Positive behavior support/management and teacher development: a systematic review of primary education interventions

Abstract

Background/Introduction:

Despite widespread use, Positive Behavior Support/Management (PBS/M) teacher professional development for primary teachers varies in dose, delivery, and fidelity monitoring; prior syntheses have not differentiated between primary and other levels or linked PBS/M components to teacher and student outcomes across contexts.

Methods:

This systematic review (2006–2024) identifies core components of PBS/M professional development (PD) for primary teachers and measures used, synthesizes directions of effect across outcomes and contexts, and appraises study methodological quality using MMAT (2018). Studies were eligible if they reported teacher-level outcomes in primary/elementary settings (ages 6–11) with empirical designs. Outcomes were synthesized using SWiM-consistent vote-counting by direction of effect, classifying each finding as positive (+), no change (0), or mixed (±), with consistency defined a priori as ≥70% alignment across ≥3 studies per cell.

Results:

Thirty-three studies were included: 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 16 non-randomized controlled studies, and 2 mixed-methods studies, spanning 10 countries (69.7% USA), with 51.5% conducted in low-SES school settings. Results indicate that four PBS/M PD families dominated. Classroom management and practices (CM&P) was the most consistently positive outcome (positive in ≥75% of studies reporting this domain), particularly under medium-duration mixed-method programs. Teacher self-efficacy (TSE) showed consistently positive gains in non-USA and mixed-locale contexts. Teacher wellbeing (TSBW) was consistently mixed across components and contexts. Mixed trainer teams aligned with better outcomes. Methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. MMAT flagged strong measurement/randomization but concerns about baseline imbalance, confounding, blinding, and attrition.

Discussion:

Interpretation is qualified by the mainly USA evidence base, reliance on teacher self-report, and the vote-counting method's inability to estimate pooled effect sizes.

1 Introduction

1.1 Rationale

Effective classroom management is fundamental to quality primary education, yet teachers worldwide consistently identify managing student behavior as one of the most demanding and stressful aspects of their work (Dawes, 2024; Fernet et al., 2012; Tsubono and Ogawa, 2022; Wang, 2024). Disruptive or disengaged behaviors—calling out, defiance, inattentiveness, or off-task talk—consume instructional time and undermine both academic progress and teacher confidence (Elliott, 2023). When unmanaged, chronic classroom disruption elevates teacher stress and contributes to emotional exhaustion and attrition (Lamghari et al., 2025; Madigan and Kim, 2021).

In many contexts, teachers often resort to punitive discipline strategies (Duarte et al., 2023; Heekes et al., 2020). Although such measures may produce short-term compliance, they often damage teacher–student relationships and can escalate conflict or withdrawal (Gershoff, 2017; Jacobsen, 2019). Persistent use of punitive control correlates with higher teacher stress and lower self-efficacy, creating a negative feedback loop that compromises classroom climate (Eddy et al., 2020; Frenzel et al., 2015; Madigan and Kim, 2023). These challenges signal the need for proactive, instructional approaches that prevent misbehavior and build student self-regulation.

As an alternative to punitive approaches to discipline, the literature describes several overlapping but non-identical approaches, including Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), positive classroom behavior support, positive and proactive classroom management, etc. (Center on PBIS, 2025). In this review, these terms are not treated as interchangeable. Rather, the review adopts Positive Behavior Support/Management (PBS/M) as an analytic umbrella to refer specifically to teacher-focused, proactive, preventive, and instructional approaches to behavior support and classroom management in primary education. Within this delimitation, PBS/M includes professional development aimed at helping teachers establish predictable and supportive classroom environments, explicitly teach behavioral expectations, reinforce appropriate behavior, and use constructive responses to student behavior. PBS/M is therefore included in this review only where it appears as a teacher-relevant Tier 1 or classroom-oriented professional development approach with reportable teacher-level outcomes, rather than as a purely schoolwide framework.

Extensive research has demonstrated the benefits of PBS/M across K–12 education. A strong evidence base demonstrates that PBS/M can reduce disruptive incidents and office discipline referrals (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Lassen et al., 2006); improvements in cooperative participation and classroom engagement (McIntosh, 2023; Van Ryzin et al., 2020); increased student motivation and self-regulation (Adam Ismail, 2023; Zhang and Dong, 2022); and gains in academic achievement (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Madigan et al., 2016). However, PBS/M outcomes depend heavily on teachers' capacity and consistency in applying its principles. Effective professional development (PD) is therefore the mechanism by which evidence-based behavioral frameworks are translated into everyday teaching practice (Dacholfany et al., 2024; Gillham, 2024; Savva, 2019).

The effectiveness of PD in promoting teacher change has been theorized through complementary models. For the purposes of this review, effectiveness in PBS/M teacher development is defined through Guskey’s (2002) Model of Teacher Change and Desimone's (2009) core features of effective professional learning. Guskey (2002) proposed that professional learning leads first to changes in classroom practice, which then influence student outcomes and subsequently reshape teachers' beliefs and attitudes. Complementing this perspective, Desimone’s (2009) identified five core features of effective PD: (a) a strong content focus, (b) active learning, (c) coherence with teachers' goals and curriculum, (d) sufficient duration to support practice, and (e) collective participation that fosters collaboration. When applied to PBS/M, these frameworks suggest that teacher learning should integrate explicit content on behavioral principles, opportunities for modeling and rehearsal, iterative feedback cycles, and sustained engagement across time.

However, PBS/M programs cannot be assumed to work uniformly across settings. Intercultural education principles highlight that professional development must be adapted to local cultural and demographic realities (Luh et al., 2024). In this review, contextual analysis was operationalized through three variables extractable from available study reports — country (USA vs. non-USA), school locale, and school socioeconomic status — which serve as practical proxies for the broader cultural and systemic conditions shaping implementation. Deeper cultural dimensions, such as individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and time orientation ( (Hofstede, 2011), could not be systematically extracted from published reports and therefore remain a priority for future research.

Despite the proliferation of PBS/M PD, critical gaps remain in the literature. Existing reviews have tended to focus on general educator training across broad K–12 levels (Samudre et al., 2022) or on specialized settings such as special education (Aldabbagh et al., 2024; Mahon et al., 2022).

This systematic review addresses these gaps by: (a) identifying the core components (content & focus, training methods, durations, and trainers/facilitators of PBS/M professional development programs reported for primary school teachers; (b) synthesizing evidence on how PBS/M programs influence teacher attitudes, classroom practices, and student outcomes across different contexts; and (c) appraising methodological quality of included studies to identify common strengths and limitations.

1.2 Research questions

RQ 1. What core components are reported for PBS/M teacher professional development programs targeting primary school teachers, and how are these features associated with reported outcomes?

RQ 2. How do the direction and consistency of the reported outcomes on teacher attitudes, classroom practices, and students vary by context in primary-school PBS/M teacher professional development research?

RQ 3. How are the included studies rated for methodological quality when appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, 2018), and what common strengths and limitations are observed across study designs?

2 Methods

2.1 Eligibility criteria

We defined eligibility criteria a priori using the PICOS framework. Inclusion criteria were as follows.

Population (P): Pre- and in-service primary or elementary school teachers working with students approximately aged 6–11 in mainstream or inclusive formal school settings worldwide.

Intervention (I): Teacher-focused Positive Behavior Support/Management (PBS/M) professional development programs, encompassing manualized classroom management programs, coaching and consultation models, skill-focused trainings, and school-wide PBIS frameworks with a discrete teacher-PD component.

