See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299509208

School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Response to

Intervention: System Similarities, Distinctions, and
Research to Date at the Univ....

Chapter · January 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_40

CITATIONS READS

14 563

4 authors, including:

Timothy J Lewis Barbara S Mitchell

University of Missouri University of Missouri
92 PUBLICATIONS   3,958 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   365 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George M Sugai
University of Connecticut
211 PUBLICATIONS   14,540 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sex Differences in Camouflaging in Adolescents with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy J Lewis on 12 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page Proof Instructions and Queries

Journal Title : AERJ

Article Number : 637349

Greetings, and thank you for publishing with SAGE Publications. We have prepared this page proof for your review.

Please respond to each of the below queries by digitally marking this PDF and sending the marked PDF back.
Please use only the icons shown below for your mark-up, and do not use “sticky notes” or other “pop-up” comments.

Please use: Please do NOT use:

Help with Digital Mark-up

1. Do you have Adobe Reader? Quick, safe, free download is available at http://get.adobe.com/reader/
2. To access the recommended tools, please click “Comment” in upper right of Adobe Reader, then “Drawing Markups.”
3. Using tools other than those recommended may cause data loss.
4. Some mark-up examples are shown below.

may be

Please note that sending corrections in any form other than the marked-up PDF can significantly
delay the processing of your corrections.
 Author Query Form

Please assist us by clarifying the following queries:

Sl. No. Query

Please confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations,

sequence, and contact details, is correct.
Please review the entire document for typographical errors, mathematical
errors, and any other necessary corrections; check headings, tables, and
figures.
Please confirm you have reviewed this proof to your satisfaction and
understand this is your final opportunity for review prior to publication.
1 MANCOVA is usually used to abbreviation multivariate analysis of covari-
ance. Is MANCOVA correct here?
2 Please edit ‘‘stes’’ for clarity.

3 Please provide key explaining meaning of asterisks in table.

4 Is MANOVA correct here?
5 Please spell out SS and MS in table key.
6 Please provide caption for Figure 1.
 American Educational Research Journal
Month XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1–24
DOI: 10.3102/0002831216637349
! 2016 AERA. http://aerj.aera.net

Student Perceptions of School Climate as

Predictors of Office Discipline Referrals
Nicholas A. Gage
University of Florida
Alvin Larson
Meriden Public Schools
George Sugai
Sandra M. Chafouleas
University of Connecticut

Research indicates that school climate influences students’ academic, social,

and behavioral outcomes. Therefore, improving school climate provides
a promising avenue for preventing academic, social, and behavioral diffi-
culties. Research has examined school-level measurement of school climate,
but few studies have examined student-level responses to school climate and
student perceptions of school climate and their academic, social, and behav-
ioral performance in school. In this study, we examined latent classes of stu-
dents, based on their perception of school climate, and identified specific
items within each class that predicted student social and behavioral

NICHOLAS A. GAGE is an assistant professor of special education in the School of Special

Education, School Psychology, & Early Childhood Studies in the College of Education
at the University of Florida, 1403 Norman Hall, PO Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611;
e-mail: gagenicholas@coe.ufl.edu. Specific research interests include identification of
policies and practices at the national, state, local and classroom levels to support the
academic, social, and behavioral needs of students with or at risk for emotional and/
or behavioral disorders through rigorous and diverse research methods.
ALVIN LARSON is the research and evaluation specialist for Meriden Public Schools in
Meriden, Connecticut. He provides research support for all research questions posed
by the school board to evaluate and improve educational progress for students in
Meriden. In addition, he provides technical assistance for survey and test develop-
ment for the school district and other departments in the City of Meriden.
GEORGE SUGAI is professor and Carole J. Neag Endowed Chair in the Neag School of
Education at the University of Connecticut. His professional interests include effective
classroom and behavior management practices, school-wide discipline, social skills
instruction, and positive behavior supports.
SANDRA M. CHAFOULEAS is the associate dean for research and a professor in the
Department of Educational Psychology within the Neag School of Education. Her
research interests include behavioral assessment and school-based prevention of
behavioral and emotional problems.
Gage et al.
performance as measured by office discipline referrals (ODR). Finally, we
explored the academic, social, and behavioral profiles and demographic
profiles within each class and discussed implications for practice and
research.

KEYWORDS: achievement gap, early childhood, policy, poverty

S uccessful schools create environments that promote academic achieve-

ment, social competence, and prosocial behaviors by providing safe,
orderly, and positive learning environments for all students (Bradshaw,
Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009; Herman et al., 2008). School climate, or the
quality and character of school life (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral,
2009), influences students’ social and behavioral outcomes (D.
Gottfredson, 2000; G. D. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson,
2005; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006; Walker & Shinn, 2002).
Therefore, improving school climate provides a promising avenue for pre-
venting social and behavioral difficulties. Further, successful student behav-
ior support has been linked to school environments and school climates that
are effective, safe, preventive, and positive (Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans,
Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010), supporting the rela-
tionship between school climate and behavior. However, what facets of
school climate are predictive of positive social and behavioral outcomes is
unclear. We designed this study to identify (a) classes of students based
on risk status for school-based behavioral difficulties and (b) specific facets
of school climate that are predictive of decreased risk.

School Climate
School climate is a complex multidimensional construct encompassing
the atmosphere, culture, values, resources, and social networks of a school
(Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandra, 2013; Wang & Degol, 2015)
and has been defined as the shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that shape
interactions between students, teachers, and administrators and set the
parameters of acceptable behavior and norms for the school (Cohen et al.,
2009; Fan, Williams, & Corkin, 2011; Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008).
School climate is based on patterns of student and teacher experiences of
school life and reveals norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships,
teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures of schools
that support feeling socially, emotionally, and physically safe in school
(Cohen et al., 2009).
Positive school climate has been linked to a number of academic, social,
and behavioral outcomes, including academic achievement (Brand, Felner,
Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003; Wang, Selman, Dishion, & Stormshak,
2014); student academic, social, and personal attitudes and motives in school

2
 School Climate
(Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995); increased attendance
(Brand et al., 2003; Welsh, 2000); and decreased student delinquency (G.
D. Gottfredson et al., 2005; Welsh, 2000), use of illegal substances (Brand
et al., 2003), bullying (Nansel et al., 2001), victimization (Gage,
Prykanowski, & Larson, 2014; G. D. Gottfredson et al., 2005), depression
and self-esteem (Brand et al., 2003; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007), and gen-
eral behavior problems (Battistich & Horn, 1997; Kuperminc, Leadbeater, &
Blatt, 2001; Welsh, 2000). Therefore, measurement and use of school climate
data may be a promising approach to addressing both school-wide and indi-
vidual problem behaviors.

