Content uploaded by Lee Kern
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lee Kern on Jan 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
1 –5
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098300715604826
jpbi.sagepub.com
Article
Positive behavior support (PBS) is an approach for enhanc-
ing quality of life and reducing problem behaviors that
detract from adaptive and preferred lifestyles. In the past
three decades, PBS has experienced considerable growth as
the approach has been applied with an expanding number of
populations and, more importantly, at multiple levels of
implementation (Dunlap, Sailor, Horner, & Sugai, 2009;
Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2015). PBS began as a
focused approach for resolving serious problem behaviors
of individuals with severe developmental disabilities, but it
grew into an approach that included implementation of
strategies aimed at groups of children in classrooms and
schools, as well as children and adults in a variety of early
education and service programs. This rapid growth brought
confusion regarding the definition of PBS. Some adherents
viewed PBS as a framework for resolving problem behav-
iors through individualized functional assessments and
multi-component, assessment-based behavior support
plans, and others viewed PBS as the application of school-
wide universal systems designed largely to improve school
climate and reduce office discipline referrals. But PBS
includes both of these perspectives, and many more. In our
opinion, there are features and characteristics of PBS that
bridge the perspectives and constitute a general, unified
approach. This article is intended to discuss sources of con-
fusion and propose a single definition that represents the
current, expanded reality of PBS.
Historical Summary
The approach that came to be known as PBS emerged in the
mid-1980s as an alternative to the prevailing behavior man-
agement practices that emphasized the manipulation of con-
sequences to produce behavior change. This over-reliance
on contingency management led to the use of highly aver-
sive and stigmatizing punishment procedures, up to and
including contingent electric shock (Repp & Singh, 1990)
for the most severe and persistent problem behaviors. The
application of these aversive interventions was almost
always seen among individuals with severe disabilities who
were unable to communicate their protests and who were
served in highly restricted, segregated, and isolated residen-
tial and educational settings. Eventually, advocates brought
604826PBIXXX10.1177/1098300715604826Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions)Kincaid et al.
research-article2015
1University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
2University of Nevada, Reno, USA
3Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
4University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
5Queens College, Flushing, NY, USA
6Bloomsburg University, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Don Kincaid, Florida Center for Inclusive Communities, Department
of Child and Family Studies, College of Behavioral and Community
Sciences, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MHC
2138, Tampa, FL 33612-3807, USA.
Email: kincaid@usf.edu
Positive Behavior Support: A Proposal
for Updating and Refining the Definition
Don Kincaid, EdD, BCBA-D1, Glen Dunlap, PhD2,
Lee Kern, PhD3, Kathleen Lynne Lane, PhD, BCBA-D4,
Linda M. Bambara, EdD3, Fredda Brown, PhD5, Lise Fox, PhD1,
and Timothy P. Knoster, EdD6
Abstract
Positive behavior support (PBS) has been a dynamic and growing enterprise for more than 25 years. During this period, PBS
has expanded applications across a wide range of populations and multiple levels of implementation. As a result, there have
been understandable inconsistencies and confusion regarding the definition of PBS. In this essay, we offer an updated and
unified definition. We provide a brief historical perspective and describe a process for developing a proposed definition.
We also discuss the rationale for key elements of the definition.
Keywords
professional practice/standards and ethics, positive behavior support
at LEHIGH UNIV on January 14, 2016pbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
these circumstances to light and initiated steps to promote
inclusion, prohibit the use of painful and humiliating inter-
ventions, and encourage the development of new strategies
for reducing problem behavior and building more adaptive
behavioral repertoires (Bambara, 2005; Dunlap et al., 2009;
Guess, Helmstetter, Turnbull, & Knowlton, 1987; Lucyshyn
et al., 2015). These objectives were facilitated by the
appearance of important research findings, primarily
involving the functional (and communicative) properties of
problem behaviors (Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata, Dorsey,
Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1981/1994). Initially, the new,
positive approach to behavior management was referred to
as “nonaversive behavior management” (Horner et al.,
1990; LaVigna & Donnellan, 1986; Meyer & Evans, 1989).