Comparator (C): An experimental or quasi-experimental design with a control or alternative condition, or documented change over time through pre–post or single-case designs.

Outcomes (O): Teacher-level change in at least one of the following domains: attitudes or beliefs about behavior management, stress, self-efficacy, or observed classroom practices and behaviors.

Study designs (S): Empirical studies published in English between 2006 and 2024, including randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, pre–post designs, single-case designs, and mixed-methods studies.

We excluded studies if they met any of the following criteria: (1) focused on preschool or secondary/higher education without a primary teacher sample; (2) described only school-wide PBS/M implementation without a discrete teacher-PD component or teacher-level effects; (3) reported student outcomes only, without any teacher-level data; (4) were non-empirical in nature, including theoretical pieces, opinion articles, editorials, book reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses; or (5) were conducted exclusively in specialized, non-inclusive settings (e.g., schools for students with severe emotional/behavioral disorders), as the distinct staffing ratios and student profiles of such settings limit generalizability to mainstream primary classrooms.

2.2 Information sources and search strategy

We performed the searches on August 15, 2025, including searches from the following databases: ERIC, PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCO – Education Source, and APA PsycNet. All strings followed the same three-block Boolean structure, with blocks joined by AND and synonyms within each block joined by OR. The population block comprised primary schools OR elementary schools (with grade school added in EBSCOhost). The intervention block varied slightly by database: ERIC, PubMed, and APA PsycNet used teacher development OR teacher training combined with positive behavior support OR behavior management, while ScienceDirect and EBSCOhost used the broader form teacher development OR professional development combined with PBIS OR positive behavior intervention support OR positive behavior support OR PBS. The outcome block, applied in PubMed and APA PsycNet, added teacher outcomes OR student outcomes OR effectiveness. Database-specific filters were applied throughout: ERIC was limited to Journal Articles, Reports–Research, Primary Education, Elementary Education, peer-reviewed, and full-text available; PubMed to full text and English; ScienceDirect to Research Articles within the Teaching and Teacher Education subject area; EBSCOhost to full text, peer-reviewed, references available, English, and Academic Journal articles; and APA PsycNet to Journal and Peer Reviewed Journal. All searches covered the period 2006–2025. The complete, database-specific search strings are presented in Supplementary Appendix A.

To supplement database searches, we conducted additional hand searches on specialized websites hosting research repositories relevant to Positive Behavior Support, including the Center on PBIS and PBS Europe. These sources were screened systematically for empirical studies on teacher professional development in primary/elementary school settings. In addition, Google Scholar was searched using Boolean operators to maximize retrieval breadth: (teacher development OR teacher training) AND (positive behavior support OR behavior management) AND (primary schools OR elementary schools) AND (teacher outcomes OR student outcomes OR effectiveness). We also performed citation tracking using both backward searching (screening the reference lists of included studies) and forward searching (identifying studies citing the included articles in Google Scholar).

All records identified through database and supplementary searching were then carried forward to the same study selection process and screened against the same eligibility criteria described in Section 2.3.

2.3 Study selection process

Figure 1 presents the study identification and selection process following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Initial title–abstract screening was conducted independently by two reviewers following a calibration exercise to ensure consistent interpretation of the eligibility criteria; disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Inter-rater agreement at this stage was high (κ = .90), indicating strong consistency in inclusion decisions.

Figure 1

We identified 467 records through database searching, including ERIC (n = 190), PubMed (n = 202), ScienceDirect (n = 6), APA PsycNet (n = 13), and EBSCO Education Source (n = 56). After removing duplicate records (n = 5), 462 unique records remained and were screened based on titles and abstracts. Of these, 427 records were excluded for clearly not meeting the inclusion criteria.

We then sought full-text retrieval for 35 reports identified through database searches; one report was inaccessible, leaving 34 reports assessed for eligibility. Of these, 24 reports were excluded at full-text screening for the following reasons: Reason 1, participants were not primary or elementary teachers (n = 1); Reason 2, the intervention involved school-wide programs without a discrete teacher professional development component or lacked a PBS/M focus (n = 11); and Reason 3, only student-level outcomes were reported (n = 12).

In addition to database searching, we identified 67 records through other methods, including hand searching (n = 26) and citation searching (n = 41). One report could not be retrieved, and 66 full-text reports were assessed for eligibility. At this stage, 43 reports were excluded because Reason 1, participants were not primary or elementary teachers (n = 1); Reason 2, the studies focused on school-wide programs without teacher professional development or PBS/M focus (n = 16); Reason 3, only student-level outcomes were reported (n = 15); Reason 4, the reports were theoretical, review-based, or non-empirical (n = 8); or Reason 5, the studies were conducted exclusively in special-education or non-inclusive settings (n = 3). Overall, 33 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the final review.

2.4 Data extraction and coding

We piloted the codebook on a small set of studies to align interpretations of variables and outcome domains, then locked the fields before full extraction. One reviewer extracted all study, intervention, and outcome data using the locked codebook. A second reviewer verified all records (33/33; 100%), covering critical fields (study design, sample sizes, intervention category/training methods, outcome domains, and direction-of-effect coding). Discrepancies identified during verification were resolved by discussion and correction of the data file or, when needed, by a third reviewer.

Using the locked form, we prospectively defined all extraction fields in alignment with our review questions, consistent with recommendations to plan forms in advance and pilot them before launch (Büchter et al., 2020; Li et al., 2024). For each study, we recorded bibliographic details (study citation, year, country, publication type, and journal), design characteristics (randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, single-case, or mixed-methods), school level, and unit of allocation (teacher, class, or school), following guidance to document study design features and contexts systematically (Page et al., 2021). Participant and setting descriptors included teacher profile (sample size, qualifications, and experience where reported), student profile, grade range, and contextual tags used throughout the review, namely country (USA vs. non-USA), locale (urban, suburban, mixed, or not reported), and school SES (low, mixed, or not reported). Intervention characteristics were coded using the structured typology developed for this review: each program record included the intervention title, a standardized definition, and classification by content category (A–D), training methods (didactic instruction, coaching/consultation, job-embedded, group coaching, or mixed-method), duration and frequency (short, medium, or long), and trainer or facilitator profile (external expert, researcher, master teacher, or regular teacher), along with named program labels and any reported fidelity supports, in line with calls to extract both content and delivery features. Effectiveness outcome data were coded under six predefined domains—Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE), Teacher Stress, Burnout and Wellbeing (TSBW), Classroom Management & Practices (CM&P), Praise, Reprimands & Opportunities to Respond (P-R&OTR), Student Engagement & Achievement (SE&A), and Goal Attainment & Progress Monitoring (GA&PM). We treated implementation fidelity and social validity as implementation outcomes; therefore, they were reported as implementation findings rather than effectiveness outcomes and summarized narratively instead of being included in the vote-count synthesis tables.

2.5 Data analysis and synthesis

Given heterogeneity in designs and outcomes, we applied a structured narrative synthesis consistent with Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines (Campbell et al., 2020). Each study's direction of effect was coded a priori and documented in the locked codebook prior to full-scale extraction: positive (+) if the primary reported finding showed a statistically significant improvement (p < .05) or a consistent positive trend across data points for single-case designs; no change (0) if the finding was statistically non-significant with no discernible trend; mixed (±) if results were significant for some but not all measures within the domain, or if subscales pointed in opposite directions; and not assessed (–) if the outcome domain was not measured or reported in a given study. Cells coded (–) were excluded from vote-count denominators — for example, a proportion of 5/6 for CM&P in a given subgroup means that 6 studies measured that domain and 5 showed positive effects. To ensure transparency, all proportions were expressed as numerators/denominators, and consistency was defined a priori as ≥70% of studies pointing in the same direction with at least three contributors (n ≥ 3); when this threshold was not met, results were described without over-interpretation. Complete study-by-outcome matrices are provided in Supplementary Appendix C.