School Climate and Behavior

Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, and Vincent (2004) contend that school cli-
mate varies as a function of several factors, including (a) student behavior
and attitudes, (b) school and classroom characteristics, and (c) educator
and student values and related perceptions regarding considerations of
school safety and school effectiveness. The interrelationship between school
climate and behavior, particularly behavior problems in schools, has
received attention in the research literature (G. D. Gottfredson et al.,
2005). For example, Wang (2009) examined the relationship between middle
school students’ perceptions of school climate and students’ deviant behav-
iors and depressive symptoms. Results suggested that adolescents who per-
ceived their schools to have positive school climate were less likely to
engage in deviant behaviors and report depressive symptoms. However,
the study utilized structural equation modeling and examined path coeffi-
cients between latent constructs, thereby not identifying specific aspects of
school climate influencing student behaviors. Wang et al. (2010) conducted
a more nuanced study of school climate, examining students’ perception of
school climate in sixth grade and the probability of engaging in problem
behaviors in seventh and eighth grade as reported by student. They found
that positive student perceptions of school climate, particularly positive
teacher-student interactions, were related to decreased frequency of
reported problem behaviors. Two limitations should be noted: (a) The study
did not utilize a school climate measure but instead a measure of social nom-
ination, and (b) the measure of student problem behavior was self-report,
which may have been biased.
From a social cognitive perspective (Bandura, 2001), students tend to
react to experiences as they subjectively perceive them, not necessarily to
the objective nature of the experience (Koth et al., 2008). Consequently, stu-
dents’ perceptions of the school environment may have an impact on their
behavior at school. Further, researchers agree that student personal experi-
ences of the school climate mediate actual school climate effects on their
behavior (Kuperminc et al., 2001; Loukas & Robinson, 2004; Roeser,

3
Gage et al.
Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998). Individual perceptions of school climate appear to
contribute to student outcomes, including problem behavior (Loukas &
Murphy, 2007). Therefore, school climate is an important target for school
improvement initiatives that aim to reduce discipline problems (Haynes,
Emmons, & Ben-Avie, 1997). Unfortunately, little is known about which spe-
cific facets of school climate (e.g., positive teacher interactions) are predic-
tive of positive behavioral outcomes.

Purpose
School climate may serve as a protective factor for student-level problem
behavior; however, there is a need to determine if certain facets of school
climate predict decreases in problem behaviors. Further, if a predictive rela-
tionship is established between specific facets of school climate, those facets
could be targets for intervention and have positive distal impacts on the fre-
quency of office discipline referrals (ODRs). Therefore, in this study, we
identified latent classes of students based on their frequency of ODRs and
their perceptions of school climate in order to identify the predictive rela-
tionship between specific facets of school climate and ODRs within each
identified latent class. In addition, we examined the academic, social, and
behavioral profiles and demographic profiles of each class to create an over-
all profile of each class of student based on the relationship between ODR
and student perceptions of school climate.

Method
Sample
Data were collected from a large school district in New England, com-
prised of eight elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high
schools, with a total enrollment of ~8,200 students. The district serves
a diverse student population, with 62.2% receiving free or reduced lunch;
11.5% not fluent in English; 30.4% of district’s students coming from homes
where English is not the primary language, including 43 different languages;
and 13.4% receiving special education services. Total minority population
was 61.1%, including 44.7% Hispanic, 13.5% African American, 2.5% Asian,
and 0.3% Native American. The district reported a 91.2% graduation rate
and a 3.0% dropout rate for Grades 9 through 12. Of those graduating,
approximately 71.6% pursue a higher education degree.
A sample of 3,797 students (~46% of the district) completed the school
climate survey. Teachers of students in 3rd through 12th grades were invited
to participate in the study. Sixty-eight percent of teachers consented,
brought all students in their classroom to a school computer lab, and asked
them to complete the online survey. Students were not excluded from par-
ticipation, and if students had questions or needed item clarifications,

4
 School Climate
teachers would assist by reading the item out loud and prompting students
to respond. Forty-five percent of respondents were in elementary school,
22% in middle school, and 32% in high school. Exactly 50% of the sample
was female, 40% were White, 42% were Hispanic, and 15% were African
American. Sixty-three percent of the sample received free or reduced lunch,
7% were classified as English language learners by the district, and 6%
received special education services, primarily for learning disabilities (55%
of students with disabilities in the sample).

Measures
Meriden School Climate Survey-Student Version
The Meriden School Climate Survey-Student Version (MSCS-SV; Gage,
Larson, & Chafouleas, 2016) is a 47-item survey of students’ perception of
adult support at school; school safety; respect for differences; adult support
at home, including academic support; student aggression toward others; and
peer support (see Table 4 for specific item definitions). Preliminary psycho-
metric evaluation identified a seven-factor structure with acceptable reliabil-
ity at the full scale and subscale levels (e.g., full scale alpha = .91). The
MSCS-SV is delivered online to students in Grades 3 to 12 during grade-level
testing sessions. Data for this study were collected in November and
December of 2011 during regular school hours as part of the initial validation
study; therefore, not all students in the district completed the survey.
Although subscale factor scores were available, the goal of this study was
to identify predictive relationships between specific facets of school climate
(e.g., having a friend that a student can trust), not broader subscales. For
example, the adult support subscale provides a single score for all
teacher-related items, but in this study, we wanted to identify the specific
items on the survey that predicted class membership. Therefore, modeling
was conducted at the item level.