An initial iteration of nonaversive behavior management
was defined as “an integration of technology and values”
(Horner et al., 1990, p. 125) and was further described in
terms of nine themes or characteristics, which included
emphases on lifestyle change, functional analysis, anteced-
ent and setting variables, teaching of adaptive behavior,
minimizing the use of punishment procedures, and using
multi-component interventions. In the early 1990s, the label
“positive behavioral support” began to be used (Horner
et al., 1990) and it was increasingly adopted as the preferred
approach for addressing severe problem behaviors. In 2002,
Carr et al. provided an updated definition of “positive
behavior support”:
PBS is an applied science that uses educational methods to
expand an individual’s behavior repertoire and systems change
methods to redesign an individual’s living environment to first
enhance the individual’s quality of life and, second, to minimize
his or her problem behavior. (p. 4)
The Association for Positive Behavior Support (APBS) fur-
ther developed a set of standards of practice for PBS at the
individual level that were approved by the APBS Board in
2007 (J. Anderson, Brown, & Scheuermann, 2007). At this
time, clearly, the emphasis of PBS was on the behavior of
an individual with an appreciation of the role of the context
in which the individual lives and the essential influences of
environmental design.
PBS had been expanding rapidly. On one hand, many
additional populations were demonstrated to receive bene-
fits from applications of PBS. These populations included
young children, children and adults with a broad array of
diagnoses and challenges, children and adults without diag-
nostic labels, and youth involved with the juvenile justice
system (Sailor, Doolittle, Bradley, & Danielson, 2009). In
addition, PBS interventions began to be applied with
groups, at levels larger than the individual, to affect sys-
tems-level practices. The logic of multi-tiered systems was
embraced by PBS researchers and program developers as a
framework for promoting desirable behavior among entire
populations and perhaps preventing the emergence of
problems that might later require individualized and more
intensive PBS interventions (Sugai et al., 2000). Over the
first decade of the 21st century, PBS became a major influ-
ence in school restructuring. The 1997 amendments to the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) intro-
duced the term “positive behavioral interventions and sup-
ports (PBIS),” and the federally funded Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) Technical Assistance Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports began a pro-
gram of systematically disseminating a multi-tiered frame-
work of effective interventions for entire schools, classrooms,
and, where needed, individuals. Many thousands of educa-
tors and related professionals became aligned with school-
wide PBIS (SWPBIS), including many who had never
encountered an individual with severe disabilities and many
who had never been involved with functional behavioral
assessment and assessment-based intervention plans. As
PBS expanded, the universality of the approach’s prevailing
definitions came into question, at least by many who were
focused on applications at larger levels of implementation.
On Terms
The growth of PBS has presented challenges for the defini-
tion and also for terminology. A great variety of terms have
been used to refer to PBS including the original “nonaver-
sive behavior management,” “positive behavioral support,”
“positive behavior supports,” and “positive behavior(al)
interventions and supports (PBIS).” A recent essay pub-
lished in the Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions dis-
cussed the origins of these terms and the relative advantages
that each brought to the field (Dunlap, Kincaid, Horner,
Knoster, & Bradshaw, 2014). The authors endorsed “posi-
tive behavior support” as the best term to refer to the entire
enterprise of PBS, and acknowledged that PBIS would con-
tinue to be appropriate for school-based applications and
that other terms would also be beneficial as designations for
categories or settings of PBS applications. For instance,
program-wide positive behavior support (PWPBS) is used
to refer to PBS in early childhood programs; school-wide
positive behavior support (SWPBS) pertains to PBS in
schools serving students in kindergarten through Grade 12
and is used interchangeably with PBIS. The authors
acknowledged that the definition of PBS remained an
important issue for the field.
Definition of PBS
A large number of definitions of PBS have been posited
over the last 20 years in articles, books, manuals, and
websites (e.g., C. M. Anderson & Freeman, 2000;
Bambara, 2005; Carr et al., 2002; Dunlap, Carr, Horner,
Zarcone, & Schwartz, 2008; Horner et al., 1990). The
definitions vary in referring to PBS as an application, an
applied science, a technology, a collection of procedures,
at LEHIGH UNIV on January 14, 2016pbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kincaid et al. 3
a process of assessment and intervention, an approach, or
a framework. Many refer specifically to functional
behavioral assessment, many refer to quality of life as
the goal, and many explicitly focus on outcomes for a
target individual. Others emphasize an integration of sci-
ence and values, the design of constructive environ-
ments, and systems change. All of the definitions include
features that are clearly relevant to applications of PBS,
but the stress and prioritization of characteristics differ
from definition to definition. As suggested by Dunlap
et al. (2014), communication within and outside of the
field could be enhanced if an updated and unified defini-
tion were developed and adopted.
