View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Systematic Review of Performance Feedback Interventions Targeting Secondary Teachers' Use of Praise and Reprimands

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Systematic Review of Performance Feedback Interventions Targeting Secondary Teachers' Use of Praise and Reprimands
Language: English
Authors: Ashley Rila, Allison L. Bruhn, Alex Pauls
Source: Preventing School Failure. 2025 69(1):45-55.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Literature Reviews, Feedback (Response), Intervention, Secondary School Teachers, Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Teacher Behavior
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2302172
ISSN: 1045-988X
1940-4387
Abstract: High rates of teacher praise are associated with positive student outcomes (Royer et al., 2019). Research shows secondary teachers deliver more reprimands than praise (e.g. Floress et al. 2022). Performance feedback (PF) is a strategy used to change teacher behaviors. However, it is unknown if PF targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers is an evidence-based practice. Although reviews on PF exist, none focus exclusively on secondary teachers. This review was to synthesize 14 PF intervention studies targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers. We evaluated PF studies to determine if PF is an evidence-based practice. Results indicate PF targeting praise and reprimands cannot yet be determined as an evidence-based practice for secondary teachers. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1455499
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwErXaVu1I8pukjO6P9iSKrCAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCgjwEDLNff2Sci0ZgIBEICBm38ou8o21G90oUUrSSRzJbyZYXX9QYdWxOCBmD8wzgCkPe50EbBCquHqaYmhWscA30ybEkwRm9zbkFvS42lGU06zPrQB2v5WXn3uikL3eSDNP2JyAgjYY-f8w_PxsrH3xFA4RbldPf690D24gtJXmNkLfr-4rP3m17xeLlREqjOEWtxbxNlMz5BC7gQ5tP2l9nN4RHIzEonj0aes
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181947009;psf01jan.25;2025Jan01.02:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181947009-1">A systematic review of performance feedback interventions targeting secondary teachers' use of praise and reprimands </title> <p>High rates of teacher praise are associated with positive student outcomes (Royer et al., 2019). Research shows secondary teachers deliver more reprimands than praise (e.g. Floress et al. 2022). Performance feedback (PF) is a strategy used to change teacher behaviors. However, it is unknown if PF targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers is an evidence-based practice. Although reviews on PF exist, none focus exclusively on secondary teachers. This review was to synthesize 14 PF intervention studies targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers. We evaluated PF studies to determine if PF is an evidence-based practice. Results indicate PF targeting praise and reprimands cannot yet be determined as an evidence-based practice for secondary teachers. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Evidence-based practice; in-service teacher; performance feedback; praise; reprimands; secondary</p> <p>As students progress through U.S. schools, they receive significantly more reprimands and suspensions at the secondary levels when compared to primary grade levels (Hirn & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>]; Losen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]). The intended consequence of delivering a reprimand or school suspension is to punish an undesirable student behavior, that is, to reduce the future occurrence of the behavior (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>]). However, researchers have found several unintended consequences associated with reprimands and suspensions. Although a reprimand may immediately stop an undesirable behavior, research indicates reprimands are not effective in decreasing the future occurrence of the behavior (Caldarella et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]), but instead can lead to behavior reoccurring (Van Acker et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref5">60</reflink>]). Relatedly, suspensions remove students from classrooms thus preventing access to critical academic and social instruction, which has been linked to reduced academic achievement, grade retention, dropping out, increased involvement in juvenile justice systems, and drug and alcohol abuse (Fabelo et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]; Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further exacerbating these issues are the high rates of disproportionate discipline practices documented in schools (e.g. Krezmien et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]; Lloyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]; Losen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref10">33</reflink>]). That is, students of color receive office discipline referrals, suspensions, and expulsions at higher rates than their White peers. Given that most office discipline referrals originate from a classroom setting (Skiba et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref11">47</reflink>]), it is surprising that little research has been done to examine contextual classroom teacher-student racial interactions. Recently, one study found that prior to intervention, teachers delivered higher rates of reprimands to Black students (Gion et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]). To curtail these unjust practices, research is needed to understand how teachers interact with students in classrooms so that strategies can be developed and implemented to improve the classroom environment, teacher-student relationships, and in turn, student outcomes.</p> <p>One effective classroom management strategy for promoting desired student behavior is teacher delivery of positive feedback, otherwise known as praise. Praise can be general or specific and delivered publicly or privately. General praise such as giving a student a high five or saying "nice work" provides the student with an indication of approval but lacks specificity (Floress et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]). Conversely, behavior-specific praise (BSP) provides the student with an indication of approval and specifies the behavior that warranted praise. In short, BSP is a verbal or written statement that is positive, describes a specific behavior, and is delivered to a specific student (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]). BSP has a long, documented history of improving academic and social behaviors (Downs et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]), is recognized as an evidence-based practice by the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC; Royer et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]), and is described as one of the simplest classroom management strategies to implement (Gable et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]). Unfortunately, several studies have found that reprimand rates often exceed rates of praise in secondary settings (Floress et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]; Floress et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>]; Hirn & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]). Although research on the impacts of praise and the optimal rates of praise in secondary settings is limited, the general consensus among researchers is that teachers should deliver more praise than reprimands (Caldarella et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]; Flora, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref23">55</reflink>]; Trussell, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref24">58</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-2">Performance feedback</hd> <p>To promote a change in teacher behavior, such as increasing praise or reducing reprimands, performance feedback (PF) is a common strategy. PF is the process by which a teacher behavior is monitored, then feedback on that behavior is delivered to the teacher (Noell et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref25">36</reflink>]). PF can take on many forms including who provides the feedback (e.g. outside observer, self through self-monitoring), variations in feedback delivery mode (e.g. email, in-person), data presentation (e.g. oral, visual, written), and timing (e.g. delayed, immediate, real-time). Research indicates PF is effective in changing pre-service (Auld et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]) and in-service (Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref27">49</reflink>]) teacher behaviors, in both special education (Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref28">49</reflink>]) and general education (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]) settings, and across grades (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>]; Stormont et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref31">54</reflink>]). PF has been used to increase teacher BSP (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]), opportunities to respond (OTR; Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref33">49</reflink>]), pre-corrections (Stormont et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref34">54</reflink>]), and reduce teacher reprimands (Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref35">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Though PF is touted as an evidence-based practice by some scholars, others have contradictory conclusions about PF's evidence. For example, Solomon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref36">52</reflink>]) conducted a meta-analysis of 36 single-case studies on the effects of PF, delivered to pre-K through high school teachers, on the treatment integrity of academic and behavioral interventions. Overall, results indicated that PF was moderately effective in increasing treatment integrity across grade levels. However, authors report stronger effects for the academic interventions. Importantly, this meta-analysis specifically focused on studies with student outcome measures and excluded studies that focused only on teacher skills (i.e. BSP).</p> <p>In another review using What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards of single-case studies, Fallon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]) concluded PF was an evidence-based practice for improving intervention treatment fidelity. The review included 47 studies involving a variety of participants such as pre-service and in-service teachers (both general and special education), head-start teachers, paraprofessionals, social workers, and parents. The grade levels taught by PF recipients were not included. Although previous studies have shown effects may vary depending on who is receiving the PF (Solomon et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref38">52</reflink>]), moderating effects by participant were not explored in the review. Finally, the review did not describe the specific behaviors (e.g. praise, reprimands) targeted for PF, but rather, focused on overall intervention fidelity. A systematic literature review limited to a specific sample (e.g. secondary teachers) and teacher behaviors (e.g. praise) may provide valuable insight regarding for whom and under what conditions PF is effective.