Office Discipline Referrals

All schools were using the School-Wide Information System (SWIS; May
et al., 2005) to collect ODR data. SWIS provides a database framework for
systematically defining, collecting, and presenting individual and school-
wide patterns of ODRs. School personnel entered ODR data into SWIS,
and each record included the type of problem behavior and administrative
action resulting from the problem behavior (e.g., in-school suspension).
The total number of ODRs reported for the sample of students in this study
was 3,778 ODRs, recorded from August 2011 through March 2012. The
majority of ODRs reported in the study sample were for student disrespect
(n = 909), followed by aggression toward a peer (n = 482), disruptions
(n = 458), and inappropriate language (n = 299). For this study, the number

5
Gage et al.
of ODRs per student was summed and recorded as the ODR value for each
student. A total of 1,190 students received at least one ODR (range of 0 to 35
ODRs). The average per student rate of ODR was 0.47 ODRs. The average
per student ODR rate for the district during the 2011–2012 school year
was 0.45 ODRs (4,821 ODRs committed by 8,227 students).

Suspension
In addition to ODRs, administrative decisions were collected in the SWIS
system. Two administrative decisions were retained for analysis: in-school
and out-of-school suspension. Not all ODRs resulted in a suspension; how-
ever, students with repeated ODR occurrences and students exhibiting sig-
nificant behavior problems (e.g., fighting, bringing weapons to school)
received more severe administrative decisions, including suspensions. To
calculate in-school and out-of-school suspensions, the total number of
days suspended were summed for each student. A total of 327 students
received in-school suspension, and total of 110 students received out-of-
school suspension. Across all students, the mean number of days of in-
school suspension was 0.27 days (SD = 1.38), with a maximum of 20 days.
Across all students, the mean number of days of out-of-school suspension
was 0.17 days (SD = 1.26), with a maximum of 22 days. District-wide and
school-wide suspension data were not available.

Academic Achievement
During the time of data collection, all students in Connecticut were
assessed in reading, mathematics, and writing on the Connecticut Mastery
Test (CMT) for Grades 3 through 8 and the Connecticut Academic
Performance Test (CAPT) for Grade 10, each providing a level of academic
performance. No academic achievement level was available for Grades 9, 11,
and 12. The reading test included two reading tests, the Degrees of Reading
Power and a Reading Comprehension test. The mathematics test assessed
student mastery of grade-specific mathematics skills and concepts, and the
writing tests included two tests, the Direct Assessment of Writing and the
Revising and Editing tests. Both the CMT and the CAPT provide a grade-
specific level of performance for each student in each academic content
area (reading, mathematics, and writing). The levels include Level 1 below
basic, Level 2 basic, Level 3 proficient, Level 4 goal, and Level 5 advanced.
Each corresponding level number was retained as the academic achieve-
ment score for each student (e.g., a value of 1 for below basic). Across all
students with available data, the mean mathematics performance was 3.33
(SD = 1.21, n = 2,868), mean reading performance was 2.92 (SD = 1.31,
n = 3,383), and mean writing performance was 3.10 (SD = 1.20, n =
2,951). To confirm sample equivalence with district-level average perfor-
mance, we compared the percentage of students at or above goal across

6
 School Climate
the district and in the study sample. The percentage of students in the study
sample at or above goal was 50.5% in math and 50.8% in reading. The per-
centage of students in all elementary and middle schools at or above goal in
elementary and middle school was 49.1% in math and 53.8% in reading. The
percentage of study sample students in high school at or above goal was
23.1% in math and 17.4% in reading. The percentage of al high school stu-
dents at or above goal was 27.4% in math and 20.7% in reading.

Grade
The grade of each student was included in the data set, and each grade
(e.g., third) was retained as a numeric value (e.g., 3).

Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to identify whether specific items or clus-
ters of items from the school climate survey predicted student ODRs.
Underlying the assumption of item clustering is the presence of latent classes
of students based on their response patterns on the school climate survey
and their respective number of ODRs. That is, each observation (student)
is a member of one, and only one, of T latent, or unobserved, classes
(Magidson & Vermunt, 2004) contingent on patterns of ODRs. Statistically,
this modeling approach is called latent class regression modeling (also
referred to as finite mixture regression). The goal of latent class regression
is the identification of classes of students based on patterns of responses
on the school climate survey with respect to student ODRs.
The analysis was conducted using LatentGOLD 4.5 (Vermunt &
Magidson, 2005), a Windows-based statistical software program designed
specifically for latent class regression modeling, utilizing maximum likeli-
hood and posterior mode estimation and Bayes constants to eliminate
boundary solutions. Because each student’s cumulative number of ODRs
served as the dependent variable (i.e., a count variable), a Poisson distribu-
tion was used, resulting in a log-linear Poisson latent class regression model.
To address the heterogeneity across grades (3rd–12th), the grade variable
was included as a covariate across all models. Six models were sequentially
calculated, using all 47 items from the MSCS-SV as predictors, and compared
for best model fit. Each model successively increased the number of possible
classes, from one class to six classes following procedures outlined by
Vermunt and Magidson (2005). The determination of the best fitting model
and final number of latent classes was made based on the minimization of
the Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), the Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC), the minimization of classification error, and the proportion of total
variance explained (R2) (Lanza, Collins, Lemmon, & Schafer, 2007). The
modeling was conducted with a complete case analysis approach to missing
data. Across all items, an average of 1.5% of data were missing (range, 0% to

7
Gage et al.
3.1%). Assuming missing at random, missing data were modeled in
LatentGOLD 4.5, which utilizes the expectation maximization (EM) and max-
imum likelihood estimates in the parameter calculations (Harel, Pellowski, &
Kalichman, 2012).
Based on the final model, each student’s classification was retained and
used as the fixed factor in [AQ: 1]multivariate analysis of variance
(MANCOVA) model with reading achievement, math achievement, writing
achievement, ODRs, in-school suspension, and out-of-school suspension
as dependent variables and controlling for grade. The MANCOVA model
included Helmert contrasts and univariate test with Tukey honest significant
difference (HSD) post hoc comparisons performed after obtaining a signifi-
cant multivariate effect. The MANCOVA was developed to assess whether or
not latent classes of students’ social-behavioral and academic performance in
school were significantly different by identified latent class. The MANCOVA
was conducted in SPSS 19.0. To examine class differences across demo-
graphic variables, including gender, ethnicity, lunch status, English learner
status, and special education status, we calculated descriptive statistics by
class and x2 tests to determine whether or not differences were statistically
significant.