To examine potential moderators, we stratified findings by three contextual variables — country (USA vs. non-USA), school locale (urban/suburban/mixed), and school SES (low/mixed/not reported) — using the same directional coding. Associations between program components and outcomes were analyzed by cross-tabulating content category, training method, duration, and facilitator type with each outcome domain. All instruments used to assess teacher, student, and implementation outcomes were also inventoried and grouped by domain for measurement mapping.

Methodological appraisal using the MMAT (2018) informed interpretation rather than study eligibility. No studies were excluded on the basis of MMAT appraisal, and no aggregate MMAT score was calculated. Instead, criterion-level MMAT findings were used to judge how cautiously apparently consistent patterns should be interpreted. In particular, when a positive or mixed pattern was supported mainly by studies with recurrent limitations such as baseline imbalance, inadequate control of confounding, attrition, reliance on self-report measures, or lack of blinded outcome assessment, we retained the observed direction of the findings in the synthesis, but interpreted the strength of the evidence more cautiously.

3 Results

We narratively synthesize: program components/features linked to outcomes; measurement approaches/instruments; outcome direction and consistency with context; and MMAT (2018) quality appraisal.

3.1 Overview of the included studies

We included 33 studies (Table 1), published between 2006 and 2024 in 20 peer-reviewed outlets (e.g., Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, School Psychology, Prevention Science, Journal of Behavioral Education). Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 23, 69.7%), with additional work from the UK, Ireland, Canada, Cyprus & Greece, Japan, Norway, Estonia, and Italy. Nearly all outputs were journal articles (n = 30, 90.9%), with two doctoral dissertations and one technical report. Studies were predominantly set in urban or high-need schools, with 51.5% explicitly serving low-SES student populations, and most remaining studies situated in suburban or mixed locales. General characteristics of studies are reported in Supplementary Appendix B.

3.2 Core components of PBS/M teacher development programs and associations between features and reported outcomes (RQ1)

We structured narrative synthesis of PBS/M teacher development across four domains—(a) content/focus, (b) duration/frequency, (c) training methods, and (d) trainer/facilitator.

3.2.1 Core components of PBS/M teacher development programs

3.2.1.1 Program content & focus

Across 33 studies (Table 2), four program types emerged: (A) manualized classroom-management packages—16/33 (48.5%) with fidelity guides (e.g., PAX Good Behavior Game, Incredible Years TCM, CW-FIT); (B) coaching/consultation models—7/33 (21.2%) providing individualized cycles of modeling, feedback, and reflection (e.g., Classroom Strategies Coaching, Feasible Coaching Supports, MyTeachingPartner); (C) micro-skill trainings—6/33 (18.2%) targeting BSP, OTR, or BST; and (D) school-wide Tier 1/PBIS—4/33 (12.1%) emphasizing universal rules and reinforcement. Overall, comprehensive packaged interventions predominate, alongside strong representation of individualized coaching.

We developed the four content and focus categories (A–D) during the codebook piloting phase described in Section 2.4. We operationalized these categories using a sequential, mechanism-based decision procedure applied consistently across all 33 studies. Three binary decision rules guided classification in a fixed order. First, studies were coded as Category D when the primary unit of implementation was the school as a whole, including universal expectations, school-wide reinforcement systems, or tiered behavior frameworks. If this criterion did not apply, studies were evaluated for a narrow instructional target. Interventions that focused on a single teacher behavior, such as behavior-specific praise, opportunities to respond, or structured transition routines, were coded as Category C. All remaining studies addressed broader classroom practice. These were then classified based on the dominant delivery mechanism. Studies centered on individualized and iterative cycles of observation, feedback, and guided reflection were coded as Category B. Studies that delivered a structured and manualized instructional program were coded as Category A. All decisions were documented in the locked codebook and independently verified by a second reviewer. Category labels assigned to individual studies appear in Table 4 to support direct cross-referencing with Table 2.

3.2.1.2 Duration & frequency

Program duration was generally sustained (Table 3). Long-term interventions (≥1 school year) were most common, reported in 14 studies (42.4%), followed by medium-term interventions (multi-week to one semester) in 11 studies (33.3%). Short-term interventions (brief workshops, one-off sessions) accounted for only 8 studies (24.2%).

3.2.1.3 Training methods

Training delivery was predominantly mixed-method, with 23 studies (69.7%) combining multiple strategies such as didactic instruction, modeling, rehearsal, feedback, and ongoing coaching. See Table 4 for mixed-method details. Single-method approaches were rare: didactic-only instruction appeared in 5 studies (15.2%), while modular delivery, job-embedded learning, group collaboration, and mentoring each occurred in only 1 study (3.0% each).

3.2.1.4 Trainer(s)/facilitator(s)

Regarding program delivery, most interventions were facilitated by external coaches or professional development specialists (12 studies, 36.4%), followed by researcher-led teams (9 studies, 27.3%). A quarter of studies (8 studies, 24.2%) used mixed facilitation teams that included teachers, researchers, and external coaches. Teacher- or peer-led interventions were reported in only 2 studies (6.1%), and 2 studies (6.1%) did not specify the facilitator.

3.2.2 Associations between PBS/M teacher development components and outcomes

We examined how different types of PBS/M teacher development program components were associated with reported outcomes across teacher, classroom, and student domains, namely Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE), Teacher Stress, Burnout and Wellbeing (TSBW), Classroom Management & Practices (CM&P), Praise, Reprimands & Opportunities to Respond (P-R&OTR), Student Engagement & Achievement (SE&A), and Goal Attainment & Progress Monitoring (GA&PM). Detailed counts and proportions for each category and outcome domain are presented in Supplementary Appendix C and how outcome domains are defined and grouped are provided in Supplementary Appendix D.

3.2.2.1 Program content & focus and outcomes

Packaged classroom-management programs (manualized) were consistently positive for TSE (6/8, 75%) and CM&P (6/7, 85.7%). Coaching/consultation/professional support was consistently positive for CM&P (3/4, 75%). Skill-focused teacher behavior training showed a consistently mixed pattern for P-R&OTR (4/5, 80% mixed). Other content–outcome pairs did not display a consistent direction.

3.2.2.2 Training methods and outcomes

Didactic instruction (lectures, verbal explanations, presentations) was consistently positive for CM&P (3/3, 100%) and SE&A (5/5, 100%). Mixed training methods were consistently positive for TSE (4/5, 80%) and GA&PM (4/4, 100%), and consistently mixed for TSBW (3/4, 75% mixed). Other individual methods showed no consistent direction across domains.

3.2.2.3 Duration & frequency and outcomes

Medium-term programs (multi-week to one semester) were consistently positive for TSE (5/5, 100%), CM&P (7/9, 77.8%), P-R&OTR (5/7, 71.4%), and SE&A (6/8, 75%). Long-term programs (≥1 school year) were consistently positive for CM&P (6/8, 75%) and consistently mixed for P-R&OTR (3/4, 75% mixed). Short-term programs showed no consistent direction, and GA&PM and TSBW displayed no consistent pattern across durations.

