View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of the Universal Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Collective Teacher Efficacy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of the Universal Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Collective Teacher Efficacy
Language: English
Authors: Michael, Demos (ORCID 0000-0003-0525-0159), Goutas, Theodoros (ORCID 0000-0002-9531-447X), Tsigilis, Nikolaos (ORCID 0000-0002-2388-959X), Michaelidou, Victoria (ORCID 0000-0003-1065-2486), Gregoriadis, Athanasios (ORCID 0000-0002-3026-6614), Charalambous, Vicky, Vrasidas, Charalambos (ORCID 0000-0001-6499-5180)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Sep 2023 60(9):3188-3205.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Elementary School Teachers, Positive Behavior Supports, Equal Education, Teacher Effectiveness, Beliefs, Educational Strategies, Student Behavior, Behavior Problems, Teamwork, Intervention
Geographic Terms: Cyprus, Greece
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22919
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: There is a rich literature about the benefits of the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) for schools. However, evidence on teacher-related outcomes is relatively limited. The current study examines the effect of the PBIS Tier 1 implementation on collective teacher efficacy (CTE). Participants were 530 teachers from 60 primary schools in Cyprus and Greece, who completed the Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale (CTEBS) before and after a 1-year PBIS implementation. The Greek language version of the instrument was tested and validated. Results were in line with the original two-dimensional structure of instructional strategies and behavioral management, with adequate internal consistency ([omega] = 0.89 and [omega] = 0.87, respectively). Multilevel analyses showed that premeasurement and Tier 1 implementation fidelity along with selected teachers' demographic characteristics accounted for a considerable amount of variance of CTE's both dimensions (30.84% and 25.43% for instructional strategies and behavioral management, respectively). The results suggest that PBIS Tier 1 training and subsequent implementation contributes to teachers' collective belief that they can provide quality teaching opportunities and manage unexpected behaviors as a team. Schools are encouraged to consider the application of whole-school approaches for improvement and actively engage all school staff in their efforts. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1386799
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEyPyL9XRVso_Ek8orpwLhLAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDXe7vM6_T4MZnmlXAIBEICBm4plYRq4rZmAsSYLMqAQg-RZTNYio-D-TPjQ8NPvdEUOjCQk8OK-Ij3UDcdroxtQxtOvfzsosCyLqT0cHBib5V8SnNQgcFw1P-0_U4G4ZuSEw15hElDvknxb9lRdlECMEN9yLyjbHeiySSlUicqj7V_k6Af8eqh3L57g6bdmR6fka_PgmODOM9d6BHhpbzUGhvPBSLJP4kObGl3e
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0169726500;pis01sep.23;2023Aug04.05:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0169726500-1">Effects of the universal positive behavioral interventions and supports on collective teacher efficacy </title> <p>There is a rich literature about the benefits of the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) for schools. However, evidence on teacher‐related outcomes is relatively limited. The current study examines the effect of the PBIS Tier 1 implementation on collective teacher efficacy (CTE). Participants were 530 teachers from 60 primary schools in Cyprus and Greece, who completed the Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale (CTEBS) before and after a 1‐year PBIS implementation. The Greek language version of the instrument was tested and validated. Results were in line with the original two‐dimensional structure of instructional strategies and behavioral management, with adequate internal consistency (ω = 0.89 and ω = 0.87, respectively). Multilevel analyses showed that premeasurement and Tier 1 implementation fidelity along with selected teachers' demographic characteristics accounted for a considerable amount of variance of CTE's both dimensions (30.84% and 25.43% for instructional strategies and behavioral management, respectively). The results suggest that PBIS Tier 1 training and subsequent implementation contributes to teachers' collective belief that they can provide quality teaching opportunities and manage unexpected behaviors as a team. Schools are encouraged to consider the application of whole‐school approaches for improvement and actively engage all school staff in their efforts. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.</p> <p>Practitioner points: The PBIS Tier 1 implementation fidelity predicted collective teacher efficacy.The intervention increased teachers' perceived ability to provide quality instruction.Whole‐school approaches are suggested for collectively improving behavioral management.</p> <p>Keywords: collective teacher efficacy; positive behavior support; schools; teachers; whole‐school approach</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a systems‐change framework based on three main principles: prevention, theory‐driven and evidence‐based practices, and system‐wide implementation of a three‐tiered continuum of interventions (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]; McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]; Sugai & Horner, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref3">76</reflink>]; Tobin et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref4">84</reflink>]). The PBIS approach was first developed and implemented in the United States three decades ago (see Lewis & Sugai, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref5">52</reflink>]) and since then it has been applied to many countries around the world like Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Great Britain, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, and more (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]; George, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]). The PBIS framework mainly targets to improve student‐related outcomes such as school discipline, classroom behavioral climate, or students' misbehavior. Recent research activity has also started in examining the fidelity of teachers' implementation of PBIS at their school (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref8">41</reflink>]; McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref9">57</reflink>]; Mercer et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref10">59</reflink>]). However, studies reporting positive effects of the PBIS implementation fidelity on teacher affective outcomes are relatively limited (Childs et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]; Ervin et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Kelm & McIntosh, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]; Tobin et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref14">83</reflink>]).</p> <p>The concept of collective teacher efficacy (CTE) received particular attention from researchers during the last years. CTE is commonly considered an important indicator of effective school teams (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref16">28</reflink>]). It is also associated with the implementation and effectiveness of whole‐school approaches for school improvement (Gibbs & Powell, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]; Hoy et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref19">78</reflink>]). However, the implementation of PBIS is not necessarily translated into immediate positive outcomes since cultural and contextual factors affect the framework's relevance, implementation fidelity and effectiveness (Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]; Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]; Kincaid et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]). In this respect, the present study explores the underexamined effect of PBIS Tier 1 implementation on CTE in two countries (i.e., Cyprus and Greece) with a short background in applying the referred framework. The results are important for researchers, school leaders and teachers to recognize the benefits of whole‐school improvement approaches for teachers and consequently, stimulate forthcoming PBIS implementations in Greece and Cyprus.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-3">Positive behavioral interventions and supports</hd> <p>The PBIS framework focuses on building protective school cultures and preventing student unexpected behavior through instruction, environmental redesign, and attention to school‐level variables (McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref23">56</reflink>]). Specifically, the approach attempts to develop students' social competency by setting school‐wide behavioral expectations for all students (Sugai et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref24">75</reflink>]). Besides, the PBIS integrates practices, data, and systems to achieve valued academic and behavioral outcomes inside and outside the classroom (Fairbanks et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]). The PBIS approach adopts a three‐tier model that promotes primary (often referred to as universal supports or Tier 1), secondary (targeted interventions or Tier 2), and tertiary prevention (intensive supports or Tier 3) (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref27">33</reflink>]). There is a continuous strategic and administrative organization across all levels, where support becomes more targeted and intense as moving to the higher tiers. Each tier consists of specific practices and systems features used to guide and enhance the fidelity of implementation and sustainability of effects (Sugai & Horner, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref28">76</reflink>]). The primary level of prevention aims to establish a social culture in which students expect and support appropriate behavior from each other and opportunities for teaching and learning can be maximized (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref29">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The implementation of PBIS is an ongoing and consistent process of teachers' professional development, with training and support provided by external coaches (Mathews et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref30">55</reflink>]; McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref31">58</reflink>]). The systemic implementation of the PBIS Tier 1 is guided by four elements that interact with and guide each other (Sugai & Horner, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref32">76</reflink>]): (a) the establishment of measurable and achievable long‐term academic and behavioral outcomes that are endorsed by students, families, and educators, (b) the identification of educational practices that are supported by reliable, replicable, and relevant evidence, (c) the information or data collected used to document the status of current practices, justify the need for change or improvement, and evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of the intervention, and (d) the accurate and durable implementation of the practices of PBIS to establish a formal system of support at the school level (Sugai & Horner, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref33">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous research did not simply show that whole‐school approaches can have a positive impact on reducing unexpected behavior, but further recommended theoretically grounded programs and interventions to disentangle the effectiveness of their components, such