A session at the 2014 Annual Conference of the APBS
(Dunlap & Kincaid, 2014) addressed the issue, provided
some historical context, and put forth a draft of an updated
definition of PBS that the presenters had developed with
email and telephone input from approximately 15 leading
authors and program developers in the PBS arena. A set of
criteria was advanced for consideration. These asserted that
a definition of PBS should have the following attributes:
1. Face validity: Does the definition accurately
describe the field? Are practitioners comfortable
with the use of the definition as being inclusive of
their endeavors?
2. Distinguishes PBS from Not-PBS: Can the defini-
tion be used to identify approaches that are or are
not PBS? Does it draw a clear line between PBS and
other endeavors that may share some but not all of
the PBS characteristics?
3. Pertinent for all levels of PBS applications: Is the
definition broad enough to represent all current PBS
activities within different systems and settings and
populations? Is it also broad enough to cover applica-
tions with future systems, settings, and populations?
4. Useful for consumers: Can a wide range of consum-
ers use it? Is it a definition that researchers and prac-
titioners, parents and professionals, policy makers,
administrators, and direct support staff can under-
stand and find useful for describing their philoso-
phies, values, and activities?
5. Parsimonious: Is it sufficiently clear and succinct?
Is the definition clearly explained in relatively few
terms and sentences?
The majority of the 2014 APBS session consisted of dis-
cussion regarding the criteria and the particulars of the pro-
posed definition. Following the conference, an electronically
distributed questionnaire was shared with more than 800
APBS members to gather further input regarding the crite-
ria, essential elements to be included in a definition, and the
adequacy of the proposed definition. More than 200 APBS
members responded to the survey within the first 2 weeks
and provided overwhelming support for the five identified
criteria as well as numerous suggestions for features to
emphasize in the definition. Important feedback from the
survey included the following:
1. The majority of respondents expressed a preference
for labeling PBS as a framework (57.8%) or
approach (22%). Although several alternatives were
listed (e.g., science, technology, process), none
received endorsement from more than 10% of the
respondents.
2. In response to a question about the features that
must be reflected in the definition of PBS, six fea-
tures (positive/respectful, preventative, data-based,
evidence-based, educative, and comprehensive)
were identified by more than half of all respondents
(range = 58.4%–86.2%) as essential.
3. In response to an open solicitation for feedback
regarding the definition, nearly 25% of the respon-
dents indicated that a defining feature of PBS is that
it is a school-based framework and that it is equiva-
lent to PBIS. This implies that a sizable proportion
of the APBS membership perceives PBS in strictly
school-based terms and, therefore, fails to under-
stand the breadth, as well as the origins, of the
approach. This may also underscore the importance
of clear definitions and terminology so that PBS can
be understood and disseminated as the multi-faceted
approach that it is.
Based upon feedback from respondents, the prior draft
definition was revised and presented for discussion at the
2015 Annual Conference of APBS (Kincaid & Dunlap,
2015). The definition presented met with general approval.
The proposed, updated, and unified definition is presented
below, followed by a discussion and rationale for its spe-
cific composition.
Definition of PBS
PBS is an approach to behavior support that includes an
ongoing process of research-based assessment, interven-
tion, and data-based decision making focused on building
social and other functional competencies, creating support-
ive contexts, and preventing the occurrence of problem
behaviors. PBS relies on strategies that are respectful of a
person’s dignity and overall well-being and that are drawn
primarily from behavioral, educational, and social sci-
ences, although other evidence-based procedures may be
incorporated. PBS may be applied within a multi-tiered
framework at the level of the individual and at the level of
larger systems (e.g., families, classrooms, schools, social
service programs, and facilities).
We believe that this definition may meet the five criteria
that we described as necessary for a functional definition.
This definition has face validity and can more effectively
at LEHIGH UNIV on January 14, 2016pbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
address the broadening areas of application of PBS while
drawing a clearer line between PBS and other endeavors.
This definition was also developed to be clear and relatively
succinct, which should promote a greater understanding
and use by a wide range of consumers. A review of some
critical words and phrases within the definition might clar-
ify the utility of this proposed PBS definition.