</p> <p>In contrast, Sweigart et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref39">56</reflink>]) reviewed studies (2004–2015) of PF on praise for in-service teachers and concluded PF was not yet an evidence-based practice due to a lack of quality studies meeting CEC research standards. Although this review was limited to in-service teachers receiving PF on praise, the studies included teachers across grade levels (pre-K through high school). Again, this underscores the need for a review focused specifically on secondary teachers, particularly given the differences in the setting, as well as variations in student and teacher behaviors at secondary levels when compared to primary settings (Hirn & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-3">Purpose</hd> <p>The purpose of this current review was to examine the PF literature for intervention components and the associated effects on praise or reprimands delivered by secondary teachers to students in classrooms. Specifically, the following questions guided this review: (a) What were the teacher and student demographics, and in what settings has PF on praise or reprimands been used in secondary classrooms?; (b) What were the methodological characteristics of each study?; (c) What were the PF intervention components and the associated outcomes?; (d) Did teachers receive PF on their differential rates of praise or reprimands delivered to students by race?; (e) Using WWC standards, is PF alone for praise or reprimands an evidence-based practice for teachers in secondary classrooms?</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181947009-5">Search procedures</hd> <p>We conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles on PF related to secondary teachers' use of praise or reprimands. First, we performed electronic searches of Education Source (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) for articles published through November 2020 using the following search terms: (a) <emph>performance feedback</emph>; and (b) <emph>teacher, practitioner, or educator.</emph> We considered articles for inclusion if they were published in peer-review journals and written in English. This search yielded 2,777 articles.</p> <p>Next, we reviewed titles and abstracts. We screened for multiple criteria including (a) PF was delivered to an in-service teacher; (b) dependent variable (DV) included a measure of teacher praise or reprimands; and (c) setting included a secondary classroom. Praise was defined as any statement or gesture that indicated teacher approval (i.e. praise, BSP, positive interaction). Reprimands were defined as any statement or gesture that indicated teacher disapproval (i.e. correction, negative interaction). PF was defined as an observation of a teacher with feedback given to them about their performance (Noell et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]). A secondary classroom was defined as any classroom sixth- through 12<sups>th</sups>-grade, or the setting was described as a middle, junior, or high school. We retained articles if they met these criteria or if it was unclear whether the article met the criteria. After removing duplicates, we retained 60 articles for possible inclusion.</p> <p>Additionally, we conducted ancestral searches of reference lists of PF reviews for articles. During our initial search, we also retained any PF review that included PF on teacher behaviors. This yielded seven reviews (Barton et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]; Cavanaugh, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref43">7</reflink>]; Ennis et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]; Schaefer & Ottley, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref45">43</reflink>]; Scheeler et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref46">45</reflink>]; Sinclair et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]; Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref48">56</reflink>]). We searched each reviews' reference list for titles for possible inclusion. Then, we subsequently reviewed each article abstract following the above procedures. After removing duplicates, we retained seven additional articles for potential inclusion.</p> <p>Lastly, we conducted hand searches of three journals: <emph>Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions</emph>, <emph>Education and Treatment of Children</emph>, and <emph>Teacher Education and Special Education</emph>. Journals were selected if two or more articles from the initial search came from the same journal. Using the same title and abstract screening procedures, we searched the table of contents of every issue of each journal for articles. We started our search at the journal's first issue and searched through November 2020. After removing duplicates, we retained 16 additional articles for possible inclusion. In sum, after all searches were complete, we retained 80 articles to read in entirety for inclusion.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-6">Inclusion criteria</hd> <p>We read each retained article to determine if it met inclusion criteria. First, the independent variable needed to include some form of PF (see PF definition above). Second, the DV needed to measure the teacher's use of praise or reprimands (see DV definition above). If the article included other measures, the article was included if praise or reprimands were disaggregated from other strategies (e.g. OTR; Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>]). Third, the PF intervention needed to take place within a secondary classroom. If the study included grades lower than sixth it was excluded, unless the data were disaggregated by grade, then it was included with only the sixth through 12<sups>th</sups>-grade data included in our analysis (e.g., Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]). If the article did not explicitly state the grade level, but stated the setting occurred in a junior, middle, or high school, it was included (e.g. Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]). Additionally, if the article only included student age and excluded grade level or a setting descriptor (e.g. secondary), the article was included if students were at least 11-years old (e.g. Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]). Finally, the teacher receiving PF needed to be an in-service teacher. If the teachers in the study were pre-service, the article was excluded (e.g. Scheeler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]). If both in-service and pre-service teachers were included in the study, we excluded pre-service teacher data in our analysis and articles were excluded if in-service and pre-service teacher data were not disaggregated. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria and were subsequently coded.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-7">Coding procedures</hd> <p>We coded each article in three overarching categories (participants and setting, methodological characteristics, intervention components). Before coding, we reviewed each coding question and asked clarifying questions. Then, we independently coded three articles and compared findings. Coders discussed all discrepancies until we reached100% agreement. Next, coders were assigned to independently code the remaining articles, that is, 100% of included articles were double coded. Initial agreement was 96% (i.e. 32 questions × 14 studies = 448 codes; 429 agreements). All disagreements were discussed until 100% agreement was met.</p> <p>Following coding, we separated studies into two categories, PF alone or PF plus. PF alone was identified when PF was delivered <emph>via</emph> oral, visual, written or a combination of these modalities <emph>only</emph>. PF plus studies included additional intervention components beyond PF such as PF with self-monitoring, PF with visual prompts, or PF with goal setting. If additional components were introduced during maintenance (Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref54">40</reflink>]), it was categorized into PF alone. This dichotomization of intervention type (PF alone or PF plus) allowed us to determine if a change in teacher behavior was due to PF alone. When studies include other intervention components alongside PF, it is difficult to determine which intervention components contribute to a change in teacher behavior.</p> <p>Next, we evaluated the PF alone studies on methodological rigor using What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single-case design standards (WWC, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref55">61</reflink>]). The WWC operationally defines these standards as (a) the study includes raw data (i.e. graph, table); (b) the independent variable was systematically manipulated (i.e. under the control of the researcher); (c) each DV was measured repeatedly by a secondary observer with a minimum of 80% agreement for at least 20% of sessions per condition; (d) the study included the minimum number of attempts (varies by study, see below) to demonstrate an experimental effect (i.e. phase); and (e) the study included the minimum number of points per phase per participant. Given this review's focus on teacher praise and reprimands, we only analyzed items c through e for praise and reprimand DVs and excluded DVs such as opportunities to respond or student engagement.</p> <p>Next, using these standards, we categorized each study into one of the three groups, (a) <emph>meets design standards without reservations</emph>; (b) <emph>meets design standards with reservations</emph>; or (c) <emph>does not meet design standards</emph>. To <emph>meet design standards with</emph> or <emph>without reservations</emph>, standards criteria items a through c (above) must be present; if not, the study is categorized as <emph>does not meet design standards</emph>. For items d and e, the minimum number of phases and data points vary based on the single-case design used. For example, for a withdrawal design (i.e. ABAB), to <emph>meet design standards without reservations</emph>, the study must have included at least four phases with a minimum of five data points per phase; to <emph>meet with reservations</emph>, there must have been at least four phases with at least three data points per phase; anything below these minimum requirements <emph>does not meet design standards.</emph> Whereas for multiple baseline designs, to <emph>meet design standards without reservations</emph>, the study must have included at least six phases with a minimum of five data points per phase; to <emph>meet design standards with reservations</emph>, the study must again have included a minimum of six phases but have at least three data points per phase; anything below these minimum requirements <emph>does not meet design standards.