1. Introduction
Creating a supportive and nurturing school and classroom climate is essential for promoting students’ well-being, mental health, and academic success (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Wang et al., 2020). Such a climate is characterized by positive teacher-student relationships, strong peer interactions, and a minimal presence of unconstructive conflicts (Grazia & Molinari, 2020). When schools foster an inclusive and prosocial environment, students are more likely to feel engaged and supported in their learning. Therefore, it is crucial that schools take active measures to cultivate a positive classroom and school climate. Despite its importance, Swedish schools face significant challenges in achieving this ideal. Reports of violence, harassment, and poor working conditions for both teachers and students have raised serious concerns (Barnombudsmannen, 2015; Skolinspektionen, 2020). To address these challenges, this study focuses on School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), a system-level program designed to promote prosocial behaviors and prevent behavior problems by strengthening school and classroom organization (Horner et al., 2017). This project explores the implementation of SWPBIS in Swedish schools, examining how it can help foster a positive and inclusive learning environment while addressing existing behavioral and structural challenges.
1.1. School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) is a comprehensive framework designed to prevent problem behaviors and promote positive social interactions within educational settings. This approach focuses on strengthening the organizational structures of both schools and classrooms to create a supportive and proactive learning climate (Horner et al., 2017). SWPBIS differs from traditional school discipline by emphasizing proactive, positive reinforcement rather than reactive punishment. Traditional approaches typically focus on consequences after misbehavior, often using detentions or suspensions. In contrast, SWPBIS teaches and reinforces expected behaviors through clear guidelines, positive feedback, and targeted support. Central to the program’s design, SWPBIS includes Tier 1 interventions, which are universally implemented across the entire school community to benefit all students and staff (Noltemeyer et al., 2019). These interventions involve proactive strategies, such as defining and communicating positive behavioral expectations, establishing clear rules, and employing effective classroom management practices. The primary goal at this level is to reduce the occurrence of problem behaviors while fostering prosocial behaviors. For students who require additional support, SWPBIS incorporates more targeted approaches through Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. Tier 2 focuses on group-based strategies for students at risk, such as those with frequent behavioral challenges, academic struggles, or poor attendance. Tier 3 provides individualized support for students facing significant behavioral challenges, such as chronic defiance, aggressive behavior, or persistent disruptions, ensuring targeted interventions to address their specific needs. Tier 2 interventions in SWPBIS provide targeted support for at-risk students through practices like check-in/check-out, small group social skills training, behavior contracts, and self-monitoring. These strategies aim to address emerging challenges before they escalate. Tier 3 offers individualized support for students with significant behavioral challenges, including Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA), Behavior Intervention Plans (BIP), counseling, and wraparound services to ensure personalized, intensive care. Together, these tiers form a cohesive framework for addressing a wide range of behavioral needs in schools.
To support the standardized implementation of the program, participating schools received a manual, an adaptation of the N-PALS framework. This manual, called “The IBIS Manual” (Inclusive Behavioral Support in Schools), serves as a structured guide, providing evidence-based strategies, practical tools, and implementation frameworks tailored for the Swedish educational system. It outlines behavioral support strategies, school-wide monitoring systems, classroom management techniques, and methods for fostering teacher-student relationships, ensuring a consistent and structured approach to intervention. Additionally, the manual includes step-by-step guidance for school-based implementation teams, offering direction on training procedures, team formation, and data-driven decision-making. While IBIS maintains fidelity to SWPBIS principles, the manual allows for contextual flexibility, helping schools adapt the framework to their specific needs and organizational contexts.
It is important to emphasize that SWPBIS is not a rigid curriculum, intervention program, or step-by-step manual. Instead, it functions as a flexible, multitiered framework designed to coordinate prosocial behavioral support systems, promoting the overall social, behavioral, and academic development of all students within a school setting (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Key elements of this framework include the use of empirical data—spanning academic and behavioral metrics—to guide informed decision-making. It also incorporates evidence-based strategies drawn from behavioral and biomedical sciences to address challenges effectively, alongside research-validated practices tailored to students’ specific behavioral needs. Furthermore, SWPBIS emphasizes systemic changes, focusing on optimizing school-wide routines and resource allocation to ensure the sustainability and success of the framework (Sugai & Horner, 2009).
A substantial body of evidence demonstrates the positive effects of SWPBIS on school climate and students’ prosocial behavior in both North American (Mitchell et al., 2018) and European contexts (Sørlie & Ogden, 2015; Närhi et al., 2017; Wienen et al., 2019). A comprehensive review by Mitchell et al. (2018) highlighted that the program is associated with reductions in problem behaviors, increases in prosocial behaviors, and improvements in teachers’ and students’ perceptions of school climate. While the research base for SWPBIS in North America is extensive, fewer studies have been conducted in Europe. However, European studies have reported encouraging results regarding student and teacher behaviors, classroom climate, and peer relationships (Wienen et al., 2019; Närhi et al., 2017; Sørlie & Ogden, 2015). Despite these promising findings, the implementation of SWPBIS varies in quality, as it is influenced by contextual factors within schools (Schaper et al., 2016). Understanding which factors are associated with implementation fidelity can provide valuable insights into how the program is adopted and sustained in different educational settings (Kim et al., 2018).
1.2. Implementation Processes and Challenges
The implementation of SWPBIS follows a structured, stage-based approach, beginning with an initial assessment of the school’s readiness for intervention and progressing through phases designed to expand and sustain the program (Sugai & Horner, 2020). Before the implementation begins, schools are required to conduct self-assessments to identify organizational strengths and weaknesses, which then inform the development of detailed implementation plans (Sugai & Horner, 2009). School-based implementation teams play a central role in this process, ensuring that the intervention aligns with the school’s specific context. The implementation teams typically comprise principals, special education teachers, primary school teachers, school psychologists, and school counselors, ensuring a multidisciplinary approach that facilitates effective program adoption and integration within the school environment. These teams are tasked with designing organizational frameworks, allocating necessary resources, and addressing any barriers to successful implementation. Implementation of SW-PBIS programs requires having organizational structures in place from the start, as schools characterized by initial low-quality implementation often face persistent challenges and struggle with sustainability (Sørlie, 2021). Thus, in order to bring sustainable change to school and classroom climates through SWPBIS programs, it is crucial to understand the complex processes that arise as schools navigate the implementation journey. The process also emphasizes continuous data collection to monitor progress and inform decisions. Collaboration among team members and school personnel is critical, fostering a supportive environment for integrating the intervention’s core components. At the heart of this approach, implementation teams act as key drivers, guiding schools toward effective and sustainable adoption of SWPBIS practices.
