Perceptions of Contextual Features Related to Implementation and Sustainability of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
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 assess the perceived importance of specific contextual variables for initial implementation and sustainability of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS). A large, national sample of 257 school team members completed the School-Wide Universal Behavior Sustainability Index: School Teams, a research-validated measure of variables influencing sustainability of schoolwide behavior interventions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to assess perceptions of the most and least important variables for initial implementation and sustainability, as well as variables perceived as more important to sustainability than initial implementation. Across quantitative and qualitative analyses, results indicated that administrator support and school team functioning were rated as the most important features for both initial implementation and sustainability, whereas barriers to SWPBS were rated as relatively less important. Staff support, integration into typical practice, and parent involvement were rated as significantly more important to sustainability than initial implementation. These results were consistent across types of raters and schools. Implications for enhancing implementation and sustainability of SWPBS are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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