as the cooperative functioning of the team (Baldry & Farrington, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]; Kyriakides & Creemers, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref35">48</reflink>]; Leckey et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref36">50</reflink>]; Paxon et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref37">65</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref38">73</reflink>]). Accordingly, the PBIS framework sets various conditions for developing common lines of operation and student behavioral management (e.g., teaching social skills and routines, encouraging expected behavior, or discouraging unexpected behavior). Specifically, through PBIS Tier 1 implementation, teachers have opportunities to learn together and collectively develop a unified system of socio‐emotional support at school. In addition, when improvement of targeted outcomes is achieved through the implementation of PBIS, teachers seem to feel more confident as a team to produce positive results for students (Donohoo, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-4">Collective teacher efficacy</hd> <p>CTE refers to teachers' shared belief about their ability to positively influence student outcomes as a team (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]; Tschannen‐Moran & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref42">85</reflink>]). The concept of CTE has roots from the social cognitive theory, which is particularly concerned with individuals' perceived capability for attaining control over life circumstances (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]). According to the theory, these efficacy perceptions are excellent predictors of individuals' behavior and actions. In addition, the theory acknowledges that people are agents of their broader social network, and their perceptions and beliefs are influenced by the socio‐structural group dynamics. Schools are great examples of interactive social systems in which teachers operate collaboratively toward the execution of common goals (Hoy & Miskel, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]). Though there is a conceptual distinction between teachers' collective and individual self‐efficacy. While the first refers to the beliefs about the capabilities of the teaching faculty as a team, the second refers to the perceptions of individual's capabilities (Goddard & Goddard, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref46">72</reflink>]; Vatou & Vatou, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref47">87</reflink>]). However, previous research suggests a strong relationship between the two constructs (Goddard & Goddard, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]). As such, CTE is a group‐level attribute and part of the school's social milieu, important for the casual occupational operations and the attainment of the organizational goals (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]). Tschannen‐Moran and Barr ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref51">85</reflink>]) recognized teachers' power to influence student outcomes beyond any barrier, such as socioeconomic background, setting the following definition for CTE: "<emph>the collective self‐perception that teachers in a given school make an educational difference to their students over and above the educational impact of their homes and communities</emph>" (p. 190).</p> <p>Although similar definitions for CTE exist in the literature, there is a considerable variation in the measures that attempt to capture it. Some instruments appear to be unidimensional while others are comprised of five constructs. For example, the Collective Efficacy Scale (CES; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref52">27</reflink>]; Goddard, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref53">24</reflink>]) consists of two dimensions (i.e., group competency and task analysis). Similarly, Skaalvik and Skaalvik ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref54">72</reflink>]) developed a single‐dimensional scale concerning teachers' perceived capability in instruction, managing student behavior, addressing students' needs, creating a safe environment, and their motivation. More recently, Sánchez‐Rosas et al., ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref55">70</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref56">71</reflink>]) building upon Bandura's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]) recommendations, developed a five‐dimensional measure that evaluates collective teacher self‐efficacy for decision making, teaching, familial participation, community participation, and positive school climate. A common criticism of CTE measures that are adapted from individual teacher self‐efficacy scales focuses mainly on the plain conversion of the singular subject (i.e., I/me) to plural form (we/us). As explained by more authors, this method fails to capture teachers' collective perceptions of practices that require coordination and exchange because the concept of collective efficacy is a group attribute rather than the sum of individuals' attributes (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]; Sánchez‐Rosas et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref59">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-5">Why is CTE important and how can it be enhanced?</hd> <p>The discourse about the positive effects of CTE on student outcomes is supported by the findings that when teachers share a collective perceived capability to positively influence students, they set higher learning goals and academic expectations for their students and exhibit more persistence to obtain them (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]; Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref61">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]; Tschannen‐Moran & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref63">85</reflink>]). In fact, two meta‐analyses confirmed that CTE is a good predictor of student achievement (Eells, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref64">17</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref65">78</reflink>]), while more researchers postulated a direct relationship between them (Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>]; Ramos et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref67">66</reflink>]). Other studies demonstrated that the relationship between CTE and student outcomes is reciprocal. Specifically, studies showed that improved student performance enhances teachers' motivation and confidence to support students attain their learning goals (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>]; Donohoo, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]). Conversely, low student achievement might deteriorate teachers' perceived capability to influence students, which in turn affects negatively CTE. Moreover, other studies showed that increased CTE has positive effects on individual teacher self‐efficacy and vice versa (Hoy et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref70">37</reflink>]), professional commitment (Ware & Kitsantas, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref71">88</reflink>]) and teacher turnover (Tiplic et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref72">82</reflink>]). For these reasons, CTE is gradually given more attention by researchers and school actors as a promising construct to promote teachers' effectiveness and foster student achievement (Angelle & Teague [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the relationship between CTE and student outcomes has been established, its predictors are yet to be fully mapped (Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref74">44</reflink>]). Previous studies reported that schools' population and background, such as school socioeconomic status (Ramos et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref75">66</reflink>]) and students' prior achievement (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]) exhibit some impact on CTE. However, the investigation should proceed beyond contextual characteristics and identify alterable school conditions that enhance CTE, such as unexpected behaviors at school (Gibbs & Powell, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref77">23</reflink>]; Sørlie & Torsheim, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref78">80</reflink>]) and school climate (Malinen & Savolainen, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref79">54</reflink>]). Among the primary aims of the PBIS framework is to equip students with social and behavioral skills, as a preventive measure to eliminate unexpected behaviors at school. Therefore, if the implementation of this approach at schools is successful, benefits for school situations and CTE are expected.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-6">PBIS and CTE</hd> <p>As a school contextual characteristic, research shows that CTE requires substantial collective effort, and time to increase (Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>]; Sørlie & Torsheim, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref81">80</reflink>]). Some programs and interventions appeared to be effective in that sense (e.g., Leckey et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>]; Paxon et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref83">65</reflink>]) while some others were not (e.g., Aasheim et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>]). In the existing literature, only four studies examined the impact of PBIS implementation on CTE, all of which in different than the current study's contexts (i.e., Belgium, Norway, and the United States). In the United States, Nichols et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref85">62</reflink>]), found that PBIS implementation fidelity was positively related to the Collective Efficacy Scale (CES). The results were similar for both measures of fidelity (i.e., School‐Wide Evaluation Tool [SET] and Behavioral Expectations Taught [BET]) with both dimensions of CES (i.e., Competency and Task Analysis), although the effect sizes were small to moderate. The second study consists of quasi‐experimental research conducted in Norway (Sørlie & Ogden, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref86">79</reflink>]). Collective efficacy was measured at the posttest only. Through comparison analysis, researchers found that experimental schools reported a higher level of collective efficacy to handle unexpected behavior and student differences. Sørlie and Torsheim ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref87">80</reflink>]) with a multilevel design found that in Norwegian schools where student unexpected behavioral incidents decreased across time, CTE increased. Conversely, schools with negative progress in the collective efficacy beliefs experienced an increased prevalence of unexpected behavior across the two reference periods. The most recent study was conducted in Belgium aiming to investigate the medium‐term effects of PBIS intervention on collective efficacy (Deltour et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref88">14</reflink>]). A longitudinal design was followed to measure the evolution of collective efficacy at intervention and control schools. The results showed that PBIS implementation positively affected teachers' collective efficacy, especially in primary schools.