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0181947009-8">Results</hd> <p>We report coding results across studies in the following section. See Table 1 for coding results of individual studies.</p> <p>Table 1. Overview of studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Teacher Demographics</td><td>Performance Feedback</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Citation</td><td>Design</td><td>School Level</td><td>Setting</td><td>Locale</td><td>Gender (n)</td><td>Race (n)</td><td>Years Taught</td><td>Type</td><td>Mode</td><td>Time</td><td>Fid.</td><td>SV</td><td>IOA</td><td>DV Outcomes</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>PF Alone</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Allday et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2012</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS</td><td>GE</td><td>MW</td><td>F (1)</td><td>W (1)</td><td>NR</td><td>WR</td><td>E</td><td>D</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: ↑ NBSP: ↓ R: ↓ Eng.: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Jones et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">1997</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS</td><td>RF</td><td>MW</td><td>F (3)</td><td>NR</td><td char=".">1 - 20</td><td>O WR</td><td>IP IP</td><td>FW FW</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>P: ↑ Eng.: Mixed</td></tr><tr><td>Mautone et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2006</xref></td><td>Case</td><td>MS</td><td>GE</td><td>NR</td><td>F (1)</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>O WR V</td><td>IP IP IP</td><td>FW FW FW</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>BSP: ↑ R: ↓ Eng.: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Myers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2011</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS</td><td>SPED GE</td><td>NE</td><td>F (2)</td><td>W (2)</td><td char=".">4 - 8</td><td>O V<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></td><td>IP E<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></td><td>D FW</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: ↑ NBSP: ↑ R: ↓ Eng.: ↑ Dis.: ↓</td></tr><tr><td>Pisacreta et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2011</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS</td><td>GE</td><td>S</td><td>F (1) M (2)</td><td>W (3)</td><td char=".">2.5 - 11</td><td>O V</td><td>IP IP</td><td>FW D</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>P: ↑ R: ↓ D: ↓</td></tr><tr><td>Rathel et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2014</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS</td><td>SPED</td><td>S</td><td>F (2)</td><td>W (2)</td><td char=".">1</td><td>WR V</td><td>E E</td><td>FW FW</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>P: ↑ R: ↓ Eng.: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Simonsen et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2010</xref>a</td><td>MBL</td><td>NR</td><td>A</td><td>NE</td><td>F (2) M (1)</td><td>NR</td><td char=".">13 - 16</td><td>V WR <italic>or</italic>O</td><td>E E IP</td><td>FW FW D</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>BSP: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Sweigart et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2016</xref></td><td>ABAB</td><td>MS</td><td>SPED</td><td>S</td><td>F (1)</td><td>NR</td><td>NR</td><td>V</td><td>iPad</td><td>RT</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>P: ↑ R: No change Eng.: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Taber et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>HS</td><td>GE</td><td>S</td><td>F (4)</td><td>W (3) N (1)</td><td char=".">1</td><td>O</td><td>BIE</td><td>RT</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: ↑ Dis.: Mixed</td></tr><tr><td><bold>PF Plus</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Colvin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2009</xref></td><td>Case</td><td>HS</td><td>GE</td><td>NR</td><td>M (1)</td><td>NR</td><td char=".">2</td><td>O WR</td><td>IP IP</td><td>FW FW</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>No</td><td>P: ↑ R: No change Eng.: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Duchaine et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2011</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>HS</td><td>GE</td><td>S</td><td>F (2) M (1)</td><td>W (1) H (1) B (1)</td><td char=".">2 – 8</td><td>WR</td><td>Note</td><td>FW</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: ↑ Eng.: No change</td></tr><tr><td>Hawkins and Heflin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2011</xref>)</td><td>MBL</td><td>HS</td><td>A</td><td>S</td><td>F (2) M (1)</td><td>NR</td><td char=".">2 – 7</td><td>O V Vid</td><td>IP IP IP</td><td>D D D</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: ↑ NBSP: Mixed R: No change</td></tr><tr><td>Pinter et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2015</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS HS</td><td>SPED</td><td>MW</td><td>F (3) M (1)</td><td>W (4)</td><td char=".">2 - 13</td><td>O Vid</td><td>IP Vid</td><td>D D</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: ↑ NBSP: ↑ R: No change</td></tr><tr><td>Simonsen et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2010</xref>a</td><td>MBL</td><td>NR</td><td>A</td><td>NE</td><td>F (2) M (1)</td><td>NR</td><td char=".">13 - 16</td><td>V WR <italic>or</italic> O</td><td>E E IP</td><td>FW FW D</td><td>No</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>BSP: ↑</td></tr><tr><td>Simonsen et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2013</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>MS</td><td>GE</td><td>NE</td><td>F (2)</td><td>NR</td><td char=".">13 - 28</td><td>V WR</td><td>E E</td><td>FW FW</td><td>No<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">c</xref></td><td>No<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">c</xref></td><td>Yes</td><td>BSP: Mixed</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> A = alternative school; ABAB = reversal; B = Black; BIE = bug-in-ear; BSP = behavior specific praise; D = delayed; Dis. = disruption; DV = dependent variable; E = email; Eng. = engagement; F = female; Fid = fidelity; FW = following observation; GE = general education; H = Hispanic; HS = high school; IP = in-person; M = male; MBL = multiple baseline; MS = middle school; MW = Midwest; N = Native American; NBSP = non-behavior specific praise; NE = Northeast; NR = not reported; O = oral; R = reprimands; PF Alone = performance feedback was sole intervention; PF Plus = intervention included addition intervention components beyond performance feedback; RF = residential facility; RT = real-time; S = South; SPED = special education; SV = social validity; V = visual; Vid. = video; W = White; WR = written; ↑ = increased; ↓ = decreased.</p> <ulist> <item>2 Interventions were individualized and therefore study appears in both PF categories; one participant added in self-prompts.</item> <item>3 Visual PF sent <emph>via</emph> email was added into the intervention if teachers failed to deliver the researcher established praise level.</item> <item>4 Fidelity and social validity was measured for self-monitoring procedures, not for performance feedback procedures.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181947009-9">Research question 1: participants and setting</hd> <p>Across the 14 studies, 33 teachers comprised the sample; 79% (<emph>n</emph> = 26) were female and 21% (<emph>n</emph> = 7) were male, with a wide range in teaching experiences (1—28 years). Only seven studies reported teacher race, and most were White (<emph>n</emph> = 16), one was Hispanic, one Black, and one Native American; 14 did not report teachers' race. Studies reported student demographics at varying degrees. Three studies reported the demographics of the target students in the study (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref58">40</reflink>]) and five studies reported class wide demographics (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]; Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref60">25</reflink>]; Pinter et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref61">38</reflink>]; Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref62">49</reflink>]; Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref63">56</reflink>]). When reported, most students were male. Four studies included White (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>]; Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref65">11</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref66">28</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]), two included Black (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]), and one included Hispanic (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref70">11</reflink>]) students; ten studies did not report student race. Eight studies included students with disabilities (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>]; Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>]; Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref73">25</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>]; Pinter et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref76">40</reflink>]; Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref77">49</reflink>]; Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref78">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Eight studies took place in a middle school, four in a high school, and one took place in both a middle school and a high school. One study did not report the school level, but reported students were between the ages of 11 to 18-years old. Seven studies took place in a general education setting, three in special education, one in both general and special education classrooms, two in an alternative school for students with challenging behavior, and one in a residential behavioral treatment facility where students lived on-campus. Six studies took place in the South, three in the Midwest, three in the Northeast, and two did not report locale.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-10">Research question 2: methodological characteristics</hd> <p>Twelve studies used single-case designs and two were case studies. The studies included a variety of methodological characteristics that we report below.