Results
Latent Class Model Identification
In this study, we examined latent classes of students based on their per-
ceptions of school climate and ODRs to identify clusters of responses pre-
dicting students in need of school-based social and behavioral
interventions. Model fit statistics and descriptive features of each of six latent
class Poisson regression models are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The goal
with the BIC and AIC is to identify the model with the lowest value
(Magidson & Vermunt, 2004). The two-class regression model had the small-
est BIC, whereas the four-class model had the lowest AIC. The two-class
model only explained 84% of the variance, and the classification error was
impacted by the 50/50 chance of classifying students accurately. The four-
class regression model accounted for 95% of the variance, but the classifica-
tion error was high at almost 50%. Based on all available information, the
three-class regression model was retained as the final model, having the low-
est BIC and AIC with correspondingly low classification error and high var-
iance explained (94%). The choice of the three-class regression model was
further confirmed by examining the class size and mean ODRs. The two-
class regression model included 92% of the sample in a single group. The
four-class regression model appeared to segment the sample into groups
with face validity (i.e., three approximately equal groups and one outlier
group with high mean ODRs). However, as indicated by the results in

8
 School Climate
Table 1
Latent Class Poisson Regression Model Fit Statistics,
Classification Errors, and Variance Explained

Model Number of Classes LL BIC AIC Class Err R2

1 One-class regression –3,445.48 7,282.51 6,986.98 0.00 0.16

2 Two-class regression –2,257.41 5,314.22 4,710.83 0.02 0.84
3 Three-class regression –2,086.69 5,380.64 4,469.39 0.17 0.94
4 Four-class regression –1,978.50 5,572.10 4,353.01 0.49 0.95
5 Five-class regression –1,936.11 5,895.19 4,368.24 0.48 0.97
6 Six-class regression –1,897.08 6,224.98 4,390.17 0.51 0.97

Note. LL = log likelihood; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike Information
Criterion; Class Err = classification error.

Table 1, the error rate was almost 50% across the four groups. Therefore,
based on the model fit and descriptive statistics, the three-class regression
model was retained.
The results displayed in Table 2 summarize the percentage of students in
each class and their respective mean ODRs. The first class of students
included ~74% of the sample, and their mean ODR per student was almost
0. The second class of students included ~22% of the sample, and their mean
ODR was almost 3. The last class included ~4% of the sample, and their
mean ODR per student was almost 10. Based on the frequency of ODRs
per class, we subjectively named each class based on their need for interven-
tion support. The first class was labeled Primary, the second class was
labeled Secondary, and the third class was labeled Tertiary, similar to the
school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS; Sugai & Horner, 2002) tiered
frameworks. In Table 3, we summarize the proportion of students within
each of the three classes by grade level, included as a covariate to control
for grade-level differences. The results suggest that the percentage of stu-
dents in each class within each grade was equivalent, providing further sup-
port for the accuracy of the three-class regression model.

Three-Class Poisson Regression Parameter Estimates

The parameter estimates from the three-class Poisson regression model
are presented in Table 4. The Wald statistic, which is a chi-square test, indi-
cates which survey items (predictors) were significant predictors within the
model. Analogous to low factor loadings in factor analysis, a nonsignificant
Wald statistic indicates that the survey item did not contribute significantly to
class identification. For example, the survey item ‘‘At home, I have a parent
or other adult who always wants me to do my school work’’ did not signif-
icantly contribute to the model. Therefore, only items with significant Wald
statistics were interpreted. The Wald(=), also a chi-square test, indicates

9
Gage et al.
Table 2
Class Size and Class-Specific Mean of ODRs

Model Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

One-class model
Size (%) 100
M ODR 0.45
Two-class model
Size (%) 92 8
M ODR 0.14 4.02
Three-class model
Size (%) 74 22 4
M ODR 0.11 2.92 9.66
Four-class model
Size (%) 41 31 23 5
M ODR 0.59 2.65 6.48 7.58
Five-class model
Size (%) 33 28 23 13 3
M ODR 0.29 1.65 1.70 4.90 9.92
Six-class model
Size (%) 23 22 20 19 8 7
M ODR 0.50 1.92 1.27 2.11 6.88 10.17

Note. Size is the proportion of students within each class. M ODR is the mean number of
ODRs within each class. ODRs = office discipline referrals

Table 3
Proportion Students by Latent Class by Grade Levels

Grade Primary Secondary Tertiary

3–4 .15 .13 .14

5–6 .30 .29 .26
7–8 .11 .13 .16
9–10 .22 .21 .24
11–12 .22 .22 .20

which item parameter estimates were significantly different from each other.
For example, the survey item ‘‘At home, I have a parent or other adult who
talks with me about my problems’’ is a significant predictor within the
model, but the parameter estimates, contingent on item response patterns,
are not different from each other, meaning the item does not provide dis-
crimination between classes, which is the focus of this study. Therefore,
only items with significant Wald and Wald(=) statistics were interpreted
(Magidson, & Vermunt, 2004).