</p> <p>None of the studies above used the scale for CTE, which we employ in the current study. In this way, apart from investigating the effects of PBIS implementation on CTE with a new measure, our study expands on the validation of the Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale (CTEBS; Tschannen‐Moran & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref89">85</reflink>]) in two new contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-7">The present study</hd> <p>The present study examines the effect of the PBIS Tier 1 implementation on CTE in Cyprus and Greece. This examination appears to be valuable for various reasons. First, it contributes to the investigation of PBIS implementation beyond the prevailing outcomes (i.e., student behavior, discipline, or school climate) with a teacher‐related factor. CTE is a key concept for instructional quality and student behavior management. In fact, it was found that between‐school differences in CTE were more important than socioeconomic status in explaining student achievement (Goddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref90">27</reflink>]). Second, this study brings insights from the first systematic large‐scale implementation of PBIS Tier 1 in Cyprus and Greece. In fact, no studies were found in the literature to postulate similar research questions in the referred countries. Third, the CTEBS used to measure CTE is tested for the first time with primary education teachers in the sample countries. In addition, the factorial structure of CTEBS is initially examined for better insights into the scale's Greek version psychometric properties and provision of meaningful comparable results. Then, multilevel modeling (MLM) techniques are employed to identify the effect of PBIS Tier 1 implementation on CTE in the two countries using a measure of implementation fidelity. The following research questions were postulated and tested:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Which are the psychometric properties of the Greek language version of the Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Did the PBIS Tier 1 implementation enhance CTE levels? If yes, did implementation fidelity moderate this effect?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Did PBIS Tier 1 implementation fidelity influence in the same way CTE in Greece and Cyprus?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0169726500-8">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169726500-9">Settings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169726500-10">Cyprus</hd> <p>The Cypriot educational system is highly centralized, with the Ministry of Education, Sports, and Youth (MESY) being the legal authority for making decisions related to school finances, curriculum content, as well as staff appointments, transfers, and promotions of teachers (Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref91">49</reflink>]). As part of recent educational reforms to enhance school administrative and pedagogical autonomy, schools are required to conduct yearly needs assessments, and accordingly develop and run a school‐wide action plan for improvement. Though previous efforts have failed to establish school‐wide inclusive cultures to support students' socio‐emotional development, therefore, student behavioral management remains a major challenge for teachers (Damianidou & Phtiaka, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref92">13</reflink>]; Kokkinos et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref93">46</reflink>]; Pashiardis et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref94">64</reflink>]). The MESY traditionally followed a reactive and centralized approach to school discipline incidents with the Committee of Direct Intervention operating ad‐hoc after the occurrence of discipline issues and upon schools' written request. Recently, a task‐force scientific committee, named Cyprus Observatory on School Violence (COSV), was assigned by MESY to promote policies on violence prevention at schools. Though these programs do not adopt a holistic, coherent, and well‐structured approach, but focus on fragmentary therapeutic actions instead (Kyriakides & Creemers, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]). During the last years, there is an ongoing discussion in Cyprus regarding the importance of evaluating the teachers' efficacy based on specific criteria as part of their evaluation (Charalambous et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]; Karageorgos et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>]). However, inferences about teachers' efficacy are dependent on the subjective nature of evaluations provided by school leaders and school inspectors since there are no formalized testing procedures in place. A common challenge for schools' staff coherence deals with the regular teachers' appointments and transfers. Public schools are subject to many staff transfers by law every year, which negatively affects the long‐term planning and capacity building of teachers as a team (The World Bank, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref98">81</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-11">Greece</hd> <p>The Greek educational system remains a highly centralized system despite the decision to decentralize it in the 1980s (Kougias & Efstathopoulos, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref99">47</reflink>]). The Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs (MoEaRA) is the is the highest administrative unit of education and is under the jurisdiction of the Greek government. MoEaRA is the main decision‐making and government's policy implementation authority (Saiti & Eliophotou‐Menon, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref100">68</reflink>]) regarding financial, teaching staff appointment and curricula contents issues (Saiti, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref101">67</reflink>]). Managing students' disruptive behaviors in the classroom as well as aggressive and violent behaviors in the school environment has always been of concern to MoEaRA, teachers, parents, and the public in Greece, aiming to enhance student learning.</p> <p>During the last two decades, MoEaRA in collaboration with the Institute of Education Policy (IEP) and University departments implement empirically based programs that promote children's psychosocial adjustment and well‐being, decrease aggression, bullying and antisocial behavior and support social and emotional needs of the school community members (Hatzichristou & Lianos, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref102">31</reflink>]). To this end, MoEaRA has developed the "Problem behavior classroom management" guide promoting teaching practices for unexpected behaviors. Finally, MoEaRA and IEP are co‐financing an intervention about school mediation promoting peaceful conflict resolution among students.</p> <p>Teacher training is of great importance and a necessity because of the increased educational, social, and psychological students' needs. Recent education reforms have incorporated in‐service subject‐specific and pedagogy‐oriented training. However, most of them are state‐designed, universal, out‐of‐school training courses that leave teachers' needs on classroom behavior management untouched (Ntinas et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref103">63</reflink>]; Saiti & Saitis, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref104">69</reflink>]). In the recent years, MoEaRA attempts to increase schools' autonomy and decentralization. Among other initiatives, in‐school focused training is promoted so that teaching staff participate more actively in schools' decision‐making processes. To this end, teaching staff is encouraged to participate in in‐school trainings that are tailored to teachers' needs. Results indicate that teachers who participated in in‐school trainings and meetings to effectively manage their students' disruptive behaviors using PBIS systems and procedures report increased professional efficacy and collaboration (Goutas et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref105">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref106">30</reflink>]; Moutiaga & Papavassiliou‐Alexiou, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref107">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-12">Participants</hd> <p>In total, 60 primary schools from Cyprus and Greece participated in the study (30 schools in each country). Their recruitment and participation were part of a funded project with a wider aim. The process was initiated with an official circular sent by the regional authorities where schools were invited to express their interest in participating in the project. Following, the research teams delivered informative presentations in groups to provide more details about the framework. Schools that reached at least 80% of consensus among teaching staff about their participation, signed an agreement outlining their role and responsibilities for the project. Participating schools vary in size, location (rural vs. urban), and region (Table 1). All teachers from each school were asked to participate in the survey. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the school years 2020–2021 (<emph>pre</emph>‐ and <emph>post</emph>‐measurements). In total, 48% and 55% of the teachers competed the pre and postsurvey in Cyprus and Greece, respectively, composing a total sample of 530 teachers (265 in each country). This leads to an average response rate of 51.6% (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.20) ranging from 20% to 100%. Teachers' demographic characteristics are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>1 Table Schools' demographic characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Cyprus</th><th align="left">Greece</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Schools</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Location</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Urban</td><td align="char" char=".">13</td><td align="left">43</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="left">47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Rural</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="left">57</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td><td align="left">53</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall no. of students</td><td align="char" char=".">5033</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char=".">3799</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Overall no. of teachers</td><td align="char" char=".">547</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char=".">478</td><td align="left">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>M</italic></bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>SD</italic></bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>M</italic></bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>SD</italic></bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Students at school</td><td align="char" char=".">167.78</td><td align="char" char=".">92.84</td><td align="char" char=".">126.63</td><td align="char" char=".">64.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teachers at school</td><td align="char" char=".">18.23</td><td align="char" char=".">6.20</td><td align="char" char=".">15.93</td><td align="char" char=".">6.92</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Table Demographic characteristics of participating teachers at baseline.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left">Cyprus</th><th align="left">Greece</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">7.2</td><td align="char" char=".">73</td><td align="char" char=".">27.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char" char=".">246</td><td align="char" char=".">92.8</td><td align="char" char=".">192</td><td align="char" char=".">72.