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-11">Teacher measures</hd> <p>Per inclusion criteria, all studies included a teacher measure. These measures included teacher delivery of (a) BSP (specific praise statement that included the behavior); (b) non-BSP (NBSP; praise that lacked specificity); (c) praise; and (d) reprimands (e.g. corrections, negative interactions). Seven studies measured BSP and four measured NBSP. Six measured teacher praise: three of the studies combined both BSP and NBSP into one measure making it impossible to distinguish between the two (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref80">40</reflink>]; Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref81">56</reflink>]). The other three studies did not provide enough information to decipher if BSP, NBSP, or both (Colvin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>]; Mautone et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref83">34</reflink>]; Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref84">39</reflink>]) were measured. Lastly, nine studies measured reprimands; seven measured reprimands delivered class wide (Colvin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>]; Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>]; Mautone et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref87">34</reflink>]; Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref88">35</reflink>]; Pinter et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref89">38</reflink>]; Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref90">39</reflink>]; Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref91">56</reflink>]) and two measured reprimands delivered to the target students in the study (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref93">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-12">Student measures</hd> <p>Ten studies also included a student behavior measure as a DV. Student measures included student engagement (e.g. on-task, off-task) or disruption. Eight studies measured student engagement and three measured student disruption. Depending on the study, researchers measured these behaviors for the target students in the study or for the entire class. For class- wide measures, three studies randomly selected students for each observation to collect data (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref94">11</reflink>]; Mautone et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref95">34</reflink>]; Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref96">35</reflink>]), and in another study, researchers observed the entire class and tallied anytime a student in the class displayed disruptive behavior (Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-13">Interobserver agreement</hd> <p>We report IOA results for teacher praise and reprimands. The two case studies did not report interobserver agreement (IOA) on the DVs. Across the remainder of the studies, IOA was calculated for a minimum of 20% of all observations except for one study. In that study, they collected IOA for only 15% of observations (Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref98">49</reflink>]). Of the articles that reported IOA results, all studies reported an average IOA of 80% or greater across baseline and intervention sessions. In one study, authors report a low IOA average of 33% for reprimands by one teacher during the maintenance phase (Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref99">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-14">Treatment fidelity</hd> <p>To determine if the PF intervention was implemented as designed, we coded studies for treatment fidelity. Only seven studies reported treatment fidelity data on performance feedback. For studies that delivered PF in person, fidelity was calculated for steps completed by the individual who provided the PF. Whereas for studies that delivered PF <emph>via</emph> email, fidelity was measured by determining if the components that should have been included in the email were present or absent. Across those studies, 20% to 100% of sessions (or emails) were evaluated for fidelity with results ranging from 92% to 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-15">Social validity</hd> <p>We coded studies for measurement of social validity to gain an understanding about how teachers perceived the PF intervention. Seven studies measured social validity (e.g. rating scale, questionnaire). Overwhelmingly, participants rated the PF intervention positively. Authors reported teachers liked receiving positive feedback (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref100">11</reflink>]), thought PF was an easy intervention (Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref101">35</reflink>]; Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref102">49</reflink>]), and would recommend PF for other colleagues (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>]; Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref104">35</reflink>]; Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref105">49</reflink>]). However, in one study, teachers reported that increasing BSP was difficult (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>]) and in another, one teacher reported disliking being observed and watching themselves on video (Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref107">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-16">Maintenance and generalization</hd> <p>To determine if teachers maintained a behavior change or generalized their behaviors into other settings, we coded articles for maintenance and generalization measures. Six studies collected maintenance data (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref108">11</reflink>]; Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref109">25</reflink>]; Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref110">35</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref111">40</reflink>]; Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref112">56</reflink>]; Taber et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref113">57</reflink>]) and only one study collected generalization data (Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref114">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-17">Intervention agent</hd> <p>Ten studies had university associated researchers conduct the observations and deliver the PF to the teacher. Only one study used a behavior consultant to observe and deliver PF to the teacher (Colvin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref115">9</reflink>]). Finally, three studies did not report who conducted observations and delivered the PF (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>]; Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref117">11</reflink>]; Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-18">Research question 3: intervention components</hd> <p>In sum, nine studies were identified as PF alone and six as PF plus. It should be noted that in one study, researchers allowed teachers to individualize their PF. This resulted in one of three participating teachers adding visual prompts throughout the classroom as reminders to deliver BSP, while the other two teachers had PF alone (Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref119">49</reflink>]), therefore this study was categorized as both PF alone and PF plus.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-19">PF alone</hd> <p>Nine studies used PF alone interventions. However, these studies varied in terms of (a) PF delivery methods; (b) time PF was delivered; and (c) how teachers received PF.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-20">PF alone–visual</hd> <p>Six studies incorporated visual PF. That is, teachers viewed their data in graphical form (e.g. line graph). Visual PF alone occurred in one study (Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref120">56</reflink>]) where teachers received real-time PF <emph>via</emph> a graphical display on an iPad the teacher carried during observations. In this study, each time a praise statement was delivered, the graph updated. The remaining five studies used visual PF in conjunction with additional feedback methods. Specifically, one study delivered PF to teachers using all three modalities (visual, oral, written; Mautone et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref121">34</reflink>]) following each observation. A multi-tiered approach was employed in another study, wherein teachers initially received visual and oral PF once a week. If teachers failed to meet a research-established praise level, then they also received written PF daily <emph>via</emph> email (Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref122">35</reflink>]). In another study, researchers implemented visual and oral PF (Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref123">39</reflink>]), where visual PF was delivered weekly and oral PF was delivered following every observation. One study used visual and written PF that was sent <emph>via</emph> email following observations (Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref124">40</reflink>]). Finally, one study allowed teachers to select how they received PF; two teachers received written PF in-person and one teacher received written PF <emph>via</emph> email. Each email was sent the same day as the observation, whereas the in-person feedback was delivered just before the next observation.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-21">PF alone—not visual</hd> <p>Three studies used PF alone without a visual component. In one study, PF was delivered orally and in writing (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref125">28</reflink>]) following observations. Whereas, the other study provided only written PF <emph>via</emph> email (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref126">1</reflink>]). Finally, in Taber et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref127">57</reflink>]) teachers received real-time oral PF <emph>via</emph> a bug-in-ear headset, wherein PF was delivered every two minutes if the teacher had not delivered BSP.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-22">PF plus</hd> <p>Six studies incorporated additional intervention components. Similar to PF alone, these studies varied in terms of (a) additional components; (b) PF delivery methods; (c) time PF was delivered; and (d) how teachers received PF.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-23">Additional components</hd> <p>Three studies used self-management strategies in addition to PF. More specifically, in Pinter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref128">38</reflink>]), teachers recorded themselves and later tracked the number of praise and reprimands they delivered. Additionally, once a week, teachers met with the researchers to discuss their data. It should be noted that the reported data in this study are teachers' self-reports, not data from external observers. In another study, researchers allowed teachers to individualize their PF (see Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref129">49</reflink>] PF alone description), with one teacher electing to put up visual self-prompts as reminders to deliver BSP; excluding this one modification, all other procedures were the same. In a third study, teachers self-monitored their BSP by tallying each time they delivered BSP in addition to receiving written PF <emph>via</emph> email following observations (Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref130">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>The remaining three studies included varying additional components such as video self-modeling (Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref131">25</reflink>]), goal setting (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref132">11</reflink>]), and consultation (Colvin et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref133">9</reflink>]). In the study by Hawkins and Heflin ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref134">25</reflink>]), researchers video recorded observations. Then, prior to the next observation, researchers showed each teacher clips of themselves delivering BSP alongside researcher oral PF. In Duchaine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref135">11</reflink>]), each teacher set a BSP goal and received written PF following observations. Additionally, prior to every third observation, teachers met with researchers and received oral PF. Lastly, Colvin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref136">9</reflink>]), employed a consultative method whereby oral and written PF was delivered to the teacher after each observation and the teacher-research dyad created a data-based action plan in these PF meetings.