The initial phase, referred to as the exploration stage, focuses on identifying local contextual challenges and exploring evidence-based practices as potential solutions. This stage sets the foundation for the subsequent installation phase, during which evidence-based programs are thoroughly evaluated, and the necessary resources for implementation are secured. A critical transition follows in the initial implementation phase, where organizational leadership and resources are strategically directed towards the adoption of the new program. Simultaneously, staff competencies in applying the program are cultivated. This phase, often marked by novelty and adjustment, carries a significant risk of program abandonment (Fixsen et al., 2005), which may require revisiting and refining the exploration and installation stages to ensure success. Once the initial implementation phase is successfully navigated, the organization advances to the full implementation stage, where the majority of practitioners achieve professional proficiency in the new program, enabling it to be effectively integrated into regular practice.
The implementation of evidence-based programs has long been recognized as a complex challenge within educational science, as highlighted by McIntosh et al. (2013). Although the gap between research and practice is a well-documented issue across various fields, it is particularly pronounced in educational settings. Schools represent a unique context, characterized by their diverse student populations and countless competing priorities that shape the adoption and execution of evidence-based practices (Wandersman et al., 2008; Cook & Odom, 2013; Forman et al., 2013). These dynamics create distinct barriers and opportunities, underscoring the need for tailored approaches to bridge the research-practice divide in education.
A fundamental aspect of successful implementation is achieving alignment between the program innovation and the local context. Fox et al. (2022) highlight two key dimensions of this alignment: philosophical fit, which refers to the congruence between staff beliefs and the program’s underlying value system, and practical fit, which pertains to the availability of time, resources, and practical solutions within the organization. Ensuring this alignment is essential for maintaining program fidelity while accommodating necessary adaptations. Previous research indicates that schools are more likely to sustain practices such as SWPBIS when the program is tailored to align with the school’s culture and adapted to address specific contextual needs (Flannery et al., 2009; McIntosh et al., 2013; Horner et al., 2014; Pas et al., 2015). Therefore, understanding the perspectives of school professionals during the initial implementation phase is critical to identifying the adaptations required to effectively integrate SWPBIS into the Swedish school context.
1.3. Factors Influencing Implementation of SWPBIS
Research indicates that schools implementing SWPBIS with high fidelity tend to experience greater benefits from the program (Kim et al., 2018; Mitchell et al., 2018). Variability in implementation fidelity has been linked to both school-level contextual factors, such as school size, location, and team functioning, as well as teacher-level factors, including grade level taught and perceptions of classroom climate (Pas et al., 2015). Numerous factors across various levels can hinder the successful implementation of change in the practical actions of school staff. These barriers exist at the macro, organizational, and individual levels (Domitrovich et al., 2008). Macro-level challenges include municipal guidelines or structural obstacles that complicate the implementation process. At the organizational level, practical issues such as limited resources or social dynamics, including insufficient collegial support, may emerge. On the individual level, barriers often stem from inadequate training or resistance to adapting teaching practices to align with program requirements.
This study specifically addresses two factors that are related to the SWPBIS program implementation—classroom climate and problem behaviors—as well as collective self-efficacy. In previous research, teachers’ and students’ perceptions of classroom climate have been studied as both the predictor and the outcome of SWPBIS interventions. On the one hand, SWPBIS affects students’ and teachers’ perceptions of school and classroom climate and fosters students’ prosocial behaviors by targeting school and classroom organization of behavior supports (Mitchell et al., 2018). On the other hand, Pas et al. (2015) emphasize the pivotal role of classroom climate in SWPBIS implementation. A positive classroom climate not only promotes higher fidelity but also enhances the effectiveness of SWPBIS strategies. Teachers at schools that struggle with implementation or have a history of relying on punitive strategies in addressing students’ disruptive behavior may continue to rely on these strategies rather than focusing on encouraging students’ prosocial behaviors (Pas et al., 2015). Disruptive behaviors or high student-to-teacher ratios can impede progress. Interestingly, schools facing significant initial challenges demonstrated notable improvements when provided with adequate support structures. These findings highlight the necessity of addressing classroom-level contextual factors to maximize the implementation quality and ensure the long-term success of SWPBIS interventions.
Another factor that may be related to SWPBIS implementation, teacher self-efficacy, has been identified as a positive outcome of SWPBIS (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012). However, the potential role of teacher self-efficacy in influencing how the program is implemented remains unexplored, highlighting a gap in the literature that warrants further investigation.
Collective efficacy refers to the shared belief in a system’s ability to function effectively, grounded in social cognitive theory, which emphasizes individuals’ expectations of achieving desired outcomes (Bandura, 1993, 1997). Studies have demonstrated that teachers’ collective efficacy is strongly associated with greater commitment to students, improved classroom behavior, and enhanced academic outcomes (Parker et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2011; Gibbs & Powell, 2011). Müller et al. (2024) emphasize that high collective teacher efficacy within teaching teams correlates with a reduction in externalizing behavior problems. This relationship stems from the confidence in collective ability, which strengthens teachers’ capacity to address behavioral challenges effectively and foster prosocial behavior. Schools with strong collective efficacy create an environment of trust and collaboration, promoting persistence, effective planning, and a sense of shared responsibility among teachers while reinforcing positive beliefs about their collective impact (Goddard et al., 2000; Müller et al., 2024). Collective efficacy is further linked to increased job satisfaction and greater resilience against burnout (Capone et al., 2019). Moreover, self-efficacy, a closely related concept, has been shown to predict several critical outcomes, including academic achievement (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002; Schwarzer et al., 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). These findings underscore the central role of both self-efficacy and collective efficacy in shaping teacher effectiveness and overall school success.
Considering the importance of classroom, student, and teacher-related factors in previous research, this study examines whether classroom climate, student problem behaviors, and teacher collective efficacy are related to the implementation fidelity of the SWPBIS program.
1.4. The Swedish School System
The Swedish education system is characterized by a strong commitment to providing students with a safe and supportive school environment, as outlined in Chapter 5 of the Education Act (SFS 2010:800, 2010), which mandates that education be structured to ensure a school climate defined by safety and well-being. Despite ongoing efforts by policymakers, school leaders, and educators to strengthen school leadership and improve classroom environments, many schools lack evidence-based methodologies, programs, and strategies for effectively implementing classroom management practices.
Sweden’s educational market exhibits a liberal ethos, allowing virtually anyone to establish a school. This diversity manifests in a plethora of small, innovative schools alongside larger educational organizations. A recent governmental inquiry (Regeringskansliet, 2020) revealed a decline in educational equity and a rise in segregation within Swedish schools. It is worth noting that the mentioned inquiry revealed that underperforming and behaviorally challenged students are more prevalent in municipal schools, whereas high-achieving students are more often enrolled in private schools.
Many teachers express a strong need to improve their skills in supporting students with special needs and managing behavioral challenges (Karlberg & Bezzina, 2020). Furthermore, mental health challenges and instances of school violence loom large within the Swedish educational landscape (Galanti et al., 2016). Previous research has highlighted the challenges encountered by Swedish schools in implementing evidence-based practices successfully (Ingemarson et al., 2014; Bodin et al., 2016). Consequently, it is important to explore which factors need to be taken into account when implementing the SWPBIS program in Swedish school settings.
1.5. Aim and Research Questions
This article is part of a larger study using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In this study, however, quantitative methods are used to answer the research questions. The aim of the study is to explore factors pertaining to implementation of SWPBIS by investigating differences between schools that implement SWPBIS with high fidelity and those that implement SWPBIS with low fidelity. This overarching aim is articulated through three specific research questions: How do teachers’ perceptions of student problem behaviors at the school and classroom levels influence the fidelity of SWPBIS implementation in participating schools? How does classroom climate affect the fidelity of SWPBIS implementation in participating schools? How does collective teacher efficacy contribute to the fidelity of SWPBIS implementation in participating schools?
2. Materials and Methods
While SWPBIS serves as an evidence-based implementation model for promoting positive behavior and a supportive school environment, the IBIS program (Inclusive Behavioral Support in Schools) represents its tailored adaptation for the Swedish educational context, incorporating principles of inclusion and preventive strategies specific to Swedish schools. Consequently, the term “IBIS” will be used throughout the methods section to reflect this adaptation.
2.1. Participants and Data Collection
The sample was drawn from a study of 38 schools receiving SWPBIS training. Teachers and paraprofessionals in 34 of these schools responded to the pre-survey instruments: “Problem Behaviors in the Classroom”, “Problem Behaviors in the School”, “Classroom Climate”, and “Collective Teacher Efficacy.” The lack of responses from teachers in four schools was due to school management’s failure to provide teachers’ contact details, despite multiple reminders. The teams responsible for SWPBIS implementation were invited to complete the Benchmark of Quality form. Participation was voluntary, and teams in 23 schools chose to take part. The study includes the 21 schools where teachers completed the questionnaires and implementation teams completed the Benchmark of Quality. The number of respondents per school ranged from 3 to 62, and the response rate for the teacher questionnaires was 62.4%. Table 1 displays the number of participants in each professional category represented in the study.
Data collection for all instruments, except the Benchmark of Quality, took place in late October and early November 2022. Data from the Benchmark of Quality instrument were collected in May 2023, after seven months of implementation.
The methodological choices regarding timing and participant sampling were designed to ensure valid, reliable, and comprehensive insights into IBIS implementation fidelity. The timing allowed for an adequate period of program establishment. Since IBIS is a school-wide intervention, involving various educational professionals ensures a comprehensive understanding of its implementation. Sampling across multiple staff roles—teachers, paraprofessionals, and after-school personnel—provides insights into how different professionals contribute to classroom climate and student behavior outcomes.
2.2. The Intervention Program
The Inclusive Behavioral Support in Schools (IBIS) program is Sweden’s adaptation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS). Like its original framework, IBIS follows a tiered approach to behavior support, emphasizing Tier 1 universal interventions to establish clear expectations, reinforce positive behaviors, and promote a structured school climate (Horner et al., 2017). The intervention aims to reduce problem behaviors, enhance student engagement, and improve classroom climate by integrating evidence-based behavioral practices into daily routines.
In this study, IBIS was implemented in 23 Swedish schools, adhering to SWPBIS principles. The intervention focused on defining and reinforcing behavioral expectations, monitoring student behavior through structured data collection, and strengthening teacher-student interactions to foster a positive learning environment. Collaboration among teachers, school staff, and parents was also emphasized to ensure consistency in behavioral expectations.
The implementation followed a structured, stage-based model, with participating schools receiving training, ongoing coaching, and access to the IBIS manual, adapted from the Norwegian N-PALS program (Arnesen et al., 2003). Each school established IBIS implementation teams consisting of leaders, teachers, and support staff, responsible for adapting the program, coordinating training, and ensuring staff engagement. The program was evaluated over seven months, with implementation fidelity assessed using the Benchmark of Quality (BoQ), a validated instrument measuring adherence to key SWPBIS Tier 1 components (Kincaid et al., 2005).
2.3. Procedures of Implementing the IBIS Program
Initially, information about the IBIS initiative was disseminated to all municipal schools in Sweden’s fifty largest municipalities and all private schools belonging to the five largest school corporations. Subsequently, principals displaying interest were invited to attend an informational session. During the initial assembly, the principals were briefed on IBIS and the proposed implementation plans. Moreover, they were apprised of the inclusion criteria for participation, as delineated by Arnesen et al. (2003): (1) Schools must exhibit a necessity to cultivate positive behaviors and foster a supportive learning milieu. (2) A minimum of 80% of school staff must express willingness to participate in the program implementation. (3) Endorsement and active engagement from school management in support of implementation are imperative. (4) Schools are required to identify and define at least one improvement target within the institution. (5) Endorsement and active involvement from parents, school administration, and other professional groups are indispensable. (6) Schools must demonstrate readiness to allocate adequate time and resources for a comprehensive 3-year implementation. (7) Schools must commit to contributing to data collection for evaluation purposes.
All participating schools unanimously concurred with the outlined inclusion criteria. Subsequently, principals expressing interest were convened for a detailed information session, providing an in-depth overview of the supportive components within IBIS, as per Arnesen et al. (2003). This involved clarification on the rationale, theoretical underpinnings, implementation strategy, and a synopsis of previous research on SWPBIS and N-PALS programs. Principals were duly informed that IBIS implementation entails a minimum 3-year commitment. Principals interested in proceeding were tasked with disseminating information about IBIS to their school staff and assessing staff attitudes towards implementation.
Interested schools were then tasked with forming a local team (IBIS team) responsible for the implementation of IBIS and its adaptation to the school’s conditions and needs. Each IBIS team comprised five to six members, including the principal and representatives from diverse occupational categories, along with personnel specializing in student health. To prepare for IBIS implementation, the IBIS teams from these schools received introductory lectures on the supportive components of the program.
2.4. Measurements
The study utilized several validated instruments to assess problem behaviors, classroom climate, and collective teacher efficacy, as well as to evaluate the fidelity of IBIS implementation. Each measurement tool was selected based on its reliability and previous use in similar research contexts. Table 2 provides a summary of the key details for each instrument, including the source, number of items, scale format, internal consistency values, and other relevant metrics.
Below, each measurement instrument is described in terms of its content and application in the study.
2.4.1. Problem Behaviors in the Classroom
Students’ problem behaviors in the classroom were assessed using the Problem Behaviors in the Classroom survey (Grey & Sime, 1989; Sørlie et al., 2015). The measure has been utilized in research evaluating the effectiveness of School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) in Norway (Sørlie et al., 2015). For instance, teachers report how often students have broken class rules, arrived late, or verbally attacked peers.
2.4.2. Problem Behaviors in the School
Students’ problem behaviors in school were assessed using the Problem Behaviors in the School questionnaire (Grey & Sime, 1989; Sørlie et al., 2015). Teachers reported the frequency of various problem behaviors, such as running in the hallway, rude comments to teachers, and shoplifting, occurring within the school during the past week.
2.4.3. Classroom Climate
The Classroom Climate instrument was utilized to assess the overall quality of the learning environment in the classroom. Teachers assess various aspects of the classroom climate, such as “The students in the class are good friends”, “The students usually complete assigned tasks”, and “The students are interested and active during lessons.”
2.4.4. Collective Teacher Efficacy
Teachers’ beliefs in their collective efficacy in enhancing student achievement, managing challenging classroom behaviors, and implementing effective instructional strategies were assessed using the Collective Teacher Efficacy measure. Teachers assess the collective ability to perform professional duties, with statements like “The teachers at this school have what it takes to help students learn”, “If a student does not want to learn, the teachers give up”, and “Teachers at this school master several teaching methods”.
2.4.5. Benchmarks of Quality
The Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ; Kincaid et al., 2005) provide the teams responsible for implementing SWPBIS in the school with a validated, reliable tool to assess the fidelity of Tier 1 implementation, identify key strengths and areas for improvement, and monitor effectiveness over time. The BoQ can serve multiple functions: (a) initial assessment to determine PBIS use or the need for Tier 1 training, (b) guidance on Tier 1 practices, (c) a metric for sustained fidelity of Tier 1, and (d) a benchmark for recognizing schools within state PBIS efforts, including model schools. This tool supports both the initial implementation and ongoing use of PBIS Tier 1.
The ten subscales of the BoQ outline the core components necessary for a successful SWPBIS framework. (1) The SWPBIS Team subscale examines whether the team benefits from administrative backing, meets regularly, and works with a well-defined mission. (2) The Faculty Commitment subscale evaluates the extent of staff awareness regarding behavioral challenges, their participation in goal-setting, and the frequency of school-wide communication of SWPBIS data. (3) The Effective Discipline Procedures subscale highlights the need for established systems to handle discipline incidents, including precise documentation and differentiation between minor and major infractions. (4) The Data Entry & Analysis Plan subscale investigates the presence and application of a system to gather and analyze behavioral data—such as when, where, and how often incidents occur—to guide SWPBIS strategies. (5) The Expectations & Rules Developed subscale ensures the establishment of clear, positive expectations and rules that apply school-wide, are effectively communicated to both students and staff, and are reinforced through visible signage in key areas. (6) The Reward/Recognition Program subscale focuses on maintaining a consistent and engaging student reward system, incorporating feedback from both staff and students to sustain participation and interest. (7) The Lesson Plans for Teaching Expectations/Rules subscale evaluates the creation and implementation of a behavioral curriculum, complete with lesson plans that teach expectations and rules across different subjects. (8) The Implementation Plan subscale examines the presence of structured training programs for staff and students, aimed at introducing and maintaining SWPBIS practices, with additional support provided for new employees and students. (9) The Classroom Systems subscale assesses unified behavior management strategies within classrooms, including clearly articulated routines, rules, and a balanced use of praise and correction. Finally, (10) the Evaluation subscale reviews how data is utilized to assess SWPBIS outcomes, such as disciplinary trends and school climate, while incorporating feedback from students and staff to improve the overall plan.
2.5. Data Analyses
The first step in analyzing the data was to examine the internal consistency of the measurement instruments. For each question, items with a correlation than 0.30 were excluded, following Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, p. 304). Internal consistency reflects the degree to which items within a scale measure the same underlying construct. Following established guidelines (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), a Cronbach’s alpha value of ≥0.70 was considered acceptable, indicating moderate reliability, while values above 0.80 were deemed high. By assessing and reporting internal consistency, the study ensures that the scales provide reliable and robust data for the analyses.
Less than 1% of data were missing (427 out of 46,363 cells). However, excluding observations with item nonresponse can result in reduced efficiency due to a smaller sample size and may lead to biased inferences if the nonresponse is associated with the variable of interest (Schunk, 2008). Therefor missing data were imputed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, following the recommendations of Widaman (2006). Imputation was performed using SAS 9.4 software, as suggested by Acock (2005). The MCMC method for imputation introduces less bias compared to traditional approaches like excluding cases with missing data, next observation carried forward, mean substitution, and listwise deletion (Acock, 2005). Data from the various measurement instruments were imputed separately to maintain methodological rigor.
The next step was to dichotomize the data. The cutoff point for dichotomization was set as close to the mean as possible, with the aim of obtaining two groups of relatively equal size.
To examine the relationships between SWPBIS implementation fidelity and the studied factors—problem behaviors in the classroom, problem behaviors at the school level, the classroom climate, and collective teacher efficacy—chi-square tests for independence (χ2) were conducted. This statistical method was used to determine whether the observed frequencies of outcomes across groups with high and low implementation fidelity significantly differed from expected frequencies.
The data for each variable were dichotomized based on a cutoff point close to the mean to create two groups: one representing “low” levels and the other representing “high” levels for each factor (see Table 3). The chi-square test was then applied to assess associations between the two implementation fidelity groups (high and low fidelity) and the dichotomized variables. Statistical significance was evaluated at p < 0.05, and missing data were excluded from the analyses.
This approach allowed for an exploration of whether the implementation fidelity of SWPBIS was associated with variations in behavioral and organizational factors within the participating schools.
3. Results
As shown in Figure 1, the degree of implementation varied greatly. In school 23, implementation had hardly started, while school 3 had already reached 82 points, which corresponds to almost 79%, i.e., well above the 70% threshold.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the difference in implementation fidelity is pronounced. The figure also shows that the gap between groups is smallest in the initial phases of the program.
For Problem Behaviors in the Classroom, the mean scores were similar between schools with low fidelity and high fidelity in IBIS program implementation (see Table 3). Similarly, for Problem Behaviors in the School, the mean scores were also comparable between low-fidelity and high-fidelity schools. Regarding the Classroom Climate, schools with high fidelity showed slightly better conditions than low fidelity schools. Collective Teacher Efficacy scores were nearly identical across low-fidelity and high-fidelity schools, see Table 4.
A series of chi-square tests were conducted to examine the relationship between IBIS program fidelity and various outcomes. The results of the chi-square tests revealed notable patterns in the relationship between IBIS implementation fidelity and various school factors. No significant association was found between IBIS fidelity and problem behaviors, either at the classroom level or across the school as a whole. Schools with high and low implementation fidelity exhibited similar levels of reported student problem behaviors before implementation, suggesting that the extent of behavioral challenges at the outset of the study was not systematically linked to how IBIS was later implemented. Similarly, no significant relationship was found between IBIS fidelity and collective teacher efficacy, as assessed before implementation. This indicates that the level of collective teacher efficacy at the start of the study was not related to the degree of implementation fidelity observed after seven months. In contrast, classroom climate was the only factor significantly associated with IBIS fidelity. Schools that reported a poorer classroom climate before implementation were more likely to implement IBIS with high fidelity after seven months. This suggests that schools experiencing greater challenges in classroom conditions may have been more inclined to engage rigorously with structured interventions. However, this association does not imply that classroom climate directly influenced fidelity, nor does it suggest that IBIS implementation altered classroom climate. These findings highlight associations between pre-existing school conditions and the level of implementation after seven months, without indicating causal relationships between the examined factors and IBIS fidelity. For details, see Table 5.
To provide additional context for the chi-square analyses, Cramér’s V was calculated as a measure of effect size for each association. The results indicate that the associations between IBIS implementation fidelity and problem behaviors in the classroom, problem behaviors in the school, and collective teacher efficacy were very small. The association between classroom climate and implementation fidelity was slightly stronger, approaching the threshold for a small effect. According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, Cramér’s V values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 are generally considered small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Based on these benchmarks, the results suggest that the observed relationships were weak, with classroom climate showing the strongest association with implementation fidelity. These findings further reinforce that while certain contextual factors may be linked to IBIS implementation, their influence appears to be limited in magnitude. For details, see Table 5.
4. Discussion
The analysis found no statistically significant link between the frequency of problem behaviors at the start of implementation and the program’s fidelity after seven months. However, schools with a poorer classroom climate at the outset showed significantly higher fidelity in implementing the program after seven months. Interestingly, the level of implementation fidelity did not vary between schools with higher or lower collective teacher efficacy. In summary, the fidelity of the IBIS program was most strongly associated with the initial classroom climate, while no meaningful connection was observed with problem behaviors or collective teacher efficacy.
The fact that teachers’ ratings of collective self-efficacy and problem behaviors were not significantly associated with implementation fidelity suggests that fidelity to SWPBIS implementation may be driven more by structural and organizational factors—such as leadership support, resource allocation, and professional development—rather than by pre-existing classroom conditions or teacher beliefs. The complexity of implementation processes highlights the need for further research into these broader contextual factors, particularly the role of school-wide support and long-term engagement in sustaining evidence-based interventions, as articulated in previous research (Flannery et al., 2009; Pas et al., 2015).
To some extent, the findings of this study are consistent with prior research that identifies factors influencing the implementation of SWPBIS. For example, Sørlie et al. (2018) emphasized that the effects of SWPBIS can vary significantly depending on the specific school context. Furthermore, classroom level processes and the teachers’ approaches in daily interactions with their students have been underscored as central to the success of implementation of SWPBIS programs (Pas et al., 2015; Sørlie, 2021). This is consistent with the study’s results of significant associations between teachers’ ratings of classroom climate and fidelity of implementation. The results indicate that schools with a poorer classroom climate at baseline may be more motivated to implement the program rigorously to tackle their existing challenges. Thus, schools starting with a less favorable classroom climate appeared more inclined to adopt SWPBIS with high fidelity, potentially as a response to their immediate needs.
These findings also support the conclusions of Fox et al. (2022), who highlighted the critical importance of ensuring compatibility between intervention programs and the contexts in which they are implemented. Schools facing more significant challenges, such as a poor classroom climate, may view structured frameworks like SWPBIS as essential tools for addressing their issues. Consequently, these schools are often more willing to allocate resources, dedicate time, and adhere strictly to program guidelines. This heightened commitment may stem from a pressing need to manage visible and urgent problems within their environments, driving a proactive approach to intervention and sustainability.
Previous research has emphasized the importance of collective teacher efficacy in schools’ ability to implement change and address challenges. However, the findings of this study did not reveal a significant relationship between collective teacher efficacy and SWPBIS implementation fidelity, suggesting that collective teacher efficacy may not be a determining factor in the initial stages of implementation but rather a product of successful program execution (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012). One possible explanation for this is that school-wide behavior interventions require strong administrative leadership, well-defined implementation frameworks, and ongoing training, all of which may play a more direct role in early implementation than collective efficacy. Additionally, collective teacher efficacy may develop gradually as teachers begin to observe positive outcomes from SWPBIS in their schools, reinforcing the idea that it emerges as an effect of program success rather than a prerequisite for high-fidelity implementation. Another consideration is that collective teacher efficacy has been found to be more closely related to instructional practices than to behavioral intervention programs (Gibbs & Powell, 2011). Teachers may feel confident in their collective ability to improve student learning but less certain about implementing school-wide behavioral initiatives, particularly if they have not received extensive training in SWPBIS strategies. Furthermore, high teacher stress and burnout can weaken collective teacher efficacy, which may further limit its impact on program fidelity (Capone et al., 2019). Schools facing staff turnover or low morale may struggle to translate collective efficacy into strong implementation practices. These findings suggest that collective teacher efficacy alone may not be sufficient to drive high-fidelity SWPBIS implementation.
The absence of significant associations between problem behaviors in classrooms or at the school level and the degree of program implementation is somewhat unexpected. One might expect that problem behaviors, much like poor classroom climate, would correlate with higher levels of program implementation, as schools prioritize interventions to address behavioral challenges. However, the findings of this study suggest the opposite—problem behaviors in schools and classrooms may actually hinder the implementation process. This outcome aligns with the argument made by Pas et al. (2015), who suggested that behavioral issues can obstruct effective program adoption due to increased teacher stress and administrative burden. One possible explanation is that teachers working with students who exhibit higher levels of problem behaviors may become reliant on punitive classroom management strategies, making it more difficult for them to adopt and consistently apply the positive support strategies emphasized in SWPBIS. Additionally, schools with high levels of student problem behaviors often face structural challenges, such as staff burnout, high turnover, and inconsistent discipline policies, which may further impede SWPBIS implementation (Pas et al., 2015). Research suggests that behavioral improvements resulting from SWPBIS may follow a delayed trajectory, with significant reductions in problem behaviors emerging only after multiple years of consistent implementation (Sørlie et al., 2018). Thus, the seven-month timeframe of this study may not have been sufficient to capture these long-term effects. Another potential factor is implementation fatigue, where teachers in high-disruption environments may struggle to maintain fidelity to structured interventions, instead resorting to reactive, punitive discipline strategies that conflict with the principles of SWPBIS (Sørlie, 2021). Furthermore, schools with well-established leadership, staff collaboration, and strong resource availability may find it easier to implement SWPBIS effectively, regardless of their baseline levels of problem behavior (Horner et al., 2017). These findings highlight the complex relationship between problem behaviors and program fidelity, suggesting that implementation fidelity is not solely driven by the severity of behavioral challenges but also by broader organizational factors such as leadership engagement, professional development, and staff perceptions of program feasibility.
5. Conclusions
This study examined factors influencing the implementation fidelity of the School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) program, adapted as Inclusive Behavioral Support in Schools (IBIS) in Sweden. The findings indicate that classroom climate plays a significant role in SWPBIS implementation, with schools experiencing poorer initial classroom conditions engaging more actively in the intervention. However, no significant associations were found between student problem behaviors or collective teacher efficacy and implementation fidelity, suggesting that these factors may not directly influence implementation success. These results contribute to the broader understanding of how school context and organizational conditions shape intervention fidelity, highlighting the need for strategic adaptation and support mechanisms in implementation processes.
The findings emphasize the importance of contextual adaptation in ensuring the successful implementation of SWPBIS. Since Sweden’s version of the framework required alignment with national inclusion policies and school structures, similar modifications may be necessary in other educational contexts to ensure compatibility with local policies, cultural expectations, and governance models. The study also underscores the critical role of organizational support, leadership, and resource allocation in shaping implementation fidelity. Schools with strong administrative engagement and sufficient training resources may be more likely to sustain high-quality implementation, whereas schools without these supports may struggle, even when teachers collectively believe in their ability to implement changes. Furthermore, the findings suggest that schools facing greater classroom challenges may view structured interventions as essential tools for improvement, which could explain why lower ratings of classroom climate were linked to greater adherence to SWPBIS strategies.
Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the seven-month timeframe provides only a short-term perspective on implementation, making it difficult to capture longitudinal trends or delayed effects of classroom climate, teacher efficacy, and problem behaviors on fidelity. Extending the duration of analysis in future research would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term impact of SWPBIS. Second, while data imputation was used to address missing values, imputed values are estimates rather than actual observations, which introduces a theoretical risk of minor distortions. However, given that less than 1% of the data required imputation, and research findings suggesting that missing data levels below 5% rarely impact statistical validity (Jakobsen et al., 2017; Little & Rubin, 2019), this limitation is unlikely to have affected the overall conclusions. Additionally, as the study is based on self-reports, there is a risk of social desirability bias or subjective interpretation in teachers’ assessments of classroom climate, student problem behaviors, and collective efficacy. Third, it is important to note that the findings are correlational rather than causal. While associations between SWPBIS implementation fidelity and various school, classroom, and teacher factors were examined, no conclusions can be drawn about cause-and-effect relationships. The study does not account for potential confounding variables, such as school leadership support, staff professional development, or broader contextual influences (e.g., school size, socio-economic background of students), which may play a role in shaping implementation fidelity. Another limitation is that the study was conducted within the Swedish educational system, where unique policy frameworks and school governance structures may limit generalizability to other national contexts. Finally, the study does not account for other sources of bias that may have influenced the results. Selection bias may have affected which schools chose to participate, and implementation bias could be present due to differences in the extent to which schools adhered to the program. Schools with strong administrative engagement and sufficient training resources may be more likely to sustain high-quality implementation, whereas schools without these supports may struggle, even when teachers collectively believe in their ability to implement changes.
To further develop these findings, future research should explore the long-term impact of SWPBIS implementation to assess whether the observed effects persist over time and whether additional variables, such as leadership style or stakeholder support, influence implementation fidelity. Investigating how leadership styles impact SWPBIS adoption may provide valuable insights into how different leadership approaches either facilitate or hinder implementation success. Additionally, further research on resource allocation and its effects on program adherence could identify how staff training, professional development, and administrative support contribute to implementation fidelity. Incorporating mixed-methods approaches that combine quantitative outcome data with qualitative insights from teachers and school leaders would provide a more nuanced understanding of implementation challenges. Lastly, examining SWPBIS implementation across different national contexts would allow researchers to assess how policy frameworks, cultural expectations, and school governance structures impact program fidelity and adaptation. Addressing these areas in future studies will contribute to a more refined understanding of how to support schools in implementing evidence-based behavioral interventions, ensuring their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.
This study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority on 1 November 2022, reference number 2022-03482-01.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Swedish Act (2003: 460) on Ethics Review of Research Involving Human Subjects. Written consent to participate in the study was obtained from teachers.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to confidentiality agreements protecting the privacy of participants.
The author declares no competing interests.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Degree of implementation according to BoQ, by school (maximum score is 107). Schools represented by a white bar are those that have implemented PBS to a low degree, while those with a gray bar indicate a higher level of PBS implementation.
Figure 2 Degree of implementation according to BoQ, categorized by subscales (maximum score per subscale in parentheses).
The number of participants in the study by professional category.
| Professional Category | N |
|---|---|
| Primary school teachers | 480 |
| After-school program teachers | 79 |
| Special education teachers | 47 |
| Paraprofessionals | 37 |
| Preschool teachers | 10 |
Summary of measurement instruments used in the study.
| Scale Name | Source | No. of Items | Scale Format | Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s α) | Other Metrics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Behaviors in the Classroom | 19 (20) | 5-point Likert (Never to Several times a day) | 0.91 | Maximum score: 95, Mean: 39.70, SD: 11.90, N = 610 | |
| Problem Behaviors in the School | 13 (15) | 5-point Likert (Never to Several times a day) | 0.88 | Maximum score: 65, Mean: 26.98, SD: 8.84, N = 607 | |
| Classroom Climate | 12 (14) | 4-point Likert (Does not apply at all to Applies very well) | 0.88 | Maximum score: 52, Mean: 42.49, SD: 6.00, N = 598 | |
| Collective Teacher Efficacy | 17 (21) | 6-point Likert (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) | 0.87 | Maximum score: 102, Mean: 73.62, SD: 10.64, N = 598 | |
| Benchmark of Quality (BoQ) | 53 | Likert scale, 2 to 4 response alternatives | 0.88, based on the ten subscales | Maximum score: 107. Mean: 35.29, SD: 20.25, N = 653. |
Note: Items were omitted due to low correlation with the total scale. Original number of items in parentheses.
The number of teachers in each group after dichotomization.
| Measurement | Low/Negative | High/Positive |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Behaviors in the Classroom | 304 | 313 |
| Problem Behaviors in the School | 305 | 302 |
| Classroom Climate | 286 | 312 |
| Collective Teacher Efficacy | 296 | 302 |
| Benchmark of Quality | 340 | 313 |
Means and standard deviations of the outcome measures, based on the results of the Benchmark of Quality questionnaire.
| Measurement | Low Fidelity (BoQ) | High Fidelity (BoQ) |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Behaviors in the Classroom | 40.35 (12.64) | 39.08 (11.14) |
| Problem Behaviors in the School | 27.31 (9.25) | 26.67 (8.44) |
| Classroom Climate | 38.33 (5.98) | 39.07 (5.70) |
| Collective Teacher Efficacy | 73.43 (10.61) | 73.80 (10.68) |
Expected and observed frequencies of Problem Behaviors in the Classroom, Problem Behaviors in the School, Classroom Climate, and Collective Teacher Efficacy based on the results of the Benchmark of Quality questionnaire.
| Measurement | Group | Low Fidelity (BoQ) | High Fidelity (BoQ) | χ2 | p-Value | Cramér’s V | Freq. Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Behaviors in the Classroom | More | 151 (157) | 155 (149) | 0.66 | 0.42 | 0.03 | 43 |
| Less | 161 (155) | 143 (149) | |||||
| Problem Behaviors in the School | More | 146 (155) | 156 (147) | 2.01 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 46 |
| Less | 166 (157) | 139 (148) | |||||
| Classroom Climate | Better | 174 (160) | 138 (152) | 5.14 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 55 |
| Poorer | 132 (146) | 154 (140) | |||||
| Collective Teacher | Better | 174 (160) | 138 (152) | 0.16 | 0.69 | 0.02 | 55 |
| Poorer | 132 (146) | 154 (140) |
Acock, A. C. Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family; 2005; 67,
Aldridge, J. M.; McChesney, K. The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research; 2018; 88, pp. 121-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012]
Arnesen, A.; Ogden, T.; Sørlie, M.-A. Positiv atferd, støttende læringsmiljø og samhandling i skolen. Et skoleomfattende tiltaksprogram [Positive behavior, supportive learning environment, and interaction in schools: A school-wide intervention program]. Spesialpedagogikk; 2003; 9, pp. 18-27.
Bandura, A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist; 1993; 28,
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control; W. H. Freeman: 1997.
Barnombudsmannen. Välkommen till verkligheten. Barn och unga om samhällets stöd vid kränkningar och trakasserier i skolan [Welcome to reality: Children and youth on society’s support in cases of bullying and harassment in school]; Children’s Ombudsman: 2015; Available online: https://www.barnombudsmannen.se (accessed on 3 February 2025).
Bodin, M. C.; South, S. H.; Ingemarson, M. A quasi-randomized trial of a school-wide universal prevention program: Results and lessons learned. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research; 2016; 60,
Capone, V.; Joshanloo, M.; Park, M. S.-A. Burnout, depression, efficacy beliefs, and work-related variables among school teachers. International Journal of Educational Research; 2019; 95, pp. 97-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.001]
Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences; 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates: 1988.
Cook, B. G.; Odom, S. L. Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children; 2013; 79,
Domitrovich, C. E.; Bradshaw, C. P.; Poduska, J.; Hoagwood, K.; Buckley, J.; Olin, S.; Romanelli, L. H.; Leaf, P. J.; Greenberg, M. T.; Ialongo, N. S. Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion: Training and Practice, Research and Policy; 2008; 1,
Fixsen, D. L.; Naoom, S. F.; Blase, K. A.; Friedman, R. M.; Wallace, F. Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature; FMHI Publication #231 University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network: 2005.
Flannery, K. B.; Sugai, G.; Anderson, C. M. School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions; 2009; 11,
Forman, S. G.; Shapiro, E. S.; Codding, R. S.; Gonzales, J. E.; Reddy, L. A.; Rosenfield, S. A.; Sanetti, L. M. H.; Stoiber, K. C.; Jimerson, S. R. Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly; 2013; 28,
Fox, R. A.; Leif, E. S.; Moore, D. W.; Furlonger, B.; Anderson, A.; Sharma, U. A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Education & Treatment of Children; 2022; 45,
Galanti, M. R.; Hultin, H.; Dalman, C.; Engström, K.; Ferrer-Wreder, L.; Forsell, Y.; Karlberg, M.; Lavebratt, C.; Magnusson, C.; Sundell, K.; Zhou, J.; Almroth, M.; Raffetti, E. School environment and mental health in early adolescence—A longitudinal study in Sweden (KUPOL). BMC Psychiatry; 2016; 16,
Gibbs, S.; Powell, B. Teacher efficacy and pupil behaviour: The structure of teachers’ individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with numbers of pupils excluded from school. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2011; 82,
Goddard, R. D.; Hoy, W. K.; Woolfolk Hoy, A. Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal; 2000; 37,
Grazia, V.; Molinari, L. School climate multidimensionality and measurement: A systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education; 2020; 36,
Grey, J.; Sime, N. Elton, R. Findings from the national survey of teachers in England and Wales. Discipline in schools. Report of the Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton; Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: 1989; pp. 222-250.
Horner, R. H.; Kincaid, D.; Sugai, G.; Lewis, T.; Eber, L.; Barrett, S.; Dickey, C. R.; Richter, M.; Sullivan, E.; Boezio, C.; Algozzine, B.; Reynolds, H.; Johnson, N. Scaling up School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Experiences of seven states with documented success. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions; 2014; 16,
Horner, R. H.; Sugai, G.; Fixsen, D. L. Implementing effective educational practices at scales of social importance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review; 2017; 20,
Ingemarson, M.; Rubenson, B.; Bodin, M.; Guldbrandsson, K. Implementation of a school-wide prevention programme-teachers’ and headmasters’ perceptions of organizational capacity. Evaluation and Program Planning; 2014; 43, pp. 48-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.10.005]
Jakobsen, J. C.; Gluud, C.; Wetterslev, J.; Winkel, P. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomized clinical trials?. BMC Medical Research Methodology; 2017; 17,
Karlberg, M.; Bezzina, C. The professional development needs of beginning teachers in central Sweden. Professional Development in Education; 2020; 48,
Kelm, J. L.; McIntosh, K. Effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools; 2012; 49, pp. 137-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20624]
Kim, J.; McIntosh, K.; Mercer, S. H.; Nese, R. N. T. Longitudinal associations between SWPBIS fidelity of implementation and behavior and academic outcomes. Behavioral Disorders; 2018; 43,
Kincaid, D.; Childs, K.; George, H. School-wide benchmarks of quality [Unpublished Instrument]; University of South Florida: 2005.
Lee, J. C.-K.; Zhang, Z.; Yin, H. A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher commitment to students. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education; 2011; 27,
Little, R. J. A.; Rubin, D. B. Statistical analysis with missing data; Wiley: 2019.
McIntosh, K.; Mercer, S. H.; Hume, A. E.; Frank, J. L.; Turri, M. G.; Mathews, S. Factors related to sustained implementation of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support. Exceptional Children; 2013; 79,
Mitchell, B. S.; Hatton, H.; Lewis, T. J. An examination of the evidence-base of School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports through two quality appraisal processes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions; 2018; 20,
Moos, R. H.; Trickett, E. J. The classroom environment scale; Consulting Psychology Press: 1974.
Muijs, D.; Reynolds, D. Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters?. Journal of Classroom Interaction; 2002; 37,
Müller, P. M.; Behr, J.; Yada, T.; Eells, R.; Leidig, T.; Hennemann, T. Collective teacher efficacy in context of students’ externalizing behavior problems: A systematic review. International Journal of Special Education; 2024; 39,
Närhi, V.; Kiiski, T.; Savolainen, H. Reducing disruptive behaviours and improving classroom behavioural climate with class-wide positive behaviour support in middle schools. British Educational Research Journal; 2017; 43,
Noltemeyer, A.; Palmer, K.; James, A. G.; Wiechman, S. School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS): A synthesis of existing research. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology; 2019; 7,
Nunnally, J. C.; Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric theory; McGraw-Hill: 1994.
Parker, K.; Hannah, E.; Topping, K. J. Collective teacher efficacy, pupil attainment and socio-economic status in primary school. Improving Schools; 2006; 9,
Pas, E. T.; Waasdorp, T. E.; Bradshaw, C. P. Examining contextual influences on classroom-based implementation of Positive Behavior Support strategies: Findings from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Prevention Science; 2015; 16,
Regeringskansliet. En mer likvärdig skola: Minskad skolsegregation och förbättrad resurstilldelning [A more equitable school: Reduced school segregation and improved resource allocation] (SOU 2020:28). Norstedts Juridik; Government Offices of Sweden: 2020; Available online: https://www.regeringen.se (accessed on 3 February 2025).
Schaper, A.; McIntosh, K.; Hoselton, R.; Gilman, R. C.; Jimerson, S. R. Within-year fidelity growth of SWPBIS during installation and initial implementation. School Psychology Quarterly; 2016; 31,
Schunk, D. A Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for multiple imputation in large surveys. Advances in Statistical Analysis: AStA: A Journal of the German Statistical Society; 2008; 92,
Schwarzer, R.; Schmitz, G. S.; Tang, C. Teacher burnout in Hong Kong and Germany: A cross-cultural validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Anxiety, Stress & Coping; 2000; 13,
SFS 2010:800. Skollagen [The education act]; 11th ed. Norstedts Juridik: 2010.
Skaalvik, E. M.; Skaalvik, S. Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2010; 26,
Skolinspektionen [The Swedish School Inspectorate]. 2020; Annual report 2020 [Årsrapport 2020]. Available online: https://www.skolinspektionen.se (accessed on 3 February 2025).
Sørlie, M.-A. Structural, cultural and instructional predictors essential to sustained implementation fidelity in schools: The School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Model (SWPBS). International Journal of Educational Research Open; 2021; 2, 100082. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100082]
Sørlie, M.-A.; Idsoe, T.; Ogden, T.; Olseth, A. R.; Torsheim, T. Behavioral trajectories during middle childhood: Differential effects of the School-Wide Positive Behavior Support model. Prevention Science; 2018; 19,
Sørlie, M.-A.; Ogden, T. School-Wide Positive Behavior Support-Norway. Impacts on problem behavior and classroom climate. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology; 2015; 3,
Sørlie, M.-A.; Ogden, T.; Olseth, A. R. Preventing problem behavior in school through school-wide staff empowerment: Intervention outcomes. World Journal of Educational Research; 2015; 2,
Sugai, G.; Horner, R. H. Responsiveness-to-Intervention and School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality: The Official Journal of the Division for Research of the Council for Exceptional Children; 2009; 17,
Sugai, G.; Horner, R. H. Sustaining and scaling Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional Children; 2020; 86,
Wandersman, A.; Duffy, J.; Flaspohler, P.; Noonan, R.; Lubell, K.; Stillman, L.; Blachman, M.; Dunville, R.; Saul, J. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology; 2008; 41,
Wang, M.-T.; L. Degol, J.; Amemiya, J.; Parr, A.; Guo, J. Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review; 2020; 57, 100912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912]
Widaman, K. F. III. Missing data: What to do with or without them. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development; 2006; 71,
Wienen, A. W.; Reijnders, I.; Aggelen, M. H.; Bos, E. H.; Batstra, L.; Jonge, P. The relative impact of school-wide positive behavior support on teachers’ perceptions of student behavior across schools, teachers, and students. Psychology in the Schools; 2019; 56,
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