This definition of PBS includes both of the preferred
labels for PBS: approach and framework. Furthermore, the
use of the modifier an indicates that PBS is not inclusive of
all approaches to behavioral support, but rather is restricted
to only those approaches that share the qualities contained
in the definition. However, the definition extends the field
of PBS to be inclusive of strategies and approaches from an
array of disciplines (education, social sciences, etc.) and
from evidence-based procedures that may currently exist in
other fields or may emerge in the future. This aspect of the
definition is critical in that it defines a PBS approach as
dynamic and continually evaluating and incorporating rel-
evant technology and knowledge. It also promotes the criti-
cal analysis of strategies that are evidence-based or have
emerging evidence.
The phrase a process of research-based assessment,
intervention, and data-based decision making stipulates
that PBS includes a progression of assessment, interven-
tion, and decision-making activities that may vary based
upon the target of the activities (system, agency, school,
family, child, etc.) but is not restricted to one type of assess-
ment, intervention, or problem-solving process. This dis-
tinction is essential as it clarifies that the PBS umbrella is
inclusive of multiple individual strategies, but that no one
assessment, intervention, or problem-solving approach is a
PBS approach. For instance, a functional behavioral assess-
ment is not “PBS” but is a component of a PBS process. The
process of bringing together those evidence-based assess-
ment, intervention, and problem-solving strategies is the
critical defining aspect of PBS.
The phrase building social and other functional compe-
tencies, creating supportive contexts, and preventing the
occurrence of problem behaviors communicates the vision
that PBS is committed to not only decreasing problem
behaviors but also increasing functional and adaptive reper-
toires that include the broad spectrum of social, emotional,
behavioral, academic, and daily living skills. Although it is
probable that this concept is universally accepted among
PBS practitioners, the definition allows for the extension of
this concept beyond the focus of increasing or decreasing
behaviors of a targeted individual. The recipient of the
increased competencies and reduced or prevented behaviors
may not only be the targeted individual but also the entire
system or components of that system (agency, school dis-
trict, team, family, etc.). Thus, system-change issues, such
as those involved in district or school-wide PBS planning,
are considered to be appropriate PBS activities. This per-
spective effectively broadens the focus of PBS from an
individual with behavioral challenges and extends it to the
behavior of larger systems (e.g., teams, families, schools,
agencies, communities).
This proposed definition also maintains a commitment to
nonaversive and positive approaches with inclusion of lan-
guage emphasizing strategies that are respectful of a person’s
dignity. Given the historical foundation of PBS emerging
from the aversive/nonaversive debate in the early 1990s and
the initial label for the field (nonaversive behavior manage-
ment), the philosophy of positive and nonaversive approaches
has been a critical component of many PBS definitions and
should be reflected in any current or future definition. The
commitment to respectful and positive strategies is not just
reflected in PBS practices as applied at the individual level
but also at the systems level. Thus, PBS practitioners should
examine, at all levels of the system (a) whether practices
directly or indirectly support the system (school, agency,
family, community) to deliver respectful practices to its tar-
get population (student, clients, children, etc.) in a manner
that supports the end recipients’ dignity, and (b) whether the
strategies utilized to impact those larger systems are also
respectful. PBS advocates that strategies need to be respect-
ful of the individual with behavioral needs as well as the sys-
tems and participants that support that individual.
The same imperative that was applied to a call for strate-
gies that are respectful of a person’s dignity can also be
applied to the PBS definition’s commitment to the overall
well-being of the person. If the target of PBS practices is a
school-age student, then there should be concern about the
overall well-being or quality of life of that student and his
family. This commitment goes beyond simply increasing
functional and social behaviors and reducing or preventing
problem behaviors to address issues of educational inclu-
sion, relationships, and presence and participation in the
community. Likewise, work at the systems level has to be
committed to improving the overall quality of life or well-
being of the system, whether that system is as large as a state
educational agency or as small as an individual family. It is
assumed that improving the quality of life (effectiveness,
efficiency, passion for outcomes, etc.) of the system will also
translate, perhaps indirectly, to an enhanced capacity to
improve the well-being of the “client” or end-consumer of
the system’s supports. Practitioners should always expand
their vision to insure that all partners in a PBS approach
(from systems-level personnel to the individual consumer)
are treated with respect and dignity and function in healthy
environments that improve quality of life outcomes.
Finally, the inclusion of PBS being applied within a multi-
tiered framework is a critical extension of prior definitions.