3.2.2.4 Trainer(s)/facilitator(s) and outcomes

For CM&P, external coaches/consultants (5/6, 83.3%), researcher-led delivery (3/4, 75%), and mixed teams of teachers, researchers, and external coaches (5/7, 71.4%) were consistently positive. For P-R&OTR, mixed teams were consistently positive (4/5, 80%), while researcher-led (5/7, 71.4% mixed) and external coaches/consultants (3/4, 75% mixed) were consistently mixed. For SE&A, researcher-led delivery was consistently positive (6/8, 75%). For TSE and GA&PM, trainer-type evidence was too limited to establish a consistent pattern, and TSBW showed no consistent direction across trainer models.

Overall, effects clustered around classroom practice and engagement outcomes. CM&P improved most reliably—especially with packaged classroom-management programs, didactic instruction, medium-term duration, and delivery by external coaches, researcher-led teams, or mixed teams. SE&A was most consistently positive under didactic instruction and medium-term programs. TSE tended to improve with packaged manualized content, mixed-method training, and medium-term duration. GA&PM gains appeared chiefly with mixed-method training. P-R&OTR was often mixed, with clearer positives under mixed teams and medium-term programs. TSBW showed no consistent benefits across components.

3.2.2.4.1 Implementation fidelity

We grouped implementation fidelity with adherence, integrity, and compliance. It is a critical driver of intervention effectiveness, with consistent evidence showing that higher fidelity generally yields more favorable outcomes for students and staff (Berg et al., 2017; Houchens et al., 2017). Many studies reported high fidelity, with CW-FIT averaging results exceeding 92% (Caldarella et al., 2015; Kamps et al., 2015) and the intensive Classroom Strategies Coaching (CSC) achieving fidelity rates above 99% (Reddy et al., 2021), leading to strong outcomes such as increased teacher praise (Reddy et al., 2021; Wills et al., 2018) and increased student on-task behavior (Caldarella et al., 2015; Wills et al., 2018). However, adherence is not universal; observed implementation rates are often inconsistent or low (Coffee and Kratochwill, 2013; Simonsen et al., 2020). Studies confirmed the efficacy of providing higher intensity support, particularly performance feedback, which resulted in significantly higher implementation rates for the teachers who needed it most (Reddy et al., 2021; Reinke et al., 2014; Sørlie et al., 2016)

3.2.2.4.2 Social validity and acceptability

Social validity and acceptability measures consistently demonstrated that both teachers and students positively perceived the intervention programs and training approaches. Teachers widely reported high satisfaction, perceiving programs like CW-FIT (Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams) as easy to implement, acceptable, and effective. Teachers rated the feasibility and acceptability of comprehensive classroom management plans highly (Fallon et al., 2019), and reported strong satisfaction with coaching models (Murray et al., 2018). Teachers believed the interventions enhanced student focus, improved relationships, and increased their own confidence in classroom management (Mcgilloway et al., 2011; Wills et al., 2018). One study showed 100% agreement that the praise strategies presented were easy and sustainable (Sulla and Rollo, 2023). However, some teachers expressed concerns that the strategies might actively interfere with instruction or contradict prior training beliefs (Shernoff et al., 2021). Student perceptions of social validity were also strong across studies, particularly for group contingency interventions like CW-FIT, where 89% to 97% of students reported liking the game and recommending it to peers (Nelson et al., 2018; Wills et al., 2018). Students participating in the Academic and Behavior Combined Support (ABC Support) also reported high acceptability and perceived improvement in their behavior (Gettinger et al., 2021).

3.3 Reported effectiveness outcomes across contexts (RQ2)

We used structured vote-counting by direction of effect with transparent denominators, classifying each reported finding as positive/desirable (+), no significant change/effect (0), or mixed/inconsistent (±), cells coded ‘–’ are excluded from the denominator. For example, a proportion of 5/6 for CM&P in a subgroup means that 6 studies in that subgroup measured CM&P, of which 5 showed positive effects. Complete study-by-outcome matrices with explicit numerators and denominators are provided in Supplementary Appendix C for full verification. Outcomes were mapped to six domains. Same consistency rule with 3.2.2 was applied. Contextual patterns by country, locale, and SES are summarized in Table 5.

3.3.1 Country (USA vs. non-USA)

In the USA studies, Goal Attainment & Progress Monitoring (GA&PM) was consistently positive (4/4, 100%), and Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) was consistently positive (3/4, 75%). Teacher Stress, Burnout and Wellbeing (TSBW) was consistently mixed (3/3, 100%). Classroom Management & Practices (CM&P), Praise, Reprimands & Opportunities to Respond (P-R&OTR), and Student Engagement & Achievement (SE&A) showed no clear consistent pattern. In non-USA studies, CM&P (5/6, 83.3%), P-R&OTR (3/3, 100%), and TSE (6/8, 75%) were consistently positive, whereas SE&A and TSBW showed no clear consistent pattern. Taken together, TSE and GA&PM are consistently positive in the USA studies, while CM&P and P-R&OTR are consistently positive in the (smaller) non-USA evidence; TSBW trends consistently mixed in USA studies.

3.3.2 School locale

In urban settings, CM&P (7/9, 77.8%) and SE&A (5/7, 71.4%) were consistently positive, while TSBW was consistently mixed (4/4, 100%); other domains showed no clear consistent pattern. In suburban settings, no domain showed a consistent pattern across the available evidence. In mixed-locale studies, TSE was consistently positive (4/5, 80%), with other domains showing no clear consistent pattern.

3.3.3 Socio-economic status (SES)

In low-SES schools, TSE was consistently positive (3/4, 75%), and TSBW was consistently mixed (4/5, 80%); SE&A, CM&P, and P-R&OTR showed no clear consistent pattern, and GA&PM was not reported. In mixed-SES contexts, all domains showed no clear consistent pattern. Across SES strata, TSE shows a consistent positive pattern in low-SES schools, while TSBW tends to be consistently mixed where data are available.

3.4 Methodological appraisal using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT, 2018) and common strengths/limitations across designs (RQ3)

We appraised methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, 2018). Each study was rated at the criterion level as Yes (Y), No (N), or Partly (P); we replaced “Can't Tell” with “Partly” to indicate partially reported but incomplete evidence. We did not calculate total MMAT scores or assign overall risk labels. All studies passed the two MMAT screening items (clear research question; adequate data), so full appraisal was conducted. These MMAT findings were not treated as a pass–fail filter; rather, they were used to contextualize how confidently specific synthesis patterns could be interpreted in the Discussion. The complete methodological appraisal and detailed results are reported in Supplementary Appendix E.

3.4.1 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies

All 15 RCTs satisfied both screening items (15/15, 100%). Randomization was appropriately performed in every trial (100%). Adherence/fidelity to the assigned intervention was also a strength, adequately documented in most trials (12/15, 80%), with several reporting very high implementation quality (e.g., Hutchings et al., 2013; Kamps et al., 2015Wills et al., 2018);.

However, several recurrent limitations reduced internal validity. Baseline group comparability was fully demonstrated in fewer than half of the studies (7/15, 46.7%), with only partial evidence in another 7/15. Completeness of outcome data was adequate in 10/15 (66.7%), but remarkable attrition or missing data remained in the rest. Blinded outcome assessment was the weakest area: only a small minority of trials clearly used blinded assessors, whereas most relied on teacher report or unblinded observation (e.g., Berg et al., 2017; Simonsen et al., 2020).