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education level</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Bachelor</td><td align="char" char=".">102</td><td align="char" char=".">38.5</td><td align="char" char=".">192</td><td align="char" char=".">72.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Master</td><td align="char" char=".">148</td><td align="char" char=".">55.8</td><td align="char" char=".">53</td><td align="char" char=".">20.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PhD</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="char" char=".">5.3</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">2.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.4</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">3.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>M</italic></bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>SD</italic></bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>M</italic></bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>SD</italic></bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">43.13</td><td align="char" char=".">6.29</td><td align="char" char=".">49.19</td><td align="char" char=".">8.59</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher experience</td><td align="char" char=".">19.66</td><td align="char" char=".">8.08</td><td align="char" char=".">21.45</td><td align="char" char=".">7.99</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years at school</td><td align="char" char=".">2.51</td><td align="char" char=".">1.95</td><td align="char" char=".">9.12</td><td align="char" char=".">7.25</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Cyprus: <emph>N</emph> = 265, Greece: <emph>N</emph> = 265.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-13">The PBIS Tier 1 implementation</hd> <p>Local coaching teams trained and supported school staff to implement the PBIS Tier 1 systems and procedures. External coaches were recruited based on criteria considering their academic and professional qualifications, as well as field experience working with/at schools (e.g., familiar with the PBIS theoretical background, adult education trainings and excellent interpersonal communication skills). Before the Tier 1 implementation at schools, external coaches attended extensive training on the PBIS framework provided by experienced researchers, coaches, and subject‐matter experts, who participated as partners in the referred project. In total, a face‐to‐face 3‐day training and 17 online meetings were conducted before and during the intervention as part of the coaches' training.</p> <p>External coaches provided multitiered support to schools including structured training to the school leadership teams, whole‐school staff trainings at each school, monthly meetings with school leadership teams, and ongoing communication when needed. In addition, school leadership teams held internal meetings to monitor and design the PBIS implementation. The implementation followed the eight basic components of the PBIS Tier 1 consisting of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>) common vision, philosophy, and goals, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>) leadership, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref110">3</reflink>) clarifying expected behavior, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref111">4</reflink>) teaching expected behavior, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref112">5</reflink>) encouraging expected behavior, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref113">6</reflink>) discouraging unexpected behavior, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref114">7</reflink>) ongoing monitoring and assessment, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref115">8</reflink>) effective professional learning. In this respect, schools presented their vision as a short‐written statement (composed of 2–3 sentences) that put emphasis on the positive interaction among individuals within the school environment. In each school, a group of 3–5 teachers formed the school leadership team that led the program implementation efforts. In addition, teachers defined 3–4 social skills and 1–2 routines for students, which were taught and expected by all school staff within the school. Teachers also developed a schoolwide system for recognizing expected social behaviors and discouraging minor and major unexpected student behavior. Within each school, teachers collected data for monitoring PBIS procedures to help with decision‐making.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-14">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169726500-15">Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale</hd> <p>The Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale (CTEBS; Tschannen‐Moran & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref116">85</reflink>]) was employed to measure Collective Teacher Efficacy. CTEBS is a two‐dimension measure of 12 items that examines teachers' beliefs on two main aspects: their collective capability to influence student academic performance (i.e., instructional strategies, items 1–6) and student discipline (i.e., behavioral management, items 7–12). The scale has been formerly used to investigate the school, teacher, or student outcomes (e.g., Kirby & DiPaola, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref117">43</reflink>]; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref118">45</reflink>]; Leithwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref119">51</reflink>]; Malinen & Savolainen, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref120">54</reflink>]). In addition, it was recently validated in three more cultures (i.e., Arab, Jewish, Turkish) other than American from where it originated (Da'as et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref121">12</reflink>]). In this respect, our study adds to testing the scale in two more countries (i.e., Cyprus and Greece) representing an additional cultural group (i.e., Greek). To the best of our knowledge only one study conducted in the Greek educational context used the CTEBS (Tsigilis et al. [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref122">86</reflink>]). In that study, exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine secondary education teachers' beliefs about their collective efficacy. In this study, we examine the psychometric properties of CTEBS with primary education teachers.</p> <p>For the purposes of our study, the instrument was translated into Greek which is the local official language in both contexts. For the translation, we adopted the European Social Survey (ESS) translation guidelines (Dorer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref123">16</reflink>]) as part of the TRAPD procedures. TRAPD is an acronym for Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation, the five interrelated procedures which form the framework for ESS translation and assessment. These cover the basic procedures involved in producing a final translated version of a questionnaire. The participating teachers expressed their agreement concerning their collective efficacy in propositions on a 6‐point Likert scale. The questionnaire was administered before and after the PBIS Tier 1 implementation. The mean scores are presented in Table 3. The Cronbach's alpha index for the reliability of the instrument for the total sample was calculated at 0.92 and 0.91 during the pre and postmeasurement, respectively.</p> <p>3 Table Means for the collective teacher efficacy dimensions across the two measurements.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="left">CTE<sub>pre</sub> F1</th><th align="left">CTE<sub>post</sub> F1</th><th align="left">CTE<sub>pre</sub> F2</th><th align="left">CTE<sub>post</sub> F2</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Cyprus</td><td>5.33</td><td>0.57</td><td>5.50</td><td>0.56</td><td>5.19</td><td>0.61</td><td>5.30</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>5.04</td><td>0.46</td><td>5.17</td><td>0.49</td><td>4.88</td><td>0.55</td><td>5.08</td><td>0.55</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note</emph> : F1 = instructional strategies, F2 = behavioral management.</item> <item>3 Abbreviation: CTE, Collective Teacher Efficacy.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0169726500-16">PBIS Tier 1 fidelity measure</hd> <p>The Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI; Algozzine et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref124">2</reflink>]) along with the School‐Wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref125">77</reflink>]) were used to measure Tier 1 fidelity of implementation at participating schools. Both tools were translated into Greek and back translated in English by two independent translators. The evaluation of Tier 1 implementation fidelity was conducted by external coaches during planned visits at schools at the end of the school year. School visits lasted approximately from 1 to 3 h mostly depending on the school size. Information was recorded using the SET interview and observation form. The obtained data informed the completion of the TFI scoring form, which consists of 15 items representing the PBIS Tier 1 core features. Items were scored from 0 to 2 (0 = not implemented; 1 = partially implemented; 2 = fully implemented) concluding with a total score from 0 to 30 for each school. TFI scores of participating schools after the 1‐year implementation ranged from 14 to 30 (<emph>M</emph> = 24.30, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.02).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-17">Procedures</hd> <p>Researchers informed teachers about their participation in the PBIS Tier 1 implementation procedures and the General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679 GDPR), ensuring their anonymity and data discretion confidentiality. Teachers completed the survey voluntarily through paper questionnaires delivered at schools by the research team at the beginning (Sep–Oct 2020) and end (May–Jun 2021) of the school year. In each phase a school management member was responsible to disseminate and collect the questionnaires upon completion. A unique numerical code was generated and assigned to each participant to match data across administrations. Participants were free to withdraw their consent and not to complete the survey at any point.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-18">Data analysis</hd> <p>Confirmatory factor analysis procedures were applied to examine the factorial structure of the CTEBS. The robust estimator MLR provided by Mplus v. 8.0 was used to estimate model parameters. The fit of the model to the data was assessed based on the <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Given that the <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> statistic is highly influenced by the sample size, emphasis was given to the CFI, SRMR and RMSEA. Generally, a model is considered acceptable (or fair) when CFI is above 0.90 and good when CFI is around 0.95 (Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref126">9</reflink>]; Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref127">38</reflink>]). Regarding SRMR, values around 0.08 are indicative of a good fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref128">38</reflink>]). RMSEA values around 0.06 suggest a good fit, ≤0.08 a fair fit, and between 0.08 and 0.10 a mediocre fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref129">38</reflink>]; MacCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref130">53</reflink>]). In the case of model ill‐fit, modification indices were used to locate the source that caused misfit. Decisions to introduce changes in the postulated model were made on both empirical and theoretical grounds.