10
 Table 4
Three-Class Poisson Regression Parameter Estimates and Raw Mean Score for Predictors by Class

Primary (n = 3,075) Secondary (n = 340) Tertiary (n = 72)

a b c d
Predictors Wald Wald(=) b M b M b M

A person’s skin color can cause problems at my 54.67** 20.42** 0.35* 4.18 0.49** 4.21 –0.06 4.10
school (r)
At home, I have a parent or other adult who 29.25** 27.05** –0.22* 4.57 0.30* 4.45 –0.73** 4.50
always wants me to do my best
At home, I have a parent or other adult who cares 6.27 6.21* 0.01 4.53 –0.06 4.39 0.52* 4.51
about my school work
At home, I have a parent or other adult who 15.52** 15.11** 0.04 4.52 –0.21* 4.40 0.79** 4.49
expects me to follow school rules
At home, I have a parent or other adult who 1.34 0.49 0.02 4.27 –0.08 4.14 0.01 4.35
listens to me when I have something to say
At home, I have a parent or other adult who talks 9.05* 2.50 –0.07 4.02 0.28* 3.90 0.11 3.96
with me about my problems
At home, I have a quiet place to do my 9.84* 0.09 0.13 3.95 0.10* 3.92 0.12* 4.11
homework
At home, I have time to do my homework 7.71* 7.70* –0.06 4.26 0.14* 4.06 –0.21* 4.25
At home, if I need help with homework, a parent 11.78* 3.54 0.22 4.07 0.05 3.92 0.27** 4.24
or adult will help me
At my school, I have a friend who I can really 17.15** 12.12** –0.01 4.28 –0.23** 4.09 0.22* 4.38
trust
At my school, there is a teacher or other adult 9.89* 9.01* 0.41* 4.41 –0.16 4.21 0.22 4.51
who always wants me to do my best

(continued)

11
 Table 4 (continued)

12
Primary (n = 3,075) Secondary (n = 340) Tertiary (n = 72)
a b c d
Predictors Wald Wald(=) b M b M b M

At my school, there is a teacher or other adult 18.18** 4.92 –0.01 4.04 –0.19* 3.81 –0.38** 3.99
who listens to me when I have something to say
At my school, there is a teacher or other adult 55.65** 14.20** –0.01 4.03 0.35** 3.96 0.69** 4.11
who tells me when I do a good job
At my school, there is a teacher or other adult 28.70** 1.78 –0.29** 4.03 –0.18** 3.89 –0.33** 3.96
whom I can trust
At school, the color of my skin can get me in 54.24** 41.06** –0.54** 4.52 0.16* 4.41 –0.21* 4.61
trouble (r)
During the past few months, I have hit or pushed 53.22** 1.26 –0.19* 4.61 –0.27** 4.31 –0.34** 4.31
other students at school in anger (r)
During the past few months, I have hit, pushed, 109.16** 56.62** –0.24* 4.75 –0.55** 4.59 0.28** 4.51
or spread mean rumors at the bus stop or on the
bus (r)
During the past few months, I have spread mean 17.30** 14.86** 0.43** 4.74 –0.04 4.61 0.36** 4.65
rumors or lies about other students (r)
I am happy to be at this school 32.05** 14.56** –0.53** 3.81 –0.04 3.54 –0.32* 3.92
I do my homework on time 23.41** 2.66 –0.05 4.19 –0.26** 3.85 –0.24** 3.86
I feel sad in school (r) 26.64** 12.21** –0.13 3.81 –0.27** 3.69 0.07 4.14
I feel safe at school 21.78** 14.38** 0.41** 3.86 –0.08 3.68 0.32** 3.83
I feel safe on my way to and from school 24.26** 14.94** 0.03 4.14 0.24** 4.07 –0.14* 4.13
I get hit or threatened by other students (r) 35.25** 3.47 –0.18 4.51 –0.37** 4.38 –0.54** 4.60
I have a friend about my own age that really cares 19.79** 13.98** 0.19 4.27 –0.08 4.14 –0.45** 4.33
about me
I have a friend about my own age who talks with 11.53* 10.84** –0.13 3.82 –0.11* 3.76 0.20* 3.86
me about my problems

(continued)
 Table 4 (continued)

Primary (n = 3,075) Secondary (n = 340) Tertiary (n = 72)

Predictors Walda Wald(=)b bc Md b M b M

I know the school rules 25.17** 18.90** 0.51** 4.37 –0.37** 4.10 –0.18 4.22
I try to do my best at school 48.95** 11.26** –0.50** 4.47 –0.61** 4.15 –0.09 4.46
I try to understand how other students feel 35.21** 30.92** –0.07 4.00 –0.06 3.84 0.66** 4.01
I worry about many things (r) 3.21 0.40 0.00 2.73 0.07 2.76 0.07 2.61
In class, I try to understand other students who 6.82 4.83 –0.13 3.64 0.06 3.41 –0.19* 3.54
disagree with me
In the future, I feel I will be successful in life 2.91 2.53 0.02 4.40 –0.02 4.24 0.26* 4.43
My school handles student behavior problems 16.21** 16.12** –0.24** 3.88 0.25** 3.71 0.08 3.88
fairly
My teachers want me to work hard and do well 25.43** 23.68** –0.05 4.38 0.45** 4.31 –0.18* 4.22
Other students at school have spread mean 54.18** 16.20** –0.42** 4.23 –0.34** 4.05 0.09 4.28
rumors or lies about me (r)
Other students in my school hurt my feelings (r) 69.97** 0.25 0.36** 3.96 0.42** 3.98 0.39** 4.04
Other students in this school are polite and listen 0.73 0.70 0.10 3.26 –0.03 3.14 0.02 3.32
to what I say
Students being mean to other students 6.47 5.23 0.15 3.22 –0.12* 3.01 0.05 3.39
(harassment) is a problem in my school (r)
Students in my school respect differences in other 10.61* 3.90 0.03 3.48 0.05 3.41 0.25** 3.50
students
The adults in my school treat all students fairly 55.19** 17.00** –0.05 3.93 –0.44** 3.80 0.14 3.92
The adults in my school treat students with 19.15** 17.47** 0.23* 4.17 0.19** 3.97 –0.43** 4.19
respect
The teachers in my school make learning fun 11.81* 2.48 0.02 3.45 –0.20** 3.22 –0.11 3.42
There are teachers at my school who care about 28.78** 6.55* –0.40** 4.13 –0.20** 3.91 –0.06 4.08
me