Overall, PBS/M RCTs show strong randomization and generally strong fidelity monitoring, but conclusions are qualified by baseline imbalance, attrition, and limited blinding.

3.4.2 Non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) studies

All 16 non-randomized studies met the two MMAT screening items (16/16, 100%). Across design-specific criteria, measurement quality was strongest (C2, 100%), followed by completeness of outcome data (C3, 68.8%) and intervention adherence (C5, 81.3%). In contrast, participant representativeness (C1) was seldom demonstrated (12.5% fully met), and control for confounders (C4) was the weakest domain (25.0% fully met).

Common limitations included quasi-experimental designs with non-equivalent groups and limited statistical control for pre-existing differences (e.g., Caldarella et al., 2015). Selection and volunteer biases were frequent, as schools opting in often had higher organizational readiness or motivation (Houchens et al., 2017; Michael et al., 2023; Sørlie et al., 2016). Small, localized samples further restricted generalizability, with several studies involving only one to three classrooms or schools (Fallon et al., 2019; Mcdonough, 2019; Nelson et al., 2018). Occasional external disruptions (e.g., COVID-19, scheduling changes, or environmental events) also compromised internal validity (Smith and Higbee, 2021; Walker, 2023).

Overall, Non-RCTs demonstrated strong measurement and implementation fidelity but were limited by small, non-representative samples and insufficient control of confounding variables.

3.4.3 Mixed-methods studies

Both mixed-methods studies met MMAT screening criteria and provided a clear rationale for using mixed methods. In both cases, integration was used to deepen understanding of teacher experiences with behavior management practices. Shernoff et al. (2020) used a convergent design (simultaneous quantitative observation of praise and qualitative analysis of coaching dialogue), while Shernoff et al. (2021) embedded qualitative focus groups within a primarily quantitative feasibility trial. Interpretation of integrated findings was generally strong, with qualitative data used to explain quantitative patterns (e.g., low dosage, variation in praise quality). However, neither study offered in-depth meta-inferences reconciling discrepancies between strands. Methodological quality within each strand was adequate, with validated quantitative tools and transparent qualitative analysis.

4 Discussion

This review mapped the core components of PBS/M professional development (PD) for primary teachers, catalogued instruments used to evaluate teacher, classroom, student, and implementation outcomes, synthesized patterns of effects across contexts, and appraised study quality with the MMAT (2018).

4.1 Study limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting this review. First, although the search combined five databases with hand searching, Google Scholar searching, and backward and forward citation tracking, the review was limited to English-language publications and did not systematically include grey literature, conference proceedings, or unpublished dissertations. Relevant studies may therefore have been missed, particularly from non-Anglophone contexts or from implementation-oriented work that is less likely to appear in indexed journals. This may have narrowed the geographical and methodological diversity of the evidence base and may also have increased the risk of publication bias toward positive findings.

Second, the synthesis method presents important constraints. Because the included studies were heterogeneous in design, interventions, measures, and reporting, we used vote-counting by direction of effect rather than meta-analysis. This approach improves transparency by reporting explicit numerators and denominators, but it does not capture effect magnitude, study precision, or differential sample size, and it cannot produce pooled effect sizes or confidence intervals. In addition, not all studies assessed all outcome domains, so denominators varied across tables and subgroup cells. Some apparently consistent patterns were therefore based on relatively small numbers of contributing studies, especially in non-USA and contextual subgroup analyses, and should be interpreted as provisional rather than definitive.

Third, the generalizability of the findings is constrained by the composition of the evidence base. Studies from the United States accounted for 69.7% of the included studies, many instruments were developed in Western English-language contexts, and a substantial proportion of outcomes relied primarily on teacher self-report. These features increase the risk of cultural transfer limitations, reporter bias, and social desirability effects.

Finally, the contextual variables used in this review—country, school locale, and school socioeconomic status—were pragmatic proxies derived from published reports rather than direct measures of deeper cultural or systemic conditions. They were useful for structured comparison, but they cannot fully explain why PBS/M professional development may work differently across settings.

4.2 Methodological rigor and caveats for results interpretation

MMAT findings were used in this review as an interpretive lens rather than as a threshold for inclusion. All 33 studies met both MMAT screening items, but methodological rigor varied considerably by design, and the appraisal findings presented in Section 3.4 directly shape how the results reported in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 should be read. Among the 15 RCTs, randomization (C1) and intervention adherence (C5) were generally well documented, but baseline group comparability (C2) was fully established in fewer than half of the trials (7/15, 46.7%), outcome data completeness (C3) was adequate in two-thirds (10/15), and blinded outcome assessment (C4) was rare. Positive effects in these trials should therefore be interpreted with the understanding that they often rely on unblinded teacher-report or observational data collected without full baseline equivalence.

Among the 16 non-randomized studies, measurement quality (C2) was the strongest criterion (100% fully met) and adherence (C5) was adequate in most (81.3%), but participant representativeness (C1) was rarely demonstrated (12.5% fully met) and confounder control (C4) was the weakest domain across the entire evidence base (25.0% fully met). Samples were frequently small, localized, or volunteer-based, and most studies only partially addressed confounding. The two mixed-methods studies had clear rationales and generally integrated data well, but neither fully addressed inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative strands (C4), which reduces the strength of their combined interpretations.

These MMAT-level patterns carry direct implications for specific findings. The consistent positive trend for CM&P in urban settings (77.8%, n = 9) should be read cautiously: of the nine contributing studies, five were non-randomized and two used mixed-methods designs, and most scored Partly or No on C4 (confounder control), meaning the association between urban context and CM&P improvement cannot be interpreted causally. The consistently positive TSE findings in non-USA studies (75%, n = 8) may flag similar caution: most contributing studies relied on teacher self-report instruments — flagged under C2 in non-randomized studies and under C4 in RCTs for lack of blinding — and only three used randomized designs, which raises the possibility that the TSE gains are overstated due to reporter bias. For GA&PM, all four studies reporting this domain showed positive effects, but three were non-randomized and scored Partly or No on both C1 (participant representativeness) and C4 (confounder control); the consistency here therefore reflects agreement across methodologically weaker studies rather than convergent randomized evidence. The most defensible conclusions involve observationally measured CM&P and SE&A outcomes, where randomized evidence is available and criteria C1 through C5 were more consistently met across contributing studies. Findings for TSE, TSBW, and GA&PM should be treated as suggestive rather than conclusive until confirmed by stronger designs.

4.3 Key findings

4.3.1 PBS/M intervention components

Across the studies, four PBS/M PD design families predominated: (A) packaged classroom-management programs—for example, PAX GBG, Incredible Years TCM, and CW-FIT—accounted for 16/33 studies (48.5%); (B) coaching/consultation models comprised 7/33 (21.2%); (C) skill-focused trainings targeting specific micro-behaviors such as BSP and OTR made up 6/33 (18.2%); and (D) school-wide PBIS/Tier 1 frameworks with teacher-PD elements represented 4/33 (12.1%). Overall, this distribution indicates a dominant reliance on comprehensive, manualized packages, complemented by a meaningful footprint of individualized coaching and targeted micro-skill approaches; in practical terms, schools can anchor implementation with a structured program while layering coaching or micro-modules to address local priorities and teacher readiness.