</p> <p>Considering the hierarchical structure of the data (i.e., teachers nested in schools), multilevel modeling (MLM) techniques were used to examine the impact of PBIS Tier 1 implementation on CTE. Specifically, we conducted two separate multilevel analyses for each of the CTEBS dimensions (i.e., instructional strategies and behavioral management). The outcome variables were the final measurements of the referred dimensions (i.e., CTE<subs><emph>post</emph></subs>). As a first step, fully unconditional models with two levels (level 1 = teachers, level 2 = schools) were established with no predictors at any level. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine the variance of each outcome that could be attributed to within and between schools' differences. In addition, the empty model was used as the baseline model to evaluate the subsequent models. A step‐up approach was followed to test our hypotheses adding the explanatory variables: teachers' gender and years of experience, country (coded as dummy variable with Greece as the reference group), CTEBS dimensions' initial measurement (i.e., CTE<subs><emph>pre</emph></subs>), and Tier 1 implementation fidelity (i.e., TFI). The moderation effect of the PBIS implementation fidelity was also considered adding its interaction with CTEBS dimensions' initial measurement. The multilevel analyses were conducted using the MLwiN software (Snijders & Bosker, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref131">74</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-19">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169726500-20">Factorial structure of the CTEBS</hd> <p>According to Tschannen‐Moran and Barr ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref132">85</reflink>]), a two‐correlated factor structure of CTE was postulated and tested. Results showed marginal fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 294.18, <emph>df</emph> = 51, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.04). Examination of the modification indices revealed that the fit could improve if two items error correlations would be imposed (between items x9 and x11 and between x5 and x6). These modifications were introduced, and the analysis was rerun. Results showed a substantially improved fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 181.10, <emph>df</emph> = 51, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04). Items loadings ranged from 0.73 to 0.78 for instructional strategies and 0.51 to 0.83 for behavioral management. The internal consistency for the two factors was <emph>ω</emph> = 0.89 and <emph>ω</emph> = 0.87, respectively. The magnitude of the correlated items errors yielded positive moderate values, 0.42 and 0.43, respectively, supporting our decision to introduce them.</p> <p>The association among the two latent factors was exceptionally high, yielding a value of 0.92 (<emph>SE</emph> = 0.02). Thus, it was decided to examine a unidimensional model and compare it with the two‐factor model. Fit indices for the unidimensional model were <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 224.20, <emph>df</emph> = 52, <emph>p</emph> < .001, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04. Comparison of the two models revealed that the two‐factor model had significantly better fit than the unidimensional, <emph>Δχ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 66.77, <emph>p</emph> < .001 (scaling correction factor 1.2801 and 1.2895 for the unidimensional and two‐factor model, respectively). Moreover, the 95% confidence interval around the association of the two latent factors did not include unity (0.89–0.95), further supporting the tenability of the two‐factors model of CTE (Anderson & Gerbing, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref133">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-21">Multilevel analyses</hd> <p>Using MLM, we first run a fully unconditional two‐level model (school and teacher levels) with no explanatory variables (empty model) for each CTEBS dimension to partition the total variance into within and between group components (Snijders & Bosker, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref134">74</reflink>]). The second measurement of instructional strategies and behavioral management were treated as outcome variables (i.e., CTE<subs><emph>post</emph></subs> F1 and CTE<subs><emph>post</emph></subs> F2, respectively). Regarding instructional strategies, the empty model showed that 17% of the variance (ICC = 0.17) was explained by the school level, supporting our decision to use multilevel analyses (Table 4). Then, teachers' gender, years of experience, country (coded as dummy variable with Greece as the reference group), and the initial measurement of instructional strategies (i.e., CTE<subs><emph>pre</emph></subs> F1) were added in model 1 to assess their relative importance on the outcome variable. All explanatory variables had statistically significant effect on instructional strategies at the 0.05 level, apart from gender. Moreover, chi‐square difference based on log‐likelihood suggested that the above explanatory variables improved significantly the fit of model 1 in relation to model 0 (<emph>Δχ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 155.75, <emph>df</emph> = 4, <emph>p</emph> < .001). These explanatory variables explained 29.55% of initial total variance.</p> <p>4 Table Parameter estimates (and standard errors) for the analysis of CTEBS instructional strategies (CTEpost F1).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Model 0</th><th align="left">Model 1</th><th align="left">Model 2</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fixed part</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="left">5.3230003 (0.038)</td><td align="left">2.5980003 (0.226)</td><td align="left">2.3080003 (0.248)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td /><td align="left">0.062 (0.056)</td><td align="left">0.055 (0.056)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years of experience</td><td /><td align="left">0.0040003 (0.002)</td><td align="left">0.0040003 (0.002)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Country (ref: GR)</td><td /><td align="left">0.1800003 (0.052)</td><td align="left">0.1760003 (0.048)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CTE<sub>pre</sub> F1</td><td /><td align="left">0.4730003 (0.04)</td><td align="left">0.4610003 (0.039)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">TFI</td><td /><td /><td align="left">0.0150003 (0.006)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Random part</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">School level (σ<sup>2</sup><sub>u0</sub>)</td><td align="left">0.051 (0.015)</td><td align="left">0.011 (0.006)</td><td align="left">0.006 (0.005)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher level (σ<sup>2</sup><sub>e0</sub>)</td><td align="left">0.257 (0.017)</td><td align="left">0.206 (0.013)</td><td align="left">0.207 (0.013)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explained</td><td /><td align="left">29.55%</td><td align="left">30.84%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Significance test</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">842.906</td><td align="left">687.161</td><td align="left">680.351</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reduction</td><td /><td align="left">155.745</td><td align="left">6.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Degrees of freedom</td><td /><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">p value</td><td align="left">.001</td><td align="left">.001</td><td align="left">.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph> : CTE <subs>pre</subs> F1 = prior level of instructional strategies.</item> <item>5 Abbreviations: CTEBS, Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale; TFI, Tiered Fidelity Inventory.</item> <item>6 a Statistically significant effect at 0.05 level.</item> </ulist> <p>In model 2, PBIS Tier 1 implementation fidelity measure (i.e., TFI) was added as an additional explanatory variable at the school level to estimate its effect on instructional strategies. The results showed that TFI has a statistically significant effect on the outcome variable. Moreover, the likelihood statistic showed an improvement in comparison to model 1 (<emph>Δχ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 6.81, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> < .01). Overall, the variance reduction compared to the empty model was 30.84%. Finally, in model 3 an interaction effect between instructional strategies' initial levels and TFI (CTE<subs>pre</subs> F1 × TFI) was added to check for any moderation effect. The results showed that the new calculated variable had no statistically significant effect on the model and the chi‐square difference showed no further improvement (<emph>Δχ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.05, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> = .81).</p> <p>The same process was followed for the dimension of behavioral management, and the results are presented in Table 5. The empty model showed that 18% of the variance was explained by the school level (ICC = 0.18). The same four explanatory variables were added in model 1 showing a better model fit (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 123.77, <emph>df</emph> = 4, <emph>p</emph> < .001), though the effects of gender and country were not found to be statistically significant. Years of experience and initial measurement of behavioral management accounted for 23.43% of the total variance. In model 2, The PBIS Tier 1 implementation fidelity was added as an explanatory variable. The parameters showed that TFI had a statistically significant effect, and the model was improved explaining 25.43% of the total initial variance (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 6.98, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> < .01). The last step was to test if the TFI moderate the improvement in collective perceptions on behavioral management. The interaction effect (CTE<subs>pre</subs> F2 × TFI) was not statistically significant, and the model had no further improvement (Δ<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.03, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> = .86) suggesting no moderation effect.</p> <p>5 Table Parameter estimates (and standard errors) for the analysis of CTEBS behavioral management (CTEpost F2).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Model 0</th><th align="left">Model 1</th><th align="left">Model 2</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Fixed part</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="left">5.1880003 (0.041)</td><td align="left">2.8840003 (0.22)</td><td align="left">2.4580003 (0.267)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td /><td align="left">0.004 (0.061)</td><td align="left">−0.005 (0.061)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Years of experience</td><td /><td align="left">0.0070003 (0.003)</td><td align="left">0.0070003 (0.003)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Country (ref: GR)</td><td /><td align="left">0.093 (0.068)</td><td align="left">0.091 (0.064)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CTE<sub>pre</sub> F1</td><td /><td align="left">0.4210003 (0.038)</td><td align="left">0.4110003 (0.038)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">TFI</td><td /><td /><td align="left">0.0200003 (0.007)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Random part</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">School level (σ<sup>2</sup><sub>u0</sub>)</td><td align="left">0.063 (0.018)</td><td align="left">0.034 (0.012)</td><td align="left">0.027 (0.01)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher level (σ<sup>2</sup><sub>e0</sub>)</td><td align="left">0.287 (0.019)</td><td align="left">0.234 (0.015)</td><td align="left">0.234 (0.015)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explained</td><td /><td align="left">23.43%</td><td align="left">25.43%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Significance test</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">903.671</td><td align="left">779.801</td><td align="left">772.825</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reduction</td><td /><td align="left">123.87</td><td align="left">6.976</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Degrees of freedom</td><td /><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">p value</td><td align="left">.001</td><td align="left">.001</td><td align="left">.