Although PBS applied within the context of schools has gen-
erally operated from a multi-tiered perspective, there may not
be universal realization that the PBS approach also operates
at the individual level in addition to the level of larger sys-
tems (e.g., families, classrooms, schools, social service pro-
grams and facilities). Although the roots of PBS lay in the
at LEHIGH UNIV on January 14, 2016pbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kincaid et al. 5
provision of support to individual children, students, and
adults in a variety of settings, in the past 20 years, the appli-
cations of PBS to address larger systems issues has been sig-
nificant and should be recognized within a contemporary
PBS definition. This recognition of a multi-tiered framework
within an array of larger systems also opens the PBS approach
to consideration of other evidence-based approaches applied
within different systems, making this PBS definition flexible
and inclusive for future growth in the field.
Summary
The purpose of a new definition for PBS is to both broaden
and clarify the critical domains of what is included under
the “umbrella” of PBS. We sought to advance a definition
that is accurate, representative, and useful, and that offers a
clear starting point for a further discussion within the field
regarding the essential and definitional characteristics of
the PBS approach. Although no single definition of PBS
will satisfy all practitioners, the authors present a starting
point for consideration that will be shaped by feedback,
debate, and discussion in the future. This definition will be
further shaped by PBS practitioners as the field’s values and
practices grow and adapt to include new assessment, inter-
vention, and problem-solving approaches applied within
existing environments and systems. But for now, this defi-
nition is offered as a starting point for discussions about
PBS and as a possible anchor point for future examination
of the progress of PBS.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anderson, C. M., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). Positive behavior sup-
port: Expanding the application of applied behavior analysis.
The Behavior Analyst, 23, 85–94.
Anderson, J., Brown, F., & Scheuermann, B. (2007). APBS stan-
dards of practice: Individual level—Iteration 2. Retrieved
from http://www.apbs.org/files/apbs_standards_of_prac-
tice_2013_format.pdf
Bambara, L. (2005). Evolution of positive behavior support. In L.
Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for stu-
dents with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior
plans (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A.
P., Sailor, W., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support:
Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4, 4–16.
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior prob-
lems through functional communication training. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.
Dunlap, G., Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Zarcone, J. R., & Schwartz,
I. (2008). Positive behavior support and applied behavior
analysis: A familial alliance. Behavior Modification, 32,
682–698.
Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (2014, March). The definition of posi-
tive behavior support: Moving toward greater precision.
Featured presentation at the 11th International Conference of
the Association for Positive Behavior Support, Chicago, IL.
Dunlap, G., Kincaid, D., Horner, R. H., Knoster, T., & Bradshaw,
C. P. (2014). A comment on the term “positive behavior sup-
port.” Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 133–136.
Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2009). Overview
and history of positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G.
Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive
behavior support (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Springer.
Guess, D., Helmstetter, E., Turnbull, R., & Knowlton, S. (1987). Use
of aversive procedures with persons who are disabled: An histor-
ical review and critical analysis. Monograph of the Association
for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 2(1). Seattle, WA: TASH.
Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., Carr, E. G., Sailor, W.,
Anderson, J., . . .O’Neill, R. E. (1990). Toward a technology of
“non-aversive” behavioral support. Journal of the Association
for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 15, 125–132.
Iwata, B., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K., Bauman, K., & Richman, G.
(1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from
Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2,
3–20, 1982)
Kincaid, D., & Dunlap, D. (2015, March). The definition of posi-
tive behavior support: Moving toward greater precision.
Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of the
Association for Positive Behavior Support, Boston, MA.
LaVigna, G. W., & Donnellan, A. M. (1986). Alternatives to pun-
ishment: Solving behavior problems with non-aversive strate-
gies. New York, NY: Irvington.
Lucyshyn, J. M., Dunlap, G., & Freeman, R. (2015). A histori-
cal perspective on the evolution of positive behavior support
as a science-based discipline. In F. Brown, J. Anderson, &
R. DePry (Eds.), Individual positive behavior supports: A
standards-based guide to practices in school and community-
based settings (pp. 3–25). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Meyer, L. H., & Evans, L. M. (1989). Nonaversive intervention
for behavior problems: A manual for home and community.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Repp, A. C., & Singh, N. N. (Eds.). (1990). Current perspectives in
the use of non-aversive and aversive interventions with devel-
opmentally disabled persons. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
Sailor, W., Doolittle, J., Bradley, R., & Danielson, L. (2009). Response
to intervention and positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G.
Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive
behavior support (pp. 729–753). New York, NY: Springer.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.
J., Nelson, C. M., . . .Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive
behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment
in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2,
131–143.
at LEHIGH UNIV on January 14, 2016pbi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