4.3.2 Associations between PBS/M teacher intervention components and effectiveness outcome domains

The clearest and most consistent gains in this review appeared where structured content met active, practice-based delivery. Packaged classroom-management programs were consistently positive for CM&P in 85.7% of contributing studies (6/7), and mixed-method training produced positive CM&P outcomes in 73.3% of studies (11/15). Student engagement and achievement showed a similar pattern: didactic instruction produced positive SE&A in all five studies that measured it (5/5, 100%), and medium-term programs were positive in 75% of SE&A studies (6/8). These patterns indicate that structured content combined with active learning methods is the configuration most reliably associated with improved classroom practice. This is consistent with previous reviews on PBS/M in that the effectiveness of training programs often relies on combining content delivery with rigorous skill acquisition methods (active learning), rather than relying on description or didactic methods alone (Mahon et al., 2022; Samudre et al., 2022).

Coaching and consultation models showed a consistent positive pattern for CM&P (3/4, 75%). Studies using mixed-method delivery were consistently positive for both TSE (4/5, 80%) and GA&PM (4/4, 100%). Coaching therefore appears to be a high-leverage design feature, one that helps translate initial training into durable practice change, which aligned with what Samudre et al. (2022) found that across 74 reviewed studies, the inclusion of ongoing coaching was one of the two most common training components. General teacher professional development in a meta-analysis (Kraft et al., 2018) of 60 causal studies also concluded that coaching yielded the moderate effects on instruction and small but meaningful effects on student achievement.

Medium-term programs were consistently positive across four outcome domains: TSE (5/5, 100%), CM&P (7/9, 77.8%), P-R&OTR (5/7, 71.4%), and SE&A (6/8, 75%). Short-term programs showed no consistent direction across any domain. Yoon et al. (2007) found that approximately 49 h of focused professional development were linked to sizable gains in student achievement, whereas programs providing 14 h or less typically showed no measurable effect.

Teacher stress, burnout, and wellbeing (TSBW) was the least responsive outcome domain in this review. In USA studies, TSBW was consistently mixed (3/3, 100% mixed), and no consistent pattern appeared elsewhere. For examples, Berg et al. (2017) founs that higher implementing teachers in the intervention condition increases in burnout, specifically greater reports of emotional exhaustion and slightly greater reports of depersonalization. The study by Downer et al. (2024) also found that occupational wellbeing was the domain least affected by the intervention. Evidence. These findings are consistent with a meta-analysis focused on special education settings, which found that teacher well-being outcomes were inconclusive and understudied (Aldabbagh et al., 2024).

In summary, the strongest gains from manualized content plus active/practice-based learning delivered with adequate duration and coaching align with Desimone’s (2009) core features—content focus, active learning, sustained duration, and collective participation—which together are theorized to build teacher knowledge/skills, drive instructional change, and subsequently improve student achievement.

4.3.3 PBS/M teacher intervention effectiveness outcomes across contexts

Across contexts, most subgroup analyses were limited by small denominators, particularly for non-USA studies, where representation sharply declined once grouped by outcome domains. As a result, it remains inconclusive whether contextual features such as country, locale, or school SES reliably moderate the effects of PBS/M teacher interventions. The only outstanding and consistent patterns appear in a small number of large-n strata. Non-USA classroom management and practices (CM&P) showed a consistent positive trend (83.3%, n = 6), and teacher self-efficacy (TSE) outside the USA also met the consistency rule (75.0%, n = 8). Similarly, urban settings displayed consistent improvements in CM&P (77.8%, n = 9) and student engagement/achievement (SE&A) (71.4%, n = 7). These four signals represent the only instances in which both the consistency threshold and adequate denominators were achieved, indicating some stability of effects in those subgroups. Overall, the review indicates that contextual moderation remains largely unresolved: while PBS/M professional development tends to improve teacher practices and engagement, current evidence is too limited and unevenly distributed to determine whether these gains vary meaningfully by country, locale, or socioeconomic context.

4.4 Implications for practice

The evidence synthesized in this review emphasizes several actionable implications for PBS/M teacher professional development (PD). First, medium-duration PD delivered through mixed methods (instruction, modeling, rehearsal, feedback, ongoing coaching) produced the most consistent improvements in teacher self-efficacy, classroom management, and student engagement. Schools should prioritize these sustained, structured cycles over brief one-off workshops. Second, packaged classroom management programs (e.g., Incredible Years TCM, PAX GBG, CW-FIT) were effective when implemented with high fidelity, underscoring the need to embed routine fidelity monitoring (e.g., checklists, observation). Third, programs led by mixed trainer teams (researchers/coaches/experienced teachers) outperformed single-source delivery, highlighting the value of pairing external expertise with internal capacity-building. Fourth, gains in practice did not reliably translate into improved teacher wellbeing. Teacher development models should therefore include explicit wellbeing supports (reflection, peer coaching, workload discussions), not only behavioral skill-building. Finally, high social validity across studies indicates that teachers generally view PBS/M as acceptable and useful. Maintaining teacher feedback loops and adapting strategies to local needs—especially in urban and low-SES settings where effects were strongest—will be essential for sustainability and scale.

4.5 Implications for research

While this review demonstrates clear benefits of PBS/M-focused teacher development, it also exposes significant methodological and conceptual gaps that warrant attention in future research. First, most studies were conducted in the United States, with limited representation from Asia, Africa, or South America. Cross-cultural replication—especially in low- and middle-income countries—is needed to test how cultural norms, governance structures, and teacher training systems shape feasibility and impact, and to distinguish which PBS/M components travel well and which require local adaptation. Second, although reported effects were generally positive, confidence in those effects is limited by quasi-experimental designs, small samples, minimal blinding, and short follow-up. Future work should use stronger designs (e.g., cluster RCTs, hybrid effectiveness–implementation trials), include independent fidelity assessment, and track whether changes in teacher practice and student engagement are sustained over time. Third, many studies relied primarily on teacher self-report, which increases risk of reporter and expectancy bias. Future studies should incorporate observational tools (e.g., structured classroom ratings, coded teacher–student interactions) and student-level indicators, and invest in culturally valid measures for non-English settings. Finally, teacher wellbeing remains under-addressed. Future PBS/M PD research should examine whether these interventions reliably improve teacher stress, burnout, and self-efficacy, or whether dedicated wellbeing components need to be integrated into behavior support training.

5 Conclusion

This systematic review draws on evidence that comes mainly from primary schools in the USA and relies on vote-counting rather than meta-analysis. The findings suggest that teacher-focused PBS/M professional development is most effective when programs combine direct instruction with active practice strategies such as modeling, rehearsal, feedback, and coaching. Programs delivered over a medium duration and supported by systematic fidelity monitoring show the most consistent improvements. Across 33 studies, classroom management practices (CM&P) and student engagement or achievement (SE&A) showed the strongest and most consistent positive effects. These conclusions require caution due to weak baseline comparability, limited use of blinded outcome assessment, and a narrow evidence base centered on USA, English-language contexts. Improvements in teacher self-efficacy were generally positive but modest, while wellbeing outcomes showed mixed results. Strong implementation fidelity and the use of combined trainer roles supported program effectiveness. Some evidence suggests stronger effects in urban and non-USA contexts, but this evidence remains limited and uneven. Overall, PBS/M teacher development appears to be a practical and evidence-informed approach to improving classroom practice and student outcomes. Stronger study designs and research from more diverse cultural and geographic contexts are needed before firm conclusions about effectiveness and generalizability can be made.