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 <emph>Note</emph> : CTE <subs>pre</subs> F2 = prior level of behavioral management.</item> <item>8 Abbreviations: CTEBS, Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale; Abbreviations: CTEBS, Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale; TFI, Tiered Fidelity Inventory.</item> <item>9 a Statistically significant effect at 0.05 level.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0169726500-22">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The present study builds upon the investigation of PBIS Tier 1 framework effects in primary schools. Previous studies confirmed its benefits in reducing unexpected behaviors or improving school climate (e.g., Aasheim et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref135">1</reflink>]; Malinen & Savolainen, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref136">54</reflink>]). However, most studies focused on student‐related outcomes. In this study, we examined the effect of PBIS Tier 1 implementation on CTE in Cyprus and Greece, two countries with a short record in positive behavior supports' systematic implementation. The PBIS Tier 1 was implemented in the participating schools with the ongoing support of dedicated external coaches. Towards the study's end, the factorial structure of the instrument's Greek language version used to measure CTE, was tested. Consequently, we employed MLM techniques to examine the effect of Tier 1 implementation fidelity on CTE in the two countries.</p> <p>The results on the psychometric properties of the Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale's (CTEBS) Greek version confirmed the factorial structure as proposed by the initial authors (Tschannen‐Moran & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref137">85</reflink>]). Although a high correlation between the scale's dimensions was found (instructional strategies and behavioral management), the analyses suggested that the two‐factor model presented a better fit than a unidimensional model. Therefore, differences in teachers' levels of collective efficacy were examined for both factors. The MLM analyses showed that the effect of Tier 1 implementation fidelity was statistically significant on both dimensions. In addition, the results suggested that Cyprus schools expressed a higher improvement in instructional strategies. Regarding behavioral management, country had no effect suggesting that the improvement was similar in both countries. The comparable effects in Cyprus and Greece could be substantiated by the countries' cultural and contextual similarities, as well as the transferability of the PBIS framework across educational systems (Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref138">20</reflink>]; Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref139">32</reflink>]). The fact that teacher's perceptions of collective efficacy regarding behavioral management were improved similarly in both contexts, coincides with the intervention's primary aim to establish a universal system of support on promoting positive behavior at schools. Instructional strategies instead were not directly related to the aims of the program. Finally, no interaction effect was found between prior CTE levels and TFI, which indicates that the implementation fidelity did not moderate the effect on CTE.</p> <p>Our findings seem to converge with previous analogous studies adding to the generalizability of the PBIS implementation benefits for CTE (Deltour et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref140">14</reflink>]; Nichols et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref141">62</reflink>]; Sørlie & Ogden, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref142">79</reflink>]; Sørlie & Torsheim, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref143">80</reflink>]). The implementation of a well‐structured whole‐school approach has proved to enhance teachers' perceived belief that they can effectively manage student discipline and unexpected behaviors, which is directly related to the primary objectives of the PBIS framework (Sugai & Horner, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref144">76</reflink>]). Our study also demonstrated that PBIS Tier 1 implementation increased teachers' perceived ability to provide quality instruction as a team to their students. Therefore, better academic results might be achieved in the school, not only because disrupting behaviors are reduced in the classroom (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref145">34</reflink>]), but also because teachers' collective belief that they can provide quality teaching opportunities increases (Eells, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]; Sørlie & Torsheim, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref147">80</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref148">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>The above findings have some implications for practice. Our study supports that whole‐school approaches for improvement might be more effective than individual practices because of their potential to develop efficient teacher teams (Leckey et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref149">50</reflink>]; Sørlie & Torsheim, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref150">80</reflink>]). Accordingly, the PBIS framework provides numerous opportunities for collaborative work and beyond, in terms of developing a common culture and philosophy for student discipline. Examples of such cooperative efforts among school staff carried out through the PBIS framework are: reaching on a common vision for the school, agreeing on school‐wide expected student behaviors, developing shared lesson plans, developing a common system to encourage expected behavior and discourage unexpected behavior, and making mutual decisions to solve relevant problems (Deltour et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref151">14</reflink>]; Moolenaar et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref152">60</reflink>]). In this respect, school leadership teams could acknowledge the benefits of implementing school‐wide systems according to their needs, which might not only serve the primary purposes of the program, but also develop a collaborative culture among teachers who jointly work towards the attainment of a common goal in their school. In addition, our study shows that benefits could be similar in comparable contexts. Cyprus and Greece share numerous cultural similarities, although noticeable differences exist between their educational systems. In this respect, the PBIS framework seemed to be transferred and adapted appropriately across the two contexts, producing similar benefits for teachers perceived collective efficacy of behavioral management. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to implement such systems at their schools, always considering the contextual needs and characteristics required to increase the framework's contextual fit (Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref153">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The authors acknowledge the study's limitations. First, an experimental design would provide more insights about the effectiveness of the PBIS implementation at the primary schools of the study. Therefore, further research could adopt such methods in the future in Cyprus and Greece. Second, schools were recruited after expressing their interest to participate in the program. Then, internal voting among teachers was followed to reach a common agreement for participation (at least 80%). This might be an indication of recruiting schools with already high levels of CTE before the implementation of the PBIS framework, which might have produced an escalated effect after. Third, the reported results are limited only to the effect of the Tier 1 universal supports. Accordingly, further studies could examine the effect of targeted and intensive supports (i.e., Tiers 2 and 3) on teachers' efficacy and related outcomes. Last, further analyses could be conducted to identify differential effects among teachers. The current examination is constrained by this study's samples and differential effects fall out of its scope.</p> <p>There is rich literature about the benefits of the PBIS framework for schools (Childs et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref154">11</reflink>]; Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref155">33</reflink>]; McIntosh et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref156">58</reflink>]). Our study reports the first systematic large‐scale implementation of the framework in Cyprus and Greece, revealing positive changes in CTE after the PBIS Tier 1 implementation. Schools are encouraged to consider the application of whole‐school approaches for improvement and actively engage all school staff in their efforts.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-23">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>The study presented in this paper is part of the project entitled "Building School‐Wide Inclusive, Positive and Equitable Learning Environments Through a Systems‐Change Approach (SWPBS) (Project Number: 606687‐EPP‐1‐2018‐2‐CY‐EPPKA3‐PI‐POLICY)", under the Erasmus+ Key Action 3 support to policy development and cooperation. The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-24">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-25">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0169726500-26">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>APA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of the study. All authors acknowledge ethical responsibility for the content of the manuscript and will accept the consequences of any ethical violation.</p> <ref id="AN0169726500-27"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref84" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aasheim, M., Fossum, S., Reedtz, C., Handegård, B. H., & Martinussen, M. (2020). Examining the incredible years teacher classroom management program in a regular Norwegian school setting: Teacher‐reported behavior management practice, problem behavior in classroom and school environment, teacher self‐ and collective efficacy, and classroom climate. SAGE Open, 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref109" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Algozzine, B., Barrett, S., Eber, L., George, H., Horner, R., Lewis, T., Putnam, B., Swain‐Bradway, J., McIntosh, K., & Sugai, G. (2014). School‐wide PBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. <ulink href="http://www.pbis.org">www.pbis.