Critical Incidents in Sustaining School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify, categorize, and describe practitioners’ perspectives regarding factors that help and hinder sustainability of Tier I (universal) systems within School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS). Seventeen participants involved in sustaining Tier I SWPBIS over several years within a school district were interviewed and asked what events affected its long-term implementation through a qualitative approach called the Critical Incident Technique (CIT). A total of 227 critical incidents were recorded and sorted into emergent unitary clusters based on content analysis. These categories then underwent rigorous reliability and validity checks, including expert analysis, inter-rater agreement, and participant feedback. This process yielded 13 categories that represent the participants’ experience of sustainability: Continuous Teaching, Positive Reinforcement, SWPBIS Team Effectiveness, Staff Ownership, School Administrator Involvement, Adaptation, Community of Practice, Use of Data, Involving New Personnel, Access to External Expertise, Maintaining Priority, Staff Turnover, and Conflict of Personal Beliefs/Mistaken Beliefs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it