References

• 1

  Adam IsmailI. (2023). Using positive reinforcement to increase student engagement in the classroom. Available online at:https://red.mnstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=thesis(Accessed August 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AldabbaghR.GlazebrookC.SayalK.DaleyD. (2024). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teacher delivered interventions for externalizing behaviors. J. Behav. Educ.33 (2), 233–274. 10.1007/s10864-022-09491-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BergJ. K.BradshawC. P.JoB.IalongoN. S. (2017). Using complier average causal effect estimation to determine the impacts of the good behavior game preventive intervention on teacher implementers. Adm. Policy. Ment. Health.44 (4), 558–571. 10.1007/s10488-016-0738-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BradshawC. P.WaasdorpT. E.LeafP. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics130 (5), e1136–e1145. 10.1542/peds.2012-0243

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BüchterR. B.WeiseA.PieperD. (2020). Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance. Syst. Rev.9, 150. 10.1186/s12874-020-01143-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  CaldarellaP.WilliamsL.HansenB. D.WillsH. (2015). Managing student behavior with class-wide function-related intervention teams: an observational study in early elementary classrooms. Educ. Treat. Child.43 (5), 357–365. 10.1007/s10643-014-0664-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  CampbellM.McKenzieJ. E.SowdenA.KatikireddiS. V.BrennanS. E.EllisS.et al (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. Br. Med. J.368, l6890. 10.1136/bmj.l6890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Center on PBIS. (2025). Center on PBIS | Classroom PBIS. Www.Pbis.Org. Available online at:https://www.pbis.org/classroom-pbis(Accessed August 26, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  CoffeeG.KratochwillT. R. (2013). Examining teacher use of praise taught during behavioral consultation: implementation and generalization considerations. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult.23 (1), 1–35. 10.1080/10474412.2013.757150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  DacholfanyM. I.AntoniR.SulissusiawanA.RijalS.UtiarahmanA.AlamH. V.et al (2024). The effectiveness of teacher professional development program on classroom and behavior management: a systematic review. J. Educ. Cult. Soc.15 (2), 451–470. 10.15503/jecs2024.2.451.470

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  DawesM. (2024). Enhancing teachers’ capacity to manage classroom behavior: impacts on stress and burnout. J. Emot. Behav. Disord.32 (2), 154–166. 10.1177/10634266241235154

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educ. Res.38 (3), 181–199. 10.3102/0013189X08331140

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DownerJ. T.BraunS. S.BradshawC. P.ElredaL. M.ElzieX.BudavariA. C.et al (2024). Testing the combined effects of the PAX good behavior game and MyTeachingPartner^TM coaching for early career teachers: impacts on teacher-student interaction quality and teachers’ occupational health. J. Sch. Psychol.106, 101359. 10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101359

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DuarteC. P.MosesC.BrownM.KajeepetaS.PrinsS. J.ScottJ.et al (2023). Punitive school discipline as a mechanism of structural marginalization with implications for health inequity: a systematic review of quantitative studies in the health and social sciences literature. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1519 (1), 129–152. 10.1111/nyas.14922

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  EddyC. L.HuangF. L.CohenD. R.BakerK. M.EdwardsK. D.HermanK. C.et al (2020). Does teacher emotional exhaustion and efficacy predict student discipline sanctions?School. Psych. Rev.49 (3), 257–272. 10.1080/2372966X.2020.1733340

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  ElliottN. (2023). Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Their Response to Students’ Disruptive Behavior. Available online at:https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/1001(Accessed August 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FallonL. M.Collier-MeekM. A.KurtzK. D. (2019). Feasible coaching supports to promote teachers’ Classroom management in high-need settings: an experimental single case design study. School. Psych. Rev.48 (1), 3–17. 10.17105/SPR-2017-0135.V48-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FernetC.GuayF.SenécalC.AustinS. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: the role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teach. Teach. Educ.28 (4), 514–525. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FrenzelA. C.Becker-KurzB.PekrunR.GoetzT.LüdtkeO. (2015). Antecedents of teachers’ emotions in the classroom: an intraindividual approach. Front. Psychol.6, 635. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00635

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GaudreauN.RoyerÉFrenetteÉBeaumontC.FlanaganT. (2013). Classroom behaviour management: the effects of in-service training on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. McGill. J. Educ.48 (2), 359–382. 10.7202/1020976ar

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GershoffE. T. (2017). School corporal punishment in global perspective: prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at intervention. Psychology. Health. Med.22 (sup1), 224–239. 10.1080/13548506.2016.1271955

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GettingerM.KratochwillT. R.EubanksA.FoyA.LevinJ. R. (2021). Academic and behavior combined support: evaluation of an integrated supplemental intervention for early elementary students. J. Sch. Psychol.89, 1–19. 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GillhamM. L. (2024). Determining the relationships among positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) implementation, teacher efficacy, and professional development.

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GuskeyT. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teach. Teach. Theory Pract.8 (3–4), 381–391. 10.1080/135406002100000512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  HayesR.TitheradgeD.AllenK.AllwoodM.ByfordS.EdwardsV.et al (2020). The incredible years® teacher classroom management programme and its impact on teachers’ professional self-efficacy, work-related stress, and general well-being: results from the STARS randomized controlled trial. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.90 (2), 330–348. 10.1111/bjep.12284

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HeekesS.-L.KrugerC. B.LesterS. N.WardC. L. (2020). A systematic review of corporal punishment in schools: global prevalence and correlates. Trauma Violence Abuse23 (3), 854–874. 10.1177/1524838020925787

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context dimensionalizing cultures: the hofstede model in context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult.2 (1), 8. 10.9707/2307-0919.1014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HouchensG. W.ZhangJ.DavisK.NiuC.ChonK. H.MillerS. (2017). The impact of positive behavior interventions and supports on Teachers’ perceptions of teaching conditions and student achievement. J. Posit. Behav. Interv.19 (3), 168–179. 10.1177/1098300717696938

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HutchingsJ.Martin-ForbesP.DaleyD.WilliamsM. E. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of a teacher classroom management program on the classroom behavior of children with and without behavior problems. J. Sch. Psychol.51 (5), 571–585. 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  JacobsenW. C. (2019). School punishment and interpersonal exclusion: rejection, withdrawal, and separation from peers. Criminology.57 (3), 446–476. 10.1111/1745-9125.12227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  KampsD.WillsH.Dawson-BannisterH.Heitzman-PowellL.KottwitzE.HansenB.et al (2015). Class-wide function-related intervention teams “CW-FIT” efficacy trial outcomes. J. Posit. Behav. Interv.17 (3), 134–145. 10.1177/1098300714565244

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KennedyY.FlynnN.O’BrienE.GreeneG. (2021). Exploring the impact of incredible years teacher classroom management training on teacher psychological outcomes. Educ. Psychol. Pract.37 (2), 150–168. 10.1080/02667363.2021.1882944

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: a meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Rev. Educ. Res.88 (4), 547–588. 10.3102/0034654318759268

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  LamghariK.AzennoudA.GuaadA. (2025). The impact of teachers’ verbal aggressiveness on students’ academic performance and emotional well-being: a correlational analysis. Learn. Gate7 (1), 33–42. 10.55214/26410230.v7i1.5017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  LassenS. R.SteeleM. M.SailorW. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychol. Sch.43 (6), 701–712. 10.1002/pits.20177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  LiT.HigginsJ. P. T.DeeksJ. J. (2024). Chapter 5: Collecting data. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.5). Cochrane.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  LuhH.NiH.ChenC.FengY. (2024). Cultural adaptation of positive behavioral interventions and supports tier 1 in a Chinese elementary school. School psychology. 40 (2), 193–206. 10.1037/spq0000677