13
(continued)
14

Table 4 (continued)

Primary (n = 3,075) Secondary (n = 340) Tertiary (n = 72)

a b c d
Predictors Wald Wald(=) b M b M b M

There are teachers in my school that help me to 21.45** 0.19 0.30* 4.12 0.23** 4.01 0.28* 4.15
really want to learn
There is physical fighting between students at my 19.04** 2.38 –0.24* 3.33 –0.25** 3.09 –0.09 3.54
school (r)
This school wants all students to do their very 8.66* 1.34 0.24* 4.27 0.15* 4.17 0.04 4.32
best
When I have a problem, I find someone to talk 24.06** 16.41** –0.30** 3.77 0.10 3.64 –0.25** 3.83
with

Note. (r) = that the survey item scaling was reverse coded.
a
The Wald statistic is a chi-square test and indicates whether the [AQ: 2]stes of parameters are significant.
b
The Wald(=) statistic is also a chi-square test, but tests whether the coefficients are equivalent across classes.
c
The b is the estimated Poisson regression coefficients for each class controlling for student grade.
d
The mean is the raw mean score for each survey item (predictor) for each estimated class.[AQ: 3]
 School Climate
Unlike linear regression, the coefficients are not the unit change in the
dependent variable for each unit change in the predictor holding all other pre-
dictors constant. Instead, the Poisson regression coefficient is interpreted as
follows: For a one-unit change in the predictor variable, the difference in
the logs of expected counts is expected to change by the respective regression
coefficient given the other predictor variables in the model are held constant.
For ordinary least squares (OLS), if a given case were one unit higher on
a covariate, all things being equal, the mean of the conditional distribution
should be b1 units higher. Here, if a case were one unit higher, the expected
conditional mean should be eb times higher. To determine the strength of the
relationship relative to the scaling, the class-specific coefficient (b) becomes
the exponent of e, and the result can be subtracted from 1 and multiplied
by 100 to identify the relative percentage increase in ODR counts per one
scale unit increase on of the survey item holding all other survey items con-
stant. This calculation was conducted in Microsoft Excel for each coefficient
using the following function: =1-(exp(b)).

School Climate Items Predicting Decreases in ODRs

We identified significant indicators of decreasing within class ODRs for
each class of students (Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary) (Table 4).
Because a number of survey items are significant predictors across different
classes, we described the survey items with the largest within-class percent-
age of ODR change. For the Primary class of students, four survey items were
related to a ~50% within-class decrease of ODRs: (a) I know the school rules;
(b) During the past few months, I have spread rumors or lies about other
students (r); (c) At my school, there is a teacher or other adult who always
wants me to do my best; and (d) I feel safe at school.
For the Secondary class, three survey items were related to ~50% within-
class decrease of ODRs: (a) A person’s skin color can cause problems at my
school (r), (b) My teachers want me to work hard and do well, and (c) At my
school, there is a teacher or other adult who tells me I do a good job. A
fourth item was associated with a 35% within-class decrease of ODRs: At
home, I have a parent or other adult who always wants me to do my best.
The Tertiary class had four items that significantly decreased within class
ODRs: (a) At home, I have a parent or adult who expects me to follow
school rules (~122% decrease); (b) At my school, there is a teacher or other
adult who tells me I do a good job (~101% decrease); (c) I try to understand
how other students feel (~94% decrease); and (d) At home, I have a parent
or other adult who cares about my school work (~70% decrease). Two other
items were associated with a ~40% decrease in ODRs: (e) During the past
few months, I have spread mean rumors or lies about other students and
(d) I feel safe at school.

15
Gage et al.
Academic, Social, and Behavioral Profiles of Latent Classes
To examine whether significant differences were evident across the
three latent classes of students (Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary), control-
ling for grade level, a MANCOVA was modeled with the latent class as the
fixed factor and student academic achievement in reading, mathematic,
and writing; ODRs; and in-school and out-of-school suspension as depen-
dent variables. Because examination of Box test indicated that the model
violated the assumption of homogeneity (F = 237.52, p \ .000), Pillai’s
Trace was used to assess the multivariate difference (Leech, Barrett, &
Morgan, 2008). Overall, a significant difference was found across the three
classes and the dependent variables (Pillai’s Trace = .398, F = 104.38, p =
.000). Examination of the univariate effects in Table 5 indicate significant
academic, social, and behavioral profiles across the three classes of students,
with ODRs and in-school suspension as the dependent variables with the
largest mean differences.
We conducted post hoc comparisons for all dependent variables
because all dependent variables were significant. Across all comparisons,
the majority of mean differences across classes within dependent variables
were also statistically significant at the p \ .05 level. However, nonsignificant
differences were found between the Secondary and Tertiary classes on all
three academic achievement levels, indicating that the mean academic
achievement was equivalent for both classes of students. Based on the esti-
mated margin means and their respective confidence intervals, controlling
for grade, the academic, social, and behavioral profiles of the three classes
of students are provided in Figure 1 with 95% confidence intervals overlaid.
Across all variables, clear differences are evident between those students in
the Primary class and the Tertiary class. However, the error, as indicated by
the confidence bands, in the Primary class is very small, whereas the error in
the Tertiary class is wider, indicating greater heterogeneity of academic,
social, and behavioral profiles for students in the Tertiary class.

Demographic Profiles of Latent Classes

Last, we examined the demographic profiles for each class (see Table 6).
A much larger percentage of males were found in the Tertiary class, indicat-
ing that males commit significantly more ODRs than females. Differences by
ethnicity indicate that more African American students were in the
Secondary class than either the Primary or Tertiary, while fewer White stu-
dents were in the Tertiary class than in the Primary class. Students with
more ODRs are more likely to receive free or reduced lunch and more likely
to receive special education services. No differences were noted across EL
status. Differences within each demographic characteristic by class member-
ship were statistically significant for all characteristics, except for EL status.

16
 School Climate
Table 5
MANOVA and ANOVA Between-Subjects Effects[AQ: 4]

Variable and Sources SS MS F P h2

Mathematics
Between 153.13 76.57 56.20 .000 0.04
Error 3,437.34 1.36
Reading
Between 193.51 96.76 55.66 .000 0.04
Error 4,385.91 1.74
Writing
Between 117.60 58.80 43.61 .000 0.03
Error 318.19 0.45
ODRs
Between 2,544.18 1,272.09 727.98 .000 0.37
Error 4,408.74 1.75
In-school suspension
Between 805.55 402.78 319.03 .000 0.20
Error 3,185.26 1.26
Out-of-school suspension
Between 203.97 101.98 95.66 .000 0.07
Error 2,689.92 1.07

Note. ODRs = office discipline referrals; [AQ: 5]

Discussion
We designed this study to identify latent classes of students based on
their ODRs and perception of school climate and the academic, social,
behavioral, and demographic profiles of identified latent classes of students.
We identified a three-class model based on a priori model fit criteria.
Unexpectedly, the percentage of students within each class was congruent
with a multi-tiered model framework for prevention and intervention, with
a progressively smaller number of students exhibiting higher frequency of
ODRs and subsequently needing more intensive support. Multi-tiered mod-
els of school-wide support (e.g., SWPBS) are based on three types of stu-
dents: (a) typical students not at risk for academic or behavioral problems
(~80% of the student population), (b) students at risk for developing aca-
demic or behavioral problems (~15% of the student population), and (c) stu-
dents with persistent and chronic maladaptive academic and behaviors (~5%
of the student population; Nelson, Benner, Reid, Epstein, & Currin, 2002).
These descriptions appear appropriate for the identified classes in this study
and were used subjectively for the naming convention for each class. The
mean number of ODRs and percentage of students for each class aligned
with Nelson and colleagues’ (2002) definition, with 74% of the sample

17
Gage et al.

Figure 1. [AQ: 6]

recording an average of 0.1 ODRs (typical, not at risk), 22% recording an

average of 3 ODRs (students at risk), and 4% with an average of 10 ODRs
(persistent and chronic behaviors).
Although a number of survey items were statistically significant predic-
tors of class membership, those items that significantly predicted the largest
decreases in within-class ODRs were highlighted. Focusing on the Tertiary
class, the most important factors contributing to decreases in ODRS include
having school-involved parents, a caring adult at school that reinforces
appropriate behaviors, and feeling safe at school. This finding supports
the need for schools to create positive learning environments where students

18
 School Climate
Table 6
Demographic Characteristics by Class

Demographic Characteristic Primary (%) Secondary (%) Tertiary (%) x2 (p Value)

Gender .000
Male 47.9 59.6 75.0
Ethnicity .000
White 41.8 21.1 31.3
Hispanic 41.4 51.3 52.1
African American 13.8 26.3 16.7
Lunch status .000
Free and reduced 60.6 80.7 85.4
EL Status .742
Yes 7.1 8.3 8.3
Special education status .000
Yes 5.8 11.8 11.1

Note. EL = English learner.

feel safe and suggests that schools need to connect with parents so that
parents (a) support school rules and (b) care about their children’s perfor-
mance in schools.
Based on the classifications from the three-class regression model, we
explored the academic, social, behavioral, and demographic profiles of stu-
dents within each latent class. Students in the Tertiary class were performing
between the basic and proficient academic levels, experiencing the most
office discipline referrals, and as a result, the most number of days sus-
pended. Across all academic, social, and behavioral profiles, the Tertiary
class of students performed statistically significantly worse than the
Primary class. Clearly, these students are in need of academic, social, and
behavioral interventions and also were more likely to be male and receive
free or reduced lunch than students in the Primary class. The academic
and demographic profiles of the Secondary class were similar to the
Tertiary class.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This study represents a step in a line of continued research into the rela-
tionship between student perceptions of school climate and academic,
social, and behavior outcomes. With that in mind, a number of limitations
necessitate highlighting. First, this study included students from a single dis-
trict in New England, thereby reducing generalizability of findings.
Replication is necessary with students in schools and districts from broader
geographic regions to confirm that the (a) three-class model predicts within-
class decreases of ODRs, particularly for students in the Tertiary class, and

19
Gage et al.
(b) academic, social, and behavioral profiles identified in this study are con-
sistent. Further, the study did not include student-level characteristics due to
restrictions by the district- or school-level characteristics. Although these
missing covariates in and of themselves do not invalidate findings, future
research should examine differential patterns of classification and academic,
social, and behavioral profiles by ethnicity, gender, and disability status.
The analysis in this study controlled for grade-level differences within
the analysis, but more fine-tuned, age/grade-specific analysis should be con-
ducted to identify whether different patterns emerge for different age/grade-
level students. Academic, social, and behavioral interventions may be differ-
ent depending on educational context, including grade (e.g., reading inter-
ventions for first graders compared with interventions for fifth graders) and
school type (social skills programs in elementary schools compared to social
skills programs in high schools). Additionally, this study reports on student
perceptions in the fall of the school year and the number of ODRs by the
early spring. Future research should include longitudinal measures of school
climate, ODRs, and measures of academic, social, and behavioral perfor-
mance. In addition, interventions should be tested that address the needs
of students in the Secondary and Tertiary classes, with effects measured
across time and outcome. Lastly, the small sample size of the Tertiary class
may have underpowered the analysis and limited the findings. However,
the smaller sample resulted in larger standard errors, and the results are
not significantly impacted. Future research with larger samples will attenuate
this concern.