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref110" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref73" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Angelle, P., & Teague, G. M. (2014). Teacher leadership and collective efficacy: Teacher perceptions in three US school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 52 (6), 738 – 753. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-02-2013-0020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref34" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims & Offenders, 2 (2), 183 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880701263155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self‐efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self‐efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan, (Eds.), Self‐efficacy beliefs of adolescents (5, pp. 307 – 337). Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref126" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 400 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charalambous, C. Y., Komitis, A., Papacharalambous, M., & Stefanou, A. (2014). Using generic and content‐specific teaching practices in teacher evaluation: An exploratory study of teachers' perceptions. Teaching & Teacher Education, 41, 22 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Childs, K. E., Kincaid, D., George, H. P., & Gage, N. A. (2016). The relationship between school‐wide implementation of positive behavior intervention and supports and student discipline outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18 (2), 89 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715590398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Da'as, R., Qadach, M., Erdogan, U., Schwabsky, N., Schechter, C., & Tschannen‐Moran, M. (2021). Collective teacher efficacy beliefs: Testing measurement invariance using alignment optimization among four cultures. Journal of Educational Administration, 60 (2), 167 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-02-2021-0032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damianidou, E., & Phtiaka, H. (2018). Co‐operating with parents for equal opportunities in education. International Journal About Parents in Education, 10 (1), 91 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deltour, C., Dachet, D., Monseur, C., & Baye, A. (2021). Does SWPBIS increase teachers' collective efficacy? evidence from a quasi‐experiment. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donohoo, J. (2018). Collective teacher efficacy research: Productive patterns of behaviour and other positive consequences. Journal of Educational Change, 19 (3), 323 – 345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9319-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorer, B. (2012). Round 6 Translation Guidelines. European Social Survey, GESIS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eells, R. J. (2011). Meta‐analysis of the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Dissertations, 133. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ervin, R. A., Schaughency, E., Matthews, A., Goodman, S. D., & McGlinchey, M. T. (2006). Primary and secondary prevention of behavior difficulties: developing a data‐informed problem‐solving model to guide decision making at a school‐wide level. Psychology in the Schools, 44 (1), 7 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73 (3), 288 – 310. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon, L. M., O'Keeffe, B. V., & Sugai, G. (2012). Consideration of culture and context in school‐wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14 (4), 209 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712442242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, J., Kern, L., Gambino, A. J., Lombardi, A., & Kowitt, J. (2019). Assessing the relationship between the positive behavior interventions and supports framework and student outcomes in high schools. Journal of At‐Risk Issues, 22 (2), 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, H. (2018 Oct). Strengthening district capacity: Making an impact together. Presented at the National PBIS Leadership Forum. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.pbis.org/Common/Cms/files/Forum18%5fPresentations/Keynote%5fGeorge.pdf">www.pbis.org/Common/Cms/files/Forum18%5fPresentations/Keynote%5fGeorge.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, S., & Powell, B. (2011). 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, 82 (4), 564 – 584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02046.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: the development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62 (1), 97 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062001007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121 (4), 501 – 530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (7), 807 – 818. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00032-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (2), 479 – 507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: the role of perceived collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18 (3), 403 – 425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804265066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goutas, T., Trikkaliotis, I., Kliapis, P., Theodosiou, A., Tsigilis, N., & Gregoriadis, A. (2021). Preliminary outcomes and challenges to implementing school‐wide positive behavior interventions and supports in 30 Greek primary schools. European Journal of Education Studies, 8 (5). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i5.3740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goutas, T., Trikkaliotis, I., Kliapis, P., Theodosiou, A., Tsigilis, N., & Gregoriadis, A. (2022). School‐Wide Positive Behavior Support: Tier 1 implementation effects on school climate of 30 Greek primary schools. 2022 International Virtual Conference on Education and Learning (ICEL 2022).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatzichristou, C., & Lianos, P. G. (2016). Social and emotional learning in the Greek educational system: An Ithaca journey. International Journal of Emotional Education, 8 (2), 105 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner, R. H., Blitz, C., & Ross, S. (2014). The importance of contextual fit when implementing evidence‐based interventions. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/77066/ib_Contextual.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school‐wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42 (8), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait‐list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school‐wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11 (3), 133 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709332067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis‐Palmer, T. (2005). School‐wide positive behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara & L. Kern, (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359 – 390). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed.). McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (1), 77 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x02381004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karageorgos, C., Kriemadis, A., Travlos, A., & Kokaridas, D. (2021). Planning and implementing total quality management in education: The case of Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Management & Innovation, 2 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijemi.v2i1.2627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelm, J. L., & McIntosh, K. (2012). Effects of school‐wide positive behavior support on teacher self‐efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (2), 137 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J., McIntosh, K., Mercer, S. H., & Nese, R. N. T. (2018). Longitudinal associations between SWPBIS fidelity of implementation and behavior and academic outcomes. Behavioral Disorders, 43 (3), 357 – 369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917747589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kincaid, D., Childs, K., Blase, K. A., & Wallace, F. (2007). Identifying barriers and facilitators in implementing schoolwide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9 (3), 174 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007070090030501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community engagement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (5), 542 – 562. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111159539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23 (1), 21 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers' collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross‐cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78 (4), 464 – 486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2004). Perceived seriousness of pupils' undesirable behaviours: The student teachers' perspective. Educational Psychology, 24 (1), 109 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000146458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kougias, K., & Efstathopoulos, J. (2020). The operational framework of the Greek educational system as an obstacle to the implementation of sustainable school. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2012). Characteristics of effective schools in facing and reducing bullying. School Psychology International, 34 (3), 348 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312467127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C., & Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the revised olweus bully/victim questionnaire using the rasch measurement model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 781 – 801. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X53499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leckey, Y., Hyland, L., Hickey, G., Lodge, A., Kelly, P., Bywater, T., Comiskey, C., Donnelly, M., & McGilloway, S. (2016). A mixed‐methods evaluation of the longer‐term implementation and utility of a teacher classroom management training programme in Irish primary schools. Irish Educational Studies, 35 (1), 35 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2016.1147974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Schumacker, R. (2019). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of "the four paths model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56 (4), 570 – 599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x19878772</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behaviour support: A systems approach to proactive school wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malinen, O. P., & Savolainen, H. (2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathews, S., McIntosh, K., Frank, J. L., & May, S. L. (2013). Critical features predicting sustained implementation of school‐wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16 (3), 168 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713484065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J. L., Ryan, C., & Sugai, G. (2010). Principles of sustainable prevention: Designing scale‐up of school‐wide positive behavior support to promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47 (1), 5 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh, K., Massar, M. M., Algozzine, R. F., George, H. P., Horner, R. H., Lewis, T. J., & Swain‐Bradway, J. (2016). Technical adequacy of the SWPBIS tiered fidelity inventory. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19 (1), 3 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716637193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh, K., Mercer, S., Hume, A., Frank, J., Turri, M., & Mathews, S. (2013). Factors related to sustained implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 79 (3), 293 – 311.