Factors Predicting Sustained Implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 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
Sustained implementation of effective behavior support systems and practices is critical for improving academic and behavior outcomes for students with and without disabilities. Although implementation studies have identified variables facilitating sustained implementation of Tier 1 behavior support systems in schools, little research exists examining Tier 2 and 3 behavior support systems. The purpose of this 5-year prospective study was to identify practice, school, and district variables facilitating sustained implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 behavior support systems in schools. The sample included 646 schools implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) across 23 U.S. states. Using structural equation modeling, we found several key variables to be predictive of sustained implementation (sustained implementation and implementation quality) of Tier 2 (Tiers 1 and 2 fidelity in Year 1 and a general Tiers 2 and 3 sustainability factor) and Tier 3 behavior support systems (Tier 1 and Tier 3 fidelity in Year 1 and a general Tiers 2 and 3 sustainability factor). Implications for how district and school leadership teams can improve sustained implementation of Tiers 2 and 3 behavior support systems 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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