Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Factors Influencing the Implementation of a School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports program: Comparing 3 schools with different levels of implementation.

First of all, many thanks for allowing me to collaborate in the review of this article, with the aim of providing an alternative perspective to the researchers and enhancing its quality.

Below, a structured analysis of the manuscript is presented:

Regarding the title, it is clear and specific, reflecting the objective of the study on the implementation of the SWPBIS programme in different schools. Additionally, it indicates a comparison between levels of implementation, which anticipates an analytical approach.

Concerning the abstract, it clearly and concisely describes the purpose, sample, and key findings, while also including information on the methods used, facilitating a quick understanding of the study. It is only recommended to add a final sentence summarising the practical implications of the study and its contribution to the educational field.

With respect to the introduction, the theoretical framework contextualises the problem of SWPBIS implementation in Swedish schools. However, it is recommended to include recent studies (2020-2025) to support the need for investigating SWPBIS implementation in Sweden.

Regarding the materials and methods section, the study presents a well-structured design with an appropriate sample size (653 participants from 23 schools) and provides a clear explanation of the measurement instruments and data collection procedures. Nevertheless, the choice of a quantitative approach over a mixed-methods or qualitative approach is not justified. Additionally, one aspect remains unclear: the data analysis section mentions the use of missing data imputation but does not explain its impact on the results. It is recommended that both aspects be addressed.

In terms of the results, the authors provide a clear and structured presentation, using tables and figures to support their findings. Chi-square tests are conducted to analyse the associations between variables. However, the section does not include an effect size analysis, which would help interpret the significance of the associations found. Moreover, there is no in-depth exploration of why some variables, such as collective teacher efficacy, did not show a significant association. Therefore, it is suggested (if the authors deem it appropriate) to include effect size measures (such as OR or RR) and a more detailed interpretation of non-significant results.

Regarding the discussion, the section links the results with previous studies, providing a solid theoretical framework. Additionally, in my opinion, it correctly explains the relevance of classroom climate in the implementation of SWPBIS. The only recommendation is to reduce redundancy with the results section and to add practical implications for implementing SWPBIS in other educational systems.

As for the conclusions, they effectively summarise the study’s most important findings and highlight the significance of considering the school context when implementing educational programmes. It is recommended to suggest methodologies for future studies, such as a longitudinal approach.

Taking these considerations into account, it is proposed that the editor accept the article for publication, once the authors have made these minor modifications.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper which tackles problems of implementation of an intervention. There's value here for the field such as contributing an understanding of how to systematically study factors affecting implementation.  That said, revisions are needed.

1. SWPBIS description lines 49-50 - Help the reader visualize the intervention. What makes a student at-risk? What is defined as significant behavioral challenges? What do Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions entail in terms of specific practices? How is SWPBIS different from traditional or normative approaches to school discipline?

2. Lines 78-83 - The paper is positioned as contributing to research about the link between implementation and effectiveness, but the paper does not really do that. It is studying the link between school factors and implementation.

3. Line 91 – what types of staff typically comprise school-based implementation teams?

4. Lines 148-155 – help the reader disentangle directionality issues. One would expect that SWPBIS would improve classroom climate. So, what aspects of classroom climate hinders implementation of SWPBIS and what aspects of classroom climate is SWPBIS expected to improve. Same thing with collective efficacy.

5. Lines 192-198 – inclusion shows up here without any connection to the previous discussion. How does it fit with the other concepts discussed?

6. Line 223, RQ1 – there wasn’t much explicit discussion about the role of teacher perception of problem behaviors in the literature review, so I was surprised to see it here. The centrality of the concept warrants explicit coverage in the literature review.

7. Key details are missing from the methods like how the schools were sampled, survey response rates, additional details about the survey instruments (e.g., how the items were selected/developed and what they are), rationale for methodological choices such as timing and sampling of other staff members.

8. There is redundancy in the description of SWPBIS in the methods section. Integrate the language here with the earlier description. The manual can be described earlier as well.

9. Have you considered more robust methods like regression analysis? I strongly recommend considering how the analysis can be more robust.

10. The findings could benefit from greater explanation. For example, in your description, you could remind the reader what the scales capture in general terms so it's easy to grasp, for example, that poorer school climate is associated with better implementation. The tables should also make it clear which results are statistically significant.

11. The paper needs to spend some time addressing endogeneity bias even though it’s a descriptive paper. Implementation could be influenced by or influence the school characteristics studied. The paper needs to sort this out for the reader.

12. The discussion could do more to convey the importance of the paper and engage in greater detail with the literature. A lot of points are made in passing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please see the attachement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The paper is well-structured, and the research purpose is clearly defined. However, the title does not accurately reflect the study's focus, and there are significant concerns with citations, research question articulation, and the absence of a conclusion section. Substantial revisions are essential.

2.Please provide specific sources for each research instrument. For instance, you mention that "Problem Behaviors in the Classroom" is measured using 21 statements. Either cite the original source or include these statements in a table within the section. Currently, the "Measurements" section lacks sufficient detail to ensure transparency and replicability. A revision is essential.

3.The "Measurements" section is overly verbose yet lacks critical information. I recommend adding a table summarizing key details, such as the scale name, source (author and year), number of items, scale format (e.g., 4-point or 5-point Likert scale), internal consistency values, and other relevant metrics. This would enhance clarity and utility.

4.Non-English references should be removed. The reference list is not a platform to demonstrate effort but a resource for readers to delve deeper into the topic. References in languages inaccessible to the target audience provide no value and should be excluded. Please reconsider their inclusion (sugestion only).

5.The citation of a website (Skollagen [The Education Act]) is inproper. You should either reference a specific article from the website or mention the website in the text. A direct link of a website is not appropriate for a reference list (hey, the content keeps changing). Please revise.

6.The title requires revision. It currently emphasizes "factors influencing the implementation of the program," whereas the manuscript focuses on "how classroom climate, student problem behaviors, and collective teacher efficacy relate to the program’s implementation fidelity across 23 Swedish schools." The title should align with the study's primary focus.

7.The research questions lack depth. They primarily explore whether differences exist between two groups (schools with high vs. low fidelity). Such differences are inherently expected. I recommend refining the research questions to address more nuanced and meaningful aspects of the study.

8.There is a disconnect between the research aims and research questions. The aim is to "explore factors pertaining to implementation of SWPBIS," yet the research questions focus on group comparisons. Additionally, the methodology does not align with the aim, as the factors are predetermined rather than explored. Clarify the study's focus and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

9.SWPBIS is described as a program but is inaccurately framed as a "foundational framework." Only theories or frameworks can serve as foundational frameworks, not programs. Please revise this wording.

10.In my view, reporting the mean and standard deviation for "The number of respondents per school" is unnecessary. This is a subjective suggestion, but I recommend reconsidering its inclusion.

11.When reporting numerical data in the text, retain the leading zero (e.g., "0.