignants et chefs d’établissement en formation à vie.
Éditions OCDE. https://doi.org/10.1787/5bb21b3a-fr.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019b). PISA 2018 results
(Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Mitchell, M. M. (2011). Examining the validity of office
discipline referrals as an indicator of student behavior problems. Psychology in the
Schools, 48(6), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20577
Pas, E. T., Ryoo, J. H., Musci, R. J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). A state-wide quasi-
experimental effectiveness study of the scale-up of school-wide positive behavioral
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
43
interventions and supports. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.001
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology,
48(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002
Pfeifer, J. H., & Allen, N. B. (2021). Puberty initiates cascading relationships between
neurodevelopmental, social, and internalizing processes across adolescence.
Biological Psychiatry, 89(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.002
Powell, J. J., Graf, L., Bernhard, N., Coutrot, L., & Kieffer, A. (2012). The shifting
relationship between vocational and higher education in France and Germany:
Towards convergence? European Journal of Education, 47(3), 405–423.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2012.01534.x
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., &
Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions,
measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Ryoo, J. H., Hong, S., Bart, W. M., Shin, J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2018). Investigating the
effect of school‐wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student
learning and behavioral problems in elementary and middle schools. Psychology in the
Schools, 55(6), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22134
Shinde, S., Weiss, H. A., Varghese, B., Khandeparkar, P., Pereira, B., Sharma, A., Gupta, R.,
Ross, D., Patton, G., & Patel, V. (2018). Promoting school climate and health
outcomes with the SEHER multi-component secondary school intervention in Bihar,
India: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 392(10163), 2465–2477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31615-5
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
44
Singla, D. R., Shinde, S., Patton, G., & Patel, V. (2021). The mediating effect of school
climate on adolescent mental health: Findings from a randomized controlled trial of a
school-wide intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 69(1), 90–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.09.030
Sørlie, M. A., & Ogden, T. (2015). School-wide positive behavior support–Norway: Impacts
on problem behavior and classroom climate. International Journal of School &
Educational Psychology, 3(3), 202–217.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2015.1060912
Sørlie, M. A., Ogden, T., & Olseth, A. R. (2016). Examining teacher outcomes of the school-
wide positive behavior support model in Norway: Perceived efficacy and behavior
management. Sage Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016651914
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-
wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12087989
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior
support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai & R. Horner (Ed.), Handbook of positive
behavior support (pp. 307–326). Springer.
Teng, Z., Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Nie, Q., & Guo, C. (2020). Moral disengagement and
bullying perpetration: A longitudinal study of the moderating effect of school climate.
School Psychology, 35(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000348
Turner, L., Calvert, H. G., Fleming, C. M., Lewis, T., Siebert, C., Anderson, N., ... &
McQuilkin, M. (2022). Study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of a bundle of
implementation support strategies to improve the fidelity of implementation of
SWPBIS in rural schools. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 100949.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100949
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
45
Voight, A., & Nation, M. (2016). Practices for improving secondary school climate: A
systematic review of the research literature. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 58(1–2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12074
Waasdorp, T. E., Lindstrom Johnson, S., Shukla, K. D., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020). Measuring
school climate: Invariance across middle and high school students. Children &
Schools, 42(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdz026
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement,
and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Wang, M. T., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). The trajectories of adolescents’ perceptions of school
climate, deviant peer affiliation, and behavioral problems during the middle school
years. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 40–53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00763.x
Yang, C., Chan, M. K., & Ma, T. L. (2020). School-wide social emotional learning (SEL) and
bullying victimization: Moderating role of school climate in elementary, middle, and
high schools. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 49–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.002
Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and
covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology,
30(1), 165–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
46
Table 1
Means (Standard Deviations) and Correlations among Main (Uncentered) Study Variables for SWPBIS and Control Grades
SWPBIS
Control
t
Cohen’s d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Age
12.64 (1.21)
12.75 (1.25)
3.80***
0.093
-
-.30**
-.20**
-.13**
.03
-.30**
-.30**
-
-
-
-
-
2. Educational climate T2
4.51 (1.03)
4.44 (1.03)
-2.52*
- 0.062
-.22**
-
.59**
.57**
.26**
.63**
.69**
-
-
-
-
-
3. Teacher-student social
climate T2
4.13 (0.94)
3.99 (0.97)
-5.65***
-0.138
-.15**
.56**
-
.47**
.26**
.48**
.57**
-
-
-
-
-
4. Between-students social
climate T2
4.01 (1.11)
3.99 (1.07)
-0.67
-0.018
-.11**
.55**
.37**
-
.37**
.48**
.50**
-
-
-
-
-
5. Climate of safety T2
4.44 (1.11)
4.41 (1.10)
-1.29
-0.032
.02
.25**
.24**
.29**
-
.30**
.33**
-
-
-
-
-
6. Climate of belonging T2
4.62 (1.19)
4.66 (1.18)
1.39
0.034
-.25**
.60**
.50**
.46**
.29**
-
.57**
-
-
-
-
-
7. Climate of fairness T2
3.39 (0.85)
3.32 (0.87)
-3.50***
-0.086
-.24**
.65**
.57**
.46**
.33**
.54**
-
-
-
-
-
-
Level 2 (n=84 grades)
1. Between-students social
climate T1
x
x
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2. Educational climate T2
4.51 (0.43)
4.44 (0.36)
-6.69***
- 0.164
x
-
.87**
.88**
.27**
.93**
.69**
.86**
.78**
.11**
.81**
.83**
3. Teacher-student social
climate T2
4.13 (0.32)
3.99 (0.33)
-16.47***
-0.402
x
.80**
-
.83**
.44**
.80**
.82**
.77**
.85**
.26**
.80**
.80**
4. Between-students social
climate T2
4.01 (0.26)
3.98 (0.32)
-3.26**
-0.086
x
.71**
.62**
-
.54**
.83**
.81**
.75**
.69**
.30**
.66**
.70**
5. Climate of safety T2
4.44 (0.31)
4.41 (0.28)
-4.73***
-0.116
x
.17**
.23**
.22**
-
.30**
.27**
.28**
.34**
.63**
.28**
.30**
6. Climate of belonging T2
4.62 (0.46)
4.66 (0.41)
3.68***
0.090
x
.91**
.72**
.70**
.16**
-
.89**
.81**
.70**
.15**
.78**
.80**
7. Climate of fairness T2
3.40 (0.29)
3.32 (0.87)
-9.82***
-0.240
x
.90**
.79**
.70**
.18**
.83**
-
.81**
.70**
-.02
.79**
.80**
8. Educational climate T1
4.47 (0.42)
4.55 (0.32)
7.939***
0.197
x
.66**
.42**
.39**
-.12**
.69**
.51**
-
.79**
.29**
.87**
.94**
9. Teacher-student social
climate T1
4.14 (0.39)
4.11 (0.36)
-2.997**
-0.074
x
.68**
.47**
.48**
.01
.62**
.57**
.89**
-
.33**
.83**
.85**
10. Climate of safety T1
4.52 (0.34)
4.55 (0.19)
4.365***
0.108
x
.034
-.06**
.052
.21**
-.04*
-.05**
.39**
.45**
-
.20**
.31**
11. Climate of belonging T1
4.67 (0.47)
4.77 (0.44)
8.944***
0.222
x
.66**
.33**
.42**
-.12**
.75**
.56**
.91**
.81**
.26**
-
.91**
12. Climate of fairness T1
3.43 (0.33)
3.44 (0.28)
1.101
0.027
x
.69**
.41**
.42**
-.07**
.67**
.59**
.91**
.90**
.35**
.89**
-
Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for the control sample and are below the diagonal for the intervention sample. X = not available. Only the main variables of the study are included. Correlations with contextual
variables are available from the authors on request. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
47
Table 2
Main Models and Models with Interactions Predicting Students’ Outcomes: Perceptions of Educational Climate, Teacher-Student Social
Climate, and Climate of Belonging Within Grade Level
Educational climate T2
Teacher-student social climate T2
Climate of belonging T2
A.
Unconditional
model
B. Main
models
C. Outcome
at baseline
D. SWPBIS
and
interaction
A.
Unconditional
model
B. Main
models
C. Outcome
at baseline
D. SWPBIS
and
interaction
A.
Unconditional
model
B. Main
models
C. Outcome
at baseline
D. SWPBIS
and
interaction
ICC
0.14
0.11
0.13
Design effects
12.12
9.73
11.32
Level 1
Age
0.034
0.032
0.032
0.062**
0.063**
0.063**
-0.070**
-0.057*
-0.057*
Sex
-0.046*
-0.049*
-0.049*
-0.114***
-0.125***
-0.125***
-0.102***
-0.098***
-0.098***
R2
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.005**
0.006**
0.006**
0.003*
0.003*
0.003*
Level 2
School size
0.000
-0.001*
0.000
0.000
0.000*
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
Resources
0.795
-0.541
-0.232
0.508
0.089
0.427
0.788
-0.234
-0.187
Disadvantaged students
0.003
0.000
-0.002
0.000
-0.003
-0.005
-0.001
-0.001
-0.002
Backlog before Grade 6
-0.002
-0.005
-0.015
-0.014
-0.015
-0.025*
-0.008
-0.005
-0.011
Team instability
-0.012*
-0.001
0.000
-0.004
0.003
0.004
-0.010
-0.002
-0.002
Parental involvement
0.014**
0.001
0.000
0.011**
0.004
0.003
0.012
0.005
0.004
Outcome at
baseline
-
0.753***
0.671***
-
0.549***
0.440***
-
0.706***
0.737***
SWPBIS
-
-
0.133*
-
-
0.139*
-
0.052
BL*SWPBIS
-
-
0.124
-
-
0.151
-
-0.057
R2
.152*
0.660***
0.686***
0.217**
0.592***
0.630***
0.138
.654***
.658***
R2 change
.152*
0.508***
0.026***
0.217**
0.375***
0.038***
0.138
.516**
0.004***
Model fit
Log likelihood
-9258.117
-9243.175
-8844.946
-8842.713
-8998.881
-8967.879
-8570.276
-8567.407
-10354.593
-10332.395
-9910.630
-9910.337
Deviance
-18516.234
-18486.35
-17689.892
-17685.426
-17997.762
-17935.758
-17140.552
-17134.814
-20709.186
-20664.790
-19821.260
-19820.674
Free parameters
3
11
12
14
3
11
12
14
3
11
12
14
AIC
18522.234
18508.350
17713.891
17713.425
18003.762
17957.757
17164.552
17162.814
20715.187
20686.790
19845.260
19848.674
BIC
18542.642
18583.168
17795.914
17808.107
18024.214
18032.738
17245.884
17257.702
20735.637
20761.767
19926.592
19943.562
Note. BL = outcome at baseline (T1); AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion. Sex: 1 = girls and 2 = boys. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
SWPBIS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
48
Table 3
Main Models and Models with Interactions Predicting Students’ Outcomes: Perceptions of Climate of Fairness, Between-Student Social Climate,
and Climate of Safety Within Grade Level
Climate of fairness T2
Between-students social climate T2
Climate of safety T2
A.
Unconditional
model
B. Main
models
C. Outcome
at baseline
D. SWPBIS
and
interaction
A.
Unconditional
model
B. Main
models
C. Outcome
at baseline
D. SWPBIS
and
interaction
A.
Unconditional
model
B. Main
models
Outcome at
baseline
D. SWPBIS
and
interaction
ICC
0.12
0.06
0.06
Design effect
10.53
5.76
5.76
Level 1
Age
-0.007
-0.011
-0.011
0.031
-
0.031
-0.089**
-0.094***
-0.094***
Sex
-0.104***
-0.109***
-0.109***
0.045
-
0.045
0.017
0.022
0.022
R2
0.004**
0.005**
0.005**
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
Level 2
School size
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Resources
0.248
-0.466
-0.288
0.267
-
0.514
0.684
0.292
0.621
Disadvantaged students
0.000
0.000
-0.002
0.000
-
-0.004
-0.012**
-0.013**
-0.018***
Backlog before Grade 6
-0.001
-0.006
-0.012
-0.018
-
-0.029*
-0.035***
-0.032***
-0.053***
Team instability
-0.003
0.004
0.004
-0.012**
-
-0.011*
-0.008*
-0.002
-0.001
Parental involvement
0.005
-0.003
-0.003
0.005
-
0.003
0.002
-0.001
-0.003
Outcome at
baseline
-
0.747***
0.687***
-
X
-
0.295**
0.342
SWPBIS
-
-
0.084
-
-
0.131
-
-
0.213***
BL*SWPBIS
-
-
0.081
-
-
-
-
-0.110
R2
0.034
.562***
0.576***
0.195*
-
0.236**
0.387***
0.490***
0.599***
R2 change
0.034
.528***
0.014***
0.195*
-
0.041**
0.387***
0.103***
0.109***
Model fit
Log likelihood
-8192.240
-8172.104
-7828.399
-7827.309
-8862.143
-8848.182
-
-8846.744
-10133.823
-10104.425
-9708.897
-9702.957
Deviance
-16384480
-16344.208
-15656.798
15654618
-17724.286
-17696.364
-
-17.693.488
-20267.646
-20208.850
-19417.794
-19405.914
Free parameters
3
11
12
14
3
11
-
12
3
11
12
14
AIC
16390.480
16366.209
15680.797
15682.619
17730.285
17718.364
-
17717.489
20273.647
20218.678
19441.793
19433.915
BIC
16401.393
16441.173
15762.117
15777.491
17750.356
17791.948
-
17797.762
20294.099
20300.476
19523.129
19528.807
Note. BL = outcome at baseline (T1); ICC = intraclass correlation; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; X = not available. Sex: 1 = girls and 2 = boys. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p <
.001,