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-24">Research question 4: equity-based PF</hd> <p>No study reported delivering PF about teachers' differential rates of statements addressed to students by race. Instead, researchers provided PF to teachers on overall rates of praise or reprimands delivered to all students in the classroom or for the target student(s) in the study. While one study measured individual versus group praise rates, this measure did not capture student race (Pinter et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref137">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-25">Research question 5: evidence-based practice</hd> <p>We analyzed the nine PF alone studies for compliance with WWC standards (see Table 2). Using these standards, we categorized studies into <emph>meets design standards without reservations, meets design standards with reservations, or does not meet design standards.</emph> All studies included raw data. Given our focus on in-service secondary teachers, only data for these participants were included in our WWC analysis. This resulted in three studies failing to meet the minimum number of phases to demonstrate an effect (for secondary settings) because elementary (Allday et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref138">1</reflink>]; Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref139">35</reflink>]) or pre-service (Rathel et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref140">40</reflink>]) teachers were included in the study. Thus, these three studies failed to meet WWC design standards. Two additional studies also failed to meet WWC design standards (5 in total). In Simonsen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref141">49</reflink>]), authors reported collecting IOA for 15% of observations rather than the minimum 20% WWC standard. In Mautone et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref142">34</reflink>]), authors did not report IOA procedures or IOA results and did not establish the minimum number of phases and data points required. Four studies met design standards with reservations as they had fewer than five data points in a phase during their research study. No study met design standards without reservations.</p> <p>Table 2. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) design standards analysis for PF alone studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Citation</td><td>Design</td><td>IV manipulated</td><td>Repeated measurement</td><td>IOA measured</td><td>IOA ≥ 80%</td><td>Min. phases to demo effect</td><td>Min. points per phase</td><td>WWC Rating</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Allday et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2012</xref>*</td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>-<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">a</xref></td><td char=".">6</td><td>Not Meet</td></tr><tr><td>Jones et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">1997</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td char=".">3</td><td>Meet w/ Res</td></tr><tr><td>Mautone et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2006</xref>*</td><td>Case</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>Not Meet</td></tr><tr><td>Myers et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2011</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>-<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">b</xref></td><td char=".">3</td><td>Not Meet</td></tr><tr><td>Pisacreta et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2011</xref>*</td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Meet w/ Res</td></tr><tr><td>Rathel et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2014</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>-<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn9">b</xref></td><td char=".">5</td><td>Not Meet</td></tr><tr><td>Simonsen et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2010</xref>*</td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>–</td><td>√</td><td char=".">9</td><td>Not Meet</td></tr><tr><td>Sweigart et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2016</xref></td><td>ABAB</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Meet w/ Res</td></tr><tr><td>Taber et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref></td><td>MBL</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td>√</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Meet w/ Res</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note.</emph> Min. = minimum; demo = demonstrate.</item> <item>6 <emph>Note WWC Rating.</emph> Not meet = Does not meet WWC standards; Meet w/ Res = Meets WWC standards with reservations.</item> <item>7 Studies did not report a measurement of fidelity (see Table 2).</item> <item>8 Study only had one attempt for in-service secondary teachers.</item> <item>9 Study only had two attempts for in-service secondary teachers.</item> </ulist> <p>Identifying only four total studies that met WWC standards with or without reservations, we did not evaluate these studies to establish an evidence-based practice (e.g. visual analysis, effect size). Although this was our original intent, we made this decision because WWC guidelines indicate there must be at least five rigorous studies with positive effects to establish an evidence- based practice (Kratochwill et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref143">29</reflink>]). Thus, the literature base does not yet include enough rigorous research in secondary settings for PF alone targeting teacher praise and reprimands to be established as evidence based.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-26">Discussion</hd> <p>Considering the unintended consequences of delivering reprimands to students (Caldarella et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref144">5</reflink>]) and the increased rates of reprimands students receive at secondary levels (Hirn & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref145">26</reflink>]), it is imperative that the field examine practical and, feasible interventions that can lead teachers to delivering fewer reprimands and more student praise. One common intervention used to change teacher behavior is PF. Though several PF reviews have been conducted, none have focused on secondary settings exclusively. To contribute to the existing literature base, we reviewed PF studies focused on secondary teachers' delivery of praise and reprimands. A secondary purpose of this study was to determine if PF alone, through targeting praise and reprimands could be established as an evidence-based practice for secondary teachers. Following, we discuss key findings, limitations, future directions, and implications for research and practice.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-27">Key findings, limitations, and future directions</hd> <p>Prior to interpreting the findings, procedural limitations should be considered. While multiple databases, ancestral searches, and hand searches were used to identify articles, evaluation of search procedure reliability was not performed but should be a procedural factor considered by future researchers. Inevitably, all relevant articles may not have been retrieved and some may have been inadvertently overlooked. Also, some articles we obtained initially included PF in secondary settings, but outcome data were not disaggregated by grade level (e.g. Rock et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref146">41</reflink>]) making it impossible to determine which data belonged in which setting. As a result, those studies were not included in this review.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-28">Participants and setting</hd> <p>First, regarding participant demographics, the teachers included in this review closely match the gender make-up of the U.S. educational system. Though far more of the teachers were female, the study's 79% female to 21% male ratio is nearly identical to the national ratio (76.6% female to 23.4% male; Ingersoll et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref147">27</reflink>]). While every study reported teacher gender, nearly half of the teachers' races were not reported. This lack of reporting makes it impossible to determine (a) if the sample is racially representative of the teacher workforce and (b) how to best provide PF. Thus, it is imperative for researchers to also collect and report teacher race, especially considering calls to diversify the U.S. teacher workforce (Carter-Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref148">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, few studies reported comprehensive student demographics. The student population is diversifying (Ingersoll et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref149">27</reflink>]), therefore it is essential for studies to report student demographics that include race, gender, age, and disability status, to better understand how these characteristics may impact intervention effectiveness. This is even more important as we begin to consider how praise and reprimand rates may be delivered differentially based on student traits.</p> <p>We were surprised to find so few studies conducted at the secondary level since we started our search at the inception date of all journals. This finding supports previous research indicating a dearth of studies in secondary settings (Stormont et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref150">53</reflink>]). The lack of representation in the literature may be due to the complex structure of secondary school schedules where students pass through different classes throughout the day and may change course schedules at the end of a grading period (e.g. quarter, trimester). These complexities can make it difficult for researchers to complete rigorous research within such existing school schedule time constraints. It is also plausible researchers struggle to recruit secondary teacher participants due to their beliefs that providing students with praise at this advanced school age may not be effective (Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref151">25</reflink>]) or fears that praise may interfere with instruction (Shernoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref152">46</reflink>]). In light of these potential obstacles to recruitment, researchers may need to alter recruitment techniques by focusing on the benefits of student praise, using the term positive feedback instead of praise, and offering reasonable incentives for participation.