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  MadiganD. J.KimL. E. (2021). Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Res.109, 101714. 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101714

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MadiganD. J.KimL. E. (2023). Teacher burnout and physical health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev.38, 100471. 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100471

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  MadiganK.CrossR. W.SmolkowskiK.StryckerL. A. (2016). Association between schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and academic achievement: a 9-year evaluation. Educ. Res. Eval.22 (7–8), 444–463. 10.1080/13803611.2016.1256783

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  MahonD. W. E.HughesJ.LydonH. (2022). A systematic review of training methods to increase staff’s knowledge and implementation of positive behaviour support in residential and day settings for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil.26 (3), 732–757. 10.1177/17446295211022124

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  MarquezB.VincentC.MarquezJ.PennefatherJ.SmolkowskiK.SpragueJ. (2016). Opportunities and challenges in training elementary school teachers in classroom management: initial results from classroom management in action, an online professional development program. J. Technol. Teach. Educ.24 (1), 87–109.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  McdonoughJ. (2019). Classroom Management Self-Efficacy and New Teacher Retention. Available online at:https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/etd(Accessed August 17, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  McgillowayS.HylandL.MháilleN.LodgeA.O’neillD.KellyP.et al (2011). Positive classrooms, Positive children A Randomised Controlled Trial to investigate the effectiveness of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme in an Irish context (short-term outcomes).

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  McIntoshK. (2023). Schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports and human rights: transforming our educational systems into levers for social justice. Int. J. Dev. Disabil.69 (1), 5–12. 10.1080/20473869.2022.2116223

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MichaelD.GoutasT.TsigilisN.MichaelidouV.GregoriadisA.CharalambousV.et al (2023). Effects of the universal positive behavioral interventions and supports on collective teacher efficacy. Psychol. Sch.60 (9), 3188–3205. 10.1002/pits.22919

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MurrayD. W.RabinerD. L.KuhnL.PanY.SabetR. F. (2018). Investigating teacher and student effects of the incredible years classroom management program in early elementary school. J. Sch. Psychol.67, 119–133. 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  NelsonM. A.CaldarellaP.HansenB. D.GrahamM. A.WilliamsL.WillsH. P. (2018). Improving student behavior in art classrooms: an exploratory study of CW-FIT tier 1. J. Posit. Behav. Interv.20 (4), 227–238. 10.1177/1098300718762744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  NiwayamaK.MaedaY.KaneyamaY.SatoH. (2020). Increasing teachers’ behavior-specific praise using self-monitoring and a peer teacher’s feedback: the effect on children’s academic engagement. Prev. Sch. Fail.64 (3), 1–10. 10.1080/1045988X.2020.1749978

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al (2021). PRISMA 2020 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J.372, n160. 10.1136/bmj.n160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ReddyL. A.ShernoffE.LekwaA. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of instructional coaching in high-poverty urban schools: examining teacher practices and student outcomes. J. Sch. Psychol.86, 151–168. 10.1016/j.jsp.2021.04.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  ReinkeW. M.StormontM.HermanK. C.NewcomerL. (2014). Using coaching to support teacher implementation of classroom-based interventions. J. Behav. Educ.23 (1), 150–167. 10.1007/s10864-013-9186-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  SamudreM. D.LeJeuneL. M.AscettaK. E.DollingerH. (2022). A systematic review of general educator behavior management training. J. Posit. Behav. Interv.24 (1), 69–84. 10.1177/10983007211020784

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  SavvaO. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation of the school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS) program in Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area high schools (Grades 9-12). Available online at:https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=edad_etds(Accessed August 17, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  ShernoffE. S.FrazierS. L.LisettiC.DelmarreA.BibiZ.GabbardJ. (2021). Supporting the implementation of evidence-based behavior management practices through simulation: a mixed method study. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult.31 (4), 463–497. 10.1080/10474412.2021.1875840

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  ShernoffE. S.LekwaA. L.ReddyL. A.DavisW. (2020). Teachers’ use and beliefs about praise: a mixed-methods study. School. Psych. Rev.49 (3), 256–274. 10.1080/2372966X.2020.1732146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SimonsenB.FreemanJ.MyersD.DooleyK.MaddockE.KernL.et al (2020). The effects of targeted professional development on teachers’ use of empirically supported classroom management practices. J. Posit. Behav. Interv.22 (1), 3–14. 10.1177/1098300719859615

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SmithS. C.HigbeeT. S. (2021). Effects of behavioral skills training on teachers conducting the recess-to-classroom transition. J. Behav. Educ.30 (4), 624–640. 10.1007/s10864-020-09395-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  SørlieM. A.OgdenT.OlsethA. R. (2016). Examining teacher outcomes of the school-wide positive behavior support model in Norway: perceived efficacy and behavior management. Sage. Open.6 (2), 1–13. 10.1177/2158244016651914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  StreimannK.SelartA.TrummalA. (2020). Effectiveness of a universal, classroom-based preventive intervention (PAX GBG) in Estonia: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prev. Sci.21 (2), 234–244. 10.1007/s11121-019-01050-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  SullaF.RolloD. (2023). The effect of a short course on a group of Italian primary school Teachers’ rates of praise and their Pupils’ on-task behaviour. Educ. Sci.13 (1), 78. 10.3390/educsci13010078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  TorelliJ. N.MillerA. H.GrangerK. L.NoelC. R.GrossT. J. (2024). Effects of online tiered training to increase Teachers’ use of positive behavior supports. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ.47 (4), 302–318. 10.1177/08884064241271114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  TsubonoK.OgawaM. (2022). The analysis of main stressors among high-stress primary school teachers by job positions: a nationwide survey in Japan. Front. Public. Health.10, 990141. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.990141

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Van RyzinM. J.RosethC. J.BiglanA. (2020). Mediators of effects of cooperative learning on prosocial behavior in middle school. Int. J. Appl. Positive Psychol.5 (1–2), 37–52. 10.1007/s41042-020-00026-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  WalkerT. E. (2023). Evaluation of Novice Teacher Practical Implementation of Applied Behavior Analysis Strategies: A Single-Subject Research Design Using Behavioral Skills Training.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  WangX. (2024). Understanding teacher emotional exhaustion: factors and interventions. Front. Psychol.15, 10800834. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1342598

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Webster-StrattonC.Jamila ReidM.StoolmillerM. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip.49 (5), 471–488. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WillsH.KampsD.CaldarellaP.WehbyJ.RomineR. S. (2018). Class-wide function-related intervention teams (CW-FIT): student and teacher outcomes from a multisite randomized replication trial. Elem. Sch. J.119 (1), 29–51. 10.1086/698818

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  YoonK. S.DuncanT.LeeS. W.-Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  ZakszeskiB.ThomasL.ErdyL. (2020). Tier I implementation supports for classroom management: a pilot investigation targeting teachers’ praise. Sch. Psychol.35 (2), 111–117. 10.1037/spq0000354

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  ZhangY.DongL. (2022). A study of the impacts of motivational regulation and self-regulated second-language writing strategies on college students’ proximal and distal writing enjoyment and anxiety. Front. Psychol.13, 938346. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.938346

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar