Re-Examining the Reliability and Validity of the SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory

IF 1.4 3区心理学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions Pub Date : 2023-05-09 DOI:10.1177/10983007231167606

Nicolette M. Grasley-Boy, Nicholas A. Gage, Michael Lombardo, Lucas Anderson

{"title":"Re-Examining the Reliability and Validity of the SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory","authors":"Nicolette M. Grasley-Boy, Nicholas A. Gage, Michael Lombardo, Lucas Anderson","doi":"10.1177/10983007231167606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"School-wide positive behavior interventions and supports (SWPBIS) is widely implemented across the United States. Evidence suggests that SWPBIS, when implemented with fidelity, has a significant and positive impact on schools, including lower suspensions and higher reading and mathematics achievement. A critical component of this research is measuring fidelity of SWPBIS implementation in schools. In this study, we re-evaluated the reliability and validity of a widely used fidelity tool, the Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI), within a single-state sample. Using data from 693 schools in the U.S. state of California, we found a hierarchical factor structure based on subscales and tiers fit the data best when controlling for the multilevel nature of the data; however, there was no relation between the latent fidelity variables and changes in suspensions. Implications of these results are discussed, including different approaches to scoring and conceptualizing fidelity of implementation for SWPBIS, along with considerations for future research using the TFI.","PeriodicalId":47652,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007231167606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

School-wide positive behavior interventions and supports (SWPBIS) is widely implemented across the United States. Evidence suggests that SWPBIS, when implemented with fidelity, has a significant and positive impact on schools, including lower suspensions and higher reading and mathematics achievement. A critical component of this research is measuring fidelity of SWPBIS implementation in schools. In this study, we re-evaluated the reliability and validity of a widely used fidelity tool, the Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI), within a single-state sample. Using data from 693 schools in the U.S. state of California, we found a hierarchical factor structure based on subscales and tiers fit the data best when controlling for the multilevel nature of the data; however, there was no relation between the latent fidelity variables and changes in suspensions. Implications of these results are discussed, including different approaches to scoring and conceptualizing fidelity of implementation for SWPBIS, along with considerations for future research using the TFI.

查看原文本刊更多论文

重新检验SWPBIS分层保真度量表的可靠性和有效性

学校范围内的积极行为干预和支持(SWPBIS)在美国被广泛实施。有证据表明，当忠实地实施SWPBIS时，对学校有显著的积极影响，包括减少停学，提高阅读和数学成绩。本研究的一个关键组成部分是衡量SWPBIS在学校实施的保真度。在本研究中，我们重新评估了广泛使用的保真度工具分层保真度量表(TFI)在单一状态样本中的信度和效度。使用来自美国加利福尼亚州693所学校的数据，我们发现基于子尺度和层次的分层因素结构在控制数据的多层次性质时最适合数据;然而，潜在保真度变量与悬浮液的变化之间没有关系。本文讨论了这些结果的含义，包括对SWPBIS实施的保真度进行评分和概念化的不同方法，以及对未来使用TFI进行研究的考虑。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions Multiple-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： ...offers sound, research-based principles of positive behavior support for use in school, home and community settings with people with challenges in behavioral adaptation. Regular features include empirical research; discussion, literature reviews, and conceptual papers; programs, practices, and innovations; forum; and media reviews.