</p> <p>A majority of studies occurred in general education settings. However, the corpus also included special education, alternative schools, and behavioral treatment residential facilities. This variety makes it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about how PF interventions may vary in effectiveness based on the setting. Residential facilities, where students live on-campus, are highly structured, students are educated in smaller settings and are vastly different from general education settings that tend to have less structure and more students. Future research in all of the various secondary settings may illuminate in which settings PF is effective and if adaptations based on setting dynamics and structure needs to be made.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-29">Methodological characteristics</hd> <p>First, in terms of methodological characteristics, only half of the studies measured treatment fidelity. This is surprising given researchers' assertion that measuring treatment fidelity is necessary to determine if an intervention was implemented as intended (Gresham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref153">24</reflink>]). With so few studies measuring fidelity, it is difficult to draw accurate conclusions about results, as we cannot determine which components of the intervention were in place and if a change in behavior can be attributed to the PF intervention. In the future, researchers should ensure treatment fidelity is measured and reported for each component of the intervention for a minimum of 20% to 33% of sessions (Ledford & Gast, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref154">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, only half of the studies measured social validity. Social validity measures a participant's opinion about the social importance of the intervention and change in behavior (Baer & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref155">3</reflink>]) and has been described as an essential measure in intervention research for decades (Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref156">62</reflink>]). Our findings are encouraging as recent research indicates social validity is generally underassessed (Ferguson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref157">17</reflink>]; Snodgrass et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref158">51</reflink>]). However, there is room for improvement as, measuring social validity should be a methodological priority in future research. This is particularly important for the secondary setting given the complexities in school structures (Estrapala et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref159">14</reflink>]) and secondary teachers' hesitancy to deliver praise (Hawkins & Heflin, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref160">25</reflink>]) despite research indicating increased praise can result in improved student behaviors (O'Handley et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref161">37</reflink>]). If perceptions are unfavorable, it is unlikely the teacher will engage in an intervention with fidelity or even at all, thus making behavior change improbable at best. At a minimum, future researchers should collect a measure of social validity (e.g. rating scale, questionnaire, interview) at the end of the study. For a more compelling analysis, researchers could collect social validity before and after the study to examine the degree to which perceptions changed.</p> <p>As for dependent measures, a variety of DVs were measured. First, all studies included a measure of teacher praise (i.e. BSP, NBSP) with just over half measuring BSP. However, three studies included vague operational definitions of praise making it impossible to decipher which praise type was targeted. While increasing overall praise may lead to classroom improvements, researchers have found that in elementary settings, BSP results in substantial improvements in student behavior (i.e., increased engagement, decreased disruptions) when compared to NBSP (Chalk & Bizo, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref162">8</reflink>]). Further research on BSP versus NBSP in secondary settings is needed to extend these previous findings. Moreover, future researchers should include detailed operational definitions of praise to determine precise effects in secondary settings.</p> <p>Finally, only one study reported using school district employees as the intervention agent. Although that study reported improved teacher and student behaviors, a non-empirical design was used, thereby precluding any causal conclusions about behavior change. To understand PF's feasibility in school-based settings, it is essential for research to be conducted using school-based members as intervention agents. Many schools may not have access to university researchers, and thus, building capacity within schools is critical to the scalability and sustainability of any intervention. In the future, researchers should consider moving away from researchers as intervention agents and move toward training a district employee to deliver interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-30">Intervention components and outcomes</hd> <p>We categorized studies into PF alone and PF plus in which PF plus included additional intervention components beyond PF. We made this distinction because it allowed us to attribute intervention effects directly to PF alone and evaluate PF alone as an evidence-based practice. Results for PF plus may be confounding because the unique contribution of additional components is unknown. As such, we discuss these categories separately.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-31">PF alone</hd> <p>The first component of interventions we examined was how PF was delivered to teachers. While a variety of delivery methods were used, six of the nine PF alone interventions used a combination of visual, oral, and written feedback. Six studies included visual PF by providing the teacher with a graph depicting their observed behaviors. However, only one of those 6 studies used visual PF alone (Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref163">56</reflink>]), allowing us to draw conclusions that visual PF likely led to increased teacher praise in this study. In the other studies, additional PF modalities (e.g. oral, written) were incorporated with visual PF, therefore a change in teacher behavior cannot be attributed to visual PF alone. Overwhelmingly, regardless of PF modality, researchers reported teachers increased their use of praise for all cases and an overall reduction in reprimands in all but one study. In that study, authors reported no change in reprimands (Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref164">56</reflink>]). These findings are encouraging for the field; however, this creates an avenue for future research to examine the impacts of individual or combined PF modalities on teacher behavior. It may be that a combination of PF delivery methods (Myers et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref165">35</reflink>]; Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref166">39</reflink>]) may result in more substantial changes in teacher behavior or one mode (Sweigart et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref167">56</reflink>]) may be sufficient. Thus, further research comparing the PF modalities is warranted. Relatedly, it is possible that teachers have a preferred modality, impacting how they receive, interpret, and apply the feedback. Future inquiry could involve examining the most effective modality while concurrently examining teacher preference (Zhu et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref168">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-32">PF plus</hd> <p>Six studies were categorized as PF plus. Across studies, most researchers reported improvements in teacher behavior. Only one study measured student engagement and found no change (Duchaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref169">11</reflink>]). However, given the diversity in PF intervention components and the lack of PF component analyses, neither their individual nor collective unique contributions and their effects on teacher behavior can be determined. Comparative single-case designs could help address the uncertainty by isolating independent variable components in different phases to assess DV impacts. Recently, one study found that providing PF <emph>via</emph> videoconferencing yielded quicker, sustained improvements in participant's adherence to treatment integrity when compared to PF sent <emph>via</emph> email with written and visual modalities (Zhu et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref170">63</reflink>]). Alternatively, researchers could start interventions with PF alone then add supplementary components like self-monitoring teacher statements (Simonsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref171">48</reflink>]) if participants fail to meet a predetermined criterion.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-33">Equity-based PF</hd> <p>We also examined whether PF included the differential rates of praise and reprimands delivered to students by race (e.g. number of praise statements to Black students versus number of praise statements to White students). Unfortunately, no study was found to deliver PF in this way. Instead, all PF delivered to teachers focused on teacher statements delivered to the entire classroom or to the target students in the study. Disproportionate discipline practices are well documented in schools (e.g. Krezmien et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref172">30</reflink>]; Losen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref173">33</reflink>]) and therefore it is essential for the field to examine how classroom management practices, such as praise and reprimands, are manifesting in the classroom. This is particularly important given office discipline referrals typically originate at the classroom level (Skiba et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref174">47</reflink>]). It is possible that providing PF to teachers with data disaggregated by race may be a useful tool for teachers in creating equitable and inclusive classrooms as found in a recent study (Gion et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref175">23</reflink>]). However, additional inquiry is warranted. Future researchers could study the effects on student behaviors, classroom climate, and discipline referrals when PF on teacher's behavior includes rates of praise or reprimands using data disaggregated by students' race.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-34">Evidence-based practice</hd> <p>Finally, we analyzed PF alone studies for rigor as those interventions included fewer components making clearer that PF may be attributed to behavior change. Following the WWC standards analysis of those studies, our original intent was to examine study outcomes for evidence of effect to establish an evidence-based practice. Unfortunately, none of the nine PF alone studies were found to meet WWC standards without reservation. And only four met standards with reservations, an indication that methodological limitations were detected in all PF alone studies. To establish a practice as evidence-based, WWC indicates that the literature must show evidence of improved outcomes in five or more studies that meet rigorous research standards (i.e. meets WWC standards with or without reservations; WWC, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref176">61</reflink>]). Given the few studies that met WWC research standards, we did not analyze outcomes for effect. Instead, we concluded, PF alone targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers cannot yet be described as evidence-based. As such, further research meeting rigorous standards must be conducted at the secondary level.</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-35">Implications for research and practice</hd> <p>Although our review included a variety of PF interventions and procedural review limitations, implications for research and practice are still evident. First, this review indicates PF studies include appropriate gender representation of the teacher workforce, however little is known about the race of these teachers. It is important to note the race of teachers to understand if racial composition impacts PF effectiveness. Second, this review highlighted the need for rigorous PF research that targets secondary teachers to be conducted. Although, all PF modalities, whether alone or in combination, appeared to result in improved teacher behavior, more research that meets methodologically rigorous standards according to CEC standards is needed to establish PF as an evidence-based practice at the secondary level. Specifically, several studies lacked detailed DV definitions and failed to measure both treatment fidelity and social validity. To establish evidence-based practices for secondary settings, researchers must take steps to ensure all standards are met to produce quality studies. Targeted research in secondary settings is particularly important as these settings are substantially different from elementary settings in terms of structure, organization, classroom instruction, and expectations (Estrapala et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref177">14</reflink>]). Further, conducting research in middle and high schools is imperative to help determine effective interventions that may curtail exclusionary discipline common to those settings (e.g. Krezmien et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref178">30</reflink>]; Lloyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref179">32</reflink>]; Losen et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref180">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181947009-36">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0181947009-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> * Allday, R., Hinkson-Lee, K., Hudson, T., Neilsen-Gatti, S., Kleinke, A., & Russel, C. S. (2012). Training general educators to increase behavior-specific praise: Effects on students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 37 (2), 87 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Auld, R., Belfiore, P., & Scheeler, M. (2010). Increasing pre-service teachers' use of differential reinforcement: Effects of performance feedback on consequences for student behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19 (2), 169 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9107-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref155" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baer, D. M., & Wolf, M. M. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20 (4), 313 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1987.20-313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref42" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barton, E., Velez, M., Pokorski, E., & Domingo, M. (2020). The effects of email performance-based feedback delivered to teaching teams: A systematic replication. Journal of Early Intervention, 42 (2), 143 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119872451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Caldarella, P., Ross, A., Williams, L., Wills, H., & Wehby, J. (2020). "Stop doing that!": Effects of teacher reprimands on student disruptive behavior and engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23 (3), 163 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720935101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref148" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carter-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref43" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cavanaugh, B. (2013). Performance feedback and teachers' use of praise and opportunities to respond: A review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 36 (1), 111 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref162" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chalk, K., & Bizo, L. A. (2004). Specific praise improves on-task behaviour and numeracy enjoyment: A study of year four pupils engaged in the numeracy hour. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20 (4), 335 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736042000314277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref82" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> * Colvin, G., Flannery, K., Sugai, G., & Monegan, J. (2009). Using observational data to provide performance feedback to teachers: A high school case study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53 (2), 95 – 104. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.2.95-104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. (3rd ed.) Pearson Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Duchaine, E. L., Jolivette, K., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with performance feedback on behavior-specific praise in inclusion classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 34 (2), 209 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downs, K. R., Caldarella, P., Larsen, R. A., Charlton, C. T., Wills, H. P., Kamps, D. M., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Teacher praise and reprimands: The differential response of students at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21 (3), 135 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1771/1098300718800824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, R., Royer, D., Lane, K., & Dunlap, K. (2020). The impact of coaching on teacher-delivered behavior-specific praise in Pre-K–12 settings: A systematic review. Behavioral Disorders, 45 (3), 148 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919839221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estrapala, S., Rila, A., & Bruhn, A. (2020). High school PBIS Tier 1: A systematic review. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23 (4), 288 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720929684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabelo, T., Thompson, M., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M., III,., & Booth, E. (2011). Breaking schools' rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students' success and juvenile justice involvement. Council of State Governments Justice Center, 1-106. <ulink href="http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/Breaking%5fSchool%5fRules.pdf">http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/Breaking%5fSchool%5fRules.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Maggin, D. M., Sanetti, L. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2015). Is performance feedback for educators an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation based on single-case research. Exceptional Children, 81 (2), 227 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson, J., Cihon, J., Leaf, J., Van Meter, S., McEachin, J., & Leaf, R. (2018). Assessment of social validity trends in journal of applied behavior analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 20 (1), 146 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2018.1534771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flora, S. R. (2000). Praise's magic reinforcement ratio: Five to one gets the job done. The Behavior Analyst Today, 1 (4), 64 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Floress, M., Beaudoin, M., & Bernas, R. (2022). Exploring secondary teachers' actual and perceived praise and reprimand use. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24 (1), 46 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007211000381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Floress, M., Riedesel, E., Brito, C., & White, J. (2021). Middle and high school teachers' praise and reprimand delivery. School Psychology (Washington, D.C.), 37 (1), 15 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44 (4), 195 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208328831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gion, C., McIntosh, K., & Falcon, S. (2020). The effects of a multifaceted classroom intervention on racial disproportionality. School Psychology Review, 51 (1), 67 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1788906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F., Dart, E., & Collins, T. (2017). Generalizability of multiple measures of treatment integrity: Comparison among direct observation, permanent products, and self-report. School Psychology Review, 46 (1), 108 – 121. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR46-1.108-121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Hawkins, S., & Heflin, L. (2011). Increasing secondary teachers' behavior-specific praise using a video self-modeling and visual performance feedback intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13 (2), 97 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709358110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirn, R. G., & Scott, T. M. (2014). Descriptive analysis of teacher instructional practices and student engagement among adolescents with and without challenging behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 37 (4), 589 – 610. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., Collins, G. (2018). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force – Updated October 2018. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Jones, K. M., Wickstrom, K. F., & Friman, P. C. (1997). The effects of observational feedback on treatment integrity in school-based behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 12 (4), 316 – 326. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088965</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34 (1), 26 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and disability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14 (4), 217 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266060140040501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford, J., & Gast, D. (Eds.). (2018). Singe case research methodology. (3rd ed.) Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloyd, B. P., Bruhn, A. L., Sutherland, K. S., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2019). Progress and priorities in research to improve outcomes for students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 44 (2), 85 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918808485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losen, D. J., Hodson, C., Keith, M. A., Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we closing the school discipline gap?. Center for Civil Rights Remedies at The Civil Rights Project at UCLA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Mautone, J. A., Luiselli, J. K., & Handler, M. W. (2006). Improving implementation of classroom instruction through teacher-directed behavioral consultation: A single-case demonstration. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2 (3), 432 – 438. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Myers, D. M., Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2011). Increasing teachers' use of praise with a response-to-intervention approach. Education and Treatment of Children, 34 (1), 35 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., Koenig, J. L., Resetar, J. L., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34 (1), 87 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2005.12086277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Handley, R. D., Olmi, D. J., Dufrene, B. A., Tingstrom, D. H., & Whipple, H. (2020). The effects of behavior-specific praise and public posting in secondary classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 57 (7), 1097 – 1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Pinter, E. B., East, A., & Thrush, N. (2015). Effects of a video-feedback intervention on teachers' use of praise. Education and Treatment of Children, 38 (4), 451 – 472. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2015.0028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Pisacreta, J., Tincani, M., Connell, J. E., & Axelrod, S. (2011). Increasing teachers' use of a 1: 1 praise-to-behavior correction ratio to decrease student disruption in general education classrooms. Behavioral Interventions, 26 (4), 243 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Rathel, J., Drasgow, E., Brown, W., & Marshall, K. (2014). Increasing induction-level teachers' positive-to-negative communication ratio and use of behavior-specific praise through e-mailed performance feedback and its effect on students' task engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16 (4), 219 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713492856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rock, M., Schumacker, R., Gregg, M., Howard, P., Gable, R., & Zigmond, N. (2014). How are they now? Longer term effects of e-coaching through online bug-in-ear technology. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 37 (2), 161 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414525048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., Dunlap, K. D., & Ennis, R. P. (2019). A systematic review of teacher-delivered behavior-specific praise on K–12 student performance. Remedial and Special Education, 40 (2), 112 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaefer, J. M., & Ottley, J. R. (2018). Evaluating immediate feedback via bug-in-ear as an evidence-based practice for professional development. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33 (4), 247 – 258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418766870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheeler, M. C., McKinnon, K., & Stout, J. (2012). Effects of immediate feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35 (1), 77 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411401919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 27 (4), 396 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640402700407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shernoff, E. S., Lekwa, A. L., Reddy, L. A., & Davis, W. (2020). Teachers' use and beliefs about praise: A mixed-methods study. School Psychology Review, 49 (3), 256 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1732146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20 (3), 295 – 315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Simonsen, B., MacSuga, A. S., Fallon, L. M., & Sugai, G. (2013). The effects of self-monitoring on teachers' use of specific praise. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15 (1), 5 – 15. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.50.2.559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & DeLuca, C. (2010). Teaching teachers to use prompts, opportunities to respond, and specific praise. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 300 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409359905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair, A. C., Gesel, S. A., LeJeune, L. M., & Lemons, C. J. (2020). A review of the evidence for real-time performance feedback to improve instructional practice. The Journal of Special Education, 54 (2), 90 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919878470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass, M., Chung, M., Meadan, H., & Halle, J. (2018). Social validity in single-case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 160 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., & Politylo, B. C. (2012). The effect of performance feedback on teachers' treatment integrity: A meta-analysis of the single-case literature. School Psychology Review, 41 (2), 160 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stormont, M., Reinke, W., Newcomer, L., Marchese, S., & Lewis, C. (2015). Coaching teachers' use of social behavior interventions to improve children's outcomes: A review of the literature. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17 (2), 69 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300714550657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implementation of precorrection and praise statements in Head Start classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16 (3), 280 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9040-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (1), 2 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweigart, C., Collins, L., Evanovich, L., & Cook, S. (2016). An evaluation of the evidence base for performance feedback to improve teacher praise using CEC's quality indicators. Education and Treatment of Children, 39 (4), 419 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2016.0019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taber, T. A., Dufrene, B. A., Radley, K. C., Olmi, D. J., & Tingstrom, D. H. (2020). High school teachers' maintained and generalized behavior-specific praise following in situ training. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 20 (4), 203 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trussell, R. P. (2008). Classroom universals to prevent problem behaviors. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 (3), 179 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451207311678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Census regions and divisions of the United States. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Acker, R., Grant, S. H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and Treatment of Children, 19 (3), 316 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). (2020). What works clearinghouse standards handbook: Version 4.1. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: the case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11 (2), 203 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203 16795590</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, J., Bruhn, A. L., Yuan, C., & Wang, L. (2021). Comparing the effects of videoconference and email feedback on treatment integrity in early behavioral intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54 (2), 618 – 635. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.810</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ashley Rila; Allison L. Bruhn and Alex Pauls</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref168"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1455499
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Systematic Review of Performance Feedback Interventions Targeting Secondary Teachers' Use of Praise and Reprimands
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ashley+Rila%22">Ashley Rila</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Allison+L%2E+Bruhn%22">Allison L. Bruhn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alex+Pauls%22">Alex Pauls</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Preventing+School+Failure%22"><i>Preventing School Failure</i></searchLink>. 2025 69(1):45-55.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Reinforcement%22">Positive Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Reinforcement%22">Negative Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2302172
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1045-988X<br />1940-4387
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: High rates of teacher praise are associated with positive student outcomes (Royer et al., 2019). Research shows secondary teachers deliver more reprimands than praise (e.g. Floress et al. 2022). Performance feedback (PF) is a strategy used to change teacher behaviors. However, it is unknown if PF targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers is an evidence-based practice. Although reviews on PF exist, none focus exclusively on secondary teachers. This review was to synthesize 14 PF intervention studies targeting praise and reprimands for secondary teachers. We evaluated PF studies to determine if PF is an evidence-based practice. Results indicate PF targeting praise and reprimands cannot yet be determined as an evidence-based practice for secondary teachers. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1455499
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1455499
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2302172
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 45
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Negative Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Systematic Review of Performance Feedback Interventions Targeting Secondary Teachers' Use of Praise and Reprimands
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ashley Rila
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Allison L. Bruhn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alex Pauls
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1045-988X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-4387
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Preventing School Failure
              Type: main
ResultId 1