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer, S. H., McIntosh, K., & Hoselton, R. (2017). Comparability of fidelity measures for assessing tier 1 School‐Wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19 (4), 195 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (2), 251 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moutiaga, S., & Papavassiliou‐Alexiou, I. (2022). Promoting professional development of secondary school teachers in Greece: In‐school training in managing student behaviour. Teacher Development, 26, 492 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2022.2104918</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols, J. A., Nichols, W. D., & Rupley, W. H. (2020). Teacher efficacy and attributes on the implementation of tiered instructional frameworks. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 9 (3), 731. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20625</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ntinas, K. M., Neila, A., Nikolaidou, E., Papadimitriou, S., Papadopoulou, I., Fasoulas, A., & Hatzikonstantinidis, C. (2006). Inclusion and challenging behaviors: Greek general educators' perspectives. In The Behavior Analyst Today (7, Issue 1, p. 84 – 95). J. D. Cautilli. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pashiardis, P., Brauckmann, S., & Kafa, A. (2018). Let the context become your ally: School principalship in two cases from low performing schools in Cyprus. School Leadership & Management, 38 (5), 478 – 495. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1433652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paxon, C., Leis, M. and Kaufman, S. (2014). Collective efficacy and adult community: teacher and principal perceptions after two years of implementing leading together in schools. SREE Conference, Washington, DC, September.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramos, M. H., Pontes, F. A., Silva, S. S., Fernandez, A. P., & Nina, K. (2016). Revisão Sistemática de Pesquisas sobre Eficácia Coletiva Docente. Interação Em Psicologia, 20 (2). https://doi.org/10.5380/psi.v20i2.36072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiti, A. (2003). Management in education: Evidence from Greek secondary education. Management in Education, 17 (2), 34 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206030170020901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiti, A., & Eliophotou‐Menon, M. (2009). Educational decision making in a centralised system: The case of Greece. International Journal of Educational Management, 23 (6), 446 – 455. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540910980998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiti, A., & Saitis, C. (2006). In‐service training for teachers who work in full‐day schools. Evidence from Greece. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29 (4), 455 – 470. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760600944779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sánchez‐Rosas, J., Dyzenchauz, M., & Dominguez‐Lara, S. (2021). Validez de contenido de la Escala de Autoeficacia Colectiva Docente. Revista Argentina de Ciencias Del Comportamiento, 13 (1), 59 – 72. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v13.n1.28132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sánchez‐Rosas, J., Dyzenchauz, M., Dominguez‐Lara, S., & Hayes, A. (2022). Collective Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale for elementary school teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 15 (1), 985 – 1002. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15156a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self‐efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 611 – 625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, P., Pepler, D. & Rigby, K., (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be?. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Lewis, T. (2009). School‐wide positive behavior support implementers' blueprint and self‐assessment. OSEP TA‐Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school‐wide positive behavior support. School psychology review, 35 (2), 245 – 259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai, G., Lewis‐Palmer, T., Todd, A., & Horner, R. H. (2001). School‐wide evaluation tool. University of Oregon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, J., Zhang, S., & Przybylski, R. (2017). "Conceptualizing the Critical Path Linked by Collective Teacher Efficacy," in 2017 Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX, April 27–May 1, 2017 (Washington, DC: San Antonio and AERA).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørlie, M. A., & Ogden, T. (2007). Immediate impacts of PALS: A school‐wide multi‐level programme targeting behaviour problems in elementary school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51 (5), 471 – 492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830701576581</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørlie, M. A., & Torsheim, T. (2011). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher collective efficacy and problem behaviour in school. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22 (2), 175 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.563074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The World Bank. (2014). Teacher Policies in the Republic of Cyprus. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Southern Europe Program, Europe & Central Asian Region.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiplic, D., Brandmo, C., & Elstad, E. (2015). Antecedents of Norwegian beginning teachers' turnover intentions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45 (4), 451 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.987642</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (2000). Using discipline referrals to make decisions. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (616), 106 – 117. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobin, T. J., Lewis‐Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2002). School‐wide and individualized effective behavior support: An explanation and an example. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3 (1), 51 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3 (3), 189 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsigilis, N., Karamane, E., & Katsa, M. (2021). Investigation of the association between principals' emotional intelligence and teachers' collective efficacy and job satisfaction. Preschool and School Education, 9 (2), 156 – 174 [In G reek].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vatou, A., & Vatou, A. (2019). Collective teacher efficacy and job satisfaction: Psychometric properties of the CTE scale. Journal of Contemporary Education Theory & Research, 3 (2), 29 – 33. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3635040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and Collective Efficacy Beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 100 (5), 303 – 310.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Demos Michael; Theodoros Goutas; Nikolaos Tsigilis; Victoria Michaelidou; Athanasios Gregoriadis; Vicky Charalambous and Charalambos Vrasidas</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref152"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1386799
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of the Universal Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Collective Teacher Efficacy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael%2C+Demos%22">Michael, Demos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0525-0159">0000-0003-0525-0159</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Goutas%2C+Theodoros%22">Goutas, Theodoros</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9531-447X">0000-0002-9531-447X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tsigilis%2C+Nikolaos%22">Tsigilis, Nikolaos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2388-959X">0000-0002-2388-959X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michaelidou%2C+Victoria%22">Michaelidou, Victoria</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1065-2486">0000-0003-1065-2486</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gregoriadis%2C+Athanasios%22">Gregoriadis, Athanasios</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3026-6614">0000-0002-3026-6614</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charalambous%2C+Vicky%22">Charalambous, Vicky</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vrasidas%2C+Charalambos%22">Vrasidas, Charalambos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6499-5180">0000-0001-6499-5180</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Sep 2023 60(9):3188-3205.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Behavior+Supports%22">Positive Behavior Supports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cyprus%22">Cyprus</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Greece%22">Greece</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22919
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: There is a rich literature about the benefits of the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) for schools. However, evidence on teacher-related outcomes is relatively limited. The current study examines the effect of the PBIS Tier 1 implementation on collective teacher efficacy (CTE). Participants were 530 teachers from 60 primary schools in Cyprus and Greece, who completed the Collective Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale (CTEBS) before and after a 1-year PBIS implementation. The Greek language version of the instrument was tested and validated. Results were in line with the original two-dimensional structure of instructional strategies and behavioral management, with adequate internal consistency ([omega] = 0.89 and [omega] = 0.87, respectively). Multilevel analyses showed that premeasurement and Tier 1 implementation fidelity along with selected teachers' demographic characteristics accounted for a considerable amount of variance of CTE's both dimensions (30.84% and 25.43% for instructional strategies and behavioral management, respectively). The results suggest that PBIS Tier 1 training and subsequent implementation contributes to teachers' collective belief that they can provide quality teaching opportunities and manage unexpected behaviors as a team. Schools are encouraged to consider the application of whole-school approaches for improvement and actively engage all school staff in their efforts. Implications for practice and further research are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1386799
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1386799
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22919
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 3188
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Behavior Supports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cyprus
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Greece
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of the Universal Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Collective Teacher Efficacy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael, Demos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Goutas, Theodoros
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tsigilis, Nikolaos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michaelidou, Victoria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gregoriadis, Athanasios
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Charalambous, Vicky
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vrasidas, Charalambos
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1