Implications for Practice

Although preliminary and exploratory in nature, the results of this study
have implications that can directly impact practice. Based on the results of
the latent class regression analysis, clusters of school climate survey items
significantly predicted within-class decreases of ODRs. Specifically, schools
where teachers provide consistent and regular positive reinforcement to
all students, particularly to students exhibiting chronic behavior problems,
are more likely to decrease ODRs and increase school climate. The results
further confirm the value of positively reinforcing students for appropriate
behavior (Horner et al., 2010).
Schools should also work to increase connections with parents, particu-
larly for students with frequent behavior problems. Based on the results,
parents need to support their student’s performance at school. Although
intuitive, parents need to become formal partners with schools helping these
students, which means they need to be involved before behavior problems
occur. Schools can do this by highlighting students’ positive behaviors and
calling home when students do something well, not only when they do
something wrong.

20
 School Climate
In addition to increasing school culture, schools need to provide a vari-
ety of interventions for students with increased ODRs. Students in the
Secondary and Tertiary classes appear to be performing significantly worse
than their Primary class peers across all outcomes. These results support
integrated academic and behavioral interventions for students exhibiting
chronic behavior problems as well as for students at risk for chronic behav-
ior problems.

Conclusions
The results of this preliminary study confirm that (a) generally, three
broad classes of students can be identified in schools based on their percep-
tions of school climate and ODRs, (b) students with the most problematic
behaviors need teachers to reinforce their appropriate behavior and parents
to reinforce the value and importance of school, and (c) students at risk and
exhibiting increased problem behaviors as measured by ODRs perform sta-
tistically significantly worse across all core academic content areas. Taken
together, we suggest that schools should (a) create positive learning environ-
ments by reinforcing appropriate behavior and working to connect with
parents to reinforce the value of school and (b) provide social-behavioral
and academic supports to students exhibiting increased problem behaviors.
By increasing positive school climate, schools can decrease ODRs and
increase positive academic, social, and behavioral outcomes for all students.

References
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.
Battistich, V., & Horn, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their
school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors.
American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997–2001. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87
.12.1997
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as com-
munities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives,
and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 627–658. doi:10.2307/1163326
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The
impact of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology
Quarterly, 23, 462–473.
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school cli-
mate through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports:
Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10,
100–115. doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9
Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school
improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level

21
Gage et al.
assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 570–588. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.570
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate:
Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record,
111, 180–213.
Fan, W., Williams, C. M., & Corkin, D. M. (2011). A multilevel analysis of student per-
ceptions of school climate: The effect of social and academic risk factors.
Psychology in the Schools, 48, 632–647. doi:10.1002/pits.20579
Gage, N. A., Larson, A., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). The Meriden School Climate
Survey-Student Version: Reliability and validity. Assessment for Effective
Intervention, 41, 67–78. doi:10.1177/1534508415596960
Gage, N. A., Prykanowski, D. A., & Larson, A. (2014). School climate and bullying vic-
timization: A latent class growth model analysis. School Psychology Quarterly,
29(3), 256–271.
Gottfredson, D. (2000). Schools and delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005).
School climate predictor of school disorder: Results from a national study of
delinquency in schools. Journal of Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444.
doi:10.1177/0022427804271931
Harel, O., Pellowski, J., & Kalichman, S. (2012). Are we missing the importance of
missing values in HIV prevention randomized clinical trials? Review and recom-
mendations. AIDS and Behavior, 16(6), 1382–1393. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-
0125-6
Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C., & Ben-Avie, M. (1997). School climate as a factor in stu-
dent adjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 8, 321–329. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc0803_4
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M.
(2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide
(NCEE No. 2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publicat
ions/practiceguides
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for
school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42, 1–14.
Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. G. (2004). Validity of
office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status
and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 6, 131–147. doi:10.1177/10983007060080010301
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of
student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 96–104. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96
Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and
individual differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle school
students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 141–159. doi:10.1016/S0022-
4405(01)00059-0
Lanza, S. T., Collins, L. M., Lemmon, D. R., & Schafer, J. L. (2007). PROC LCAS: A SAS
procedure for latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 671–694.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for intermediate users: Use
and interpretation (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

22
 School Climate
Loukas, A., & Murphy, J. L. (2007). Middle school student perceptions of school cli-
mate: Examining protective functions on subsequent adjustment problems.
Journal of School Psychology, 45, 293–309. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.10.001
Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2004). Examining the moderating role of perceived
school climate in early adolescent adjustment. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 14, 209–233. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01402004.x
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The
Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 175–
198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
May, S., Ard, W., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Glasgow, A., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R.
(2005). School-wide information system. Eugene, OR: Educational and
Community Supports, University of Oregon, Eugene.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Demonstration of
combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and inci-
dence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal
of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146–154. doi:10.1177/1098300706
0080030301
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and associations with
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,
2094–2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Reid, R. C., Epstein, M. H., & Currin, D. (2002). The con-
vergent validity of office discipline referrals with the CBCL-TRF. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 181–188.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early ado-
lescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research
findings. Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471. doi:10.1086/499650
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide
positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23–50.
doi.org/10.1300%2FJ019v24n01_03
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of
school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385.
doi:10.3102/0034654313483907
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Latent GOLD 4.0 user’s guide. Belmont, MA:
Statistical Innovations Inc.
Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school- based interventions to
achieve integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe
and effective schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.),
Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial
approaches (pp. 1–25). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Wang, M. (2009). School climate support for behavioral and psychological adjust-
ment: Testing the mediating effect of social competence. School Psychology
Quarterly, 24, 240–251. doi:10.1037/a0017999
Wang, M., & Degol, J. L. (2015). School climate: A review of the construct, measure-
ment, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review.
doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Wang, M., Selman, R. L., Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2010). A tobit regression
analysis of the covariation between middle school students’ perceived school cli-
mate and behavioral problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 274–
286. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00648.x

23
Gage et al.
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate dur-
ing the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and
behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 194–
213. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y
Welsh, W. N. (2000). The effects of school climate on school disorder. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 88–107. doi:10.1177/
0002716200567001007
Manuscript received June 3, 2015
Final revision received December 13, 2015
Accepted December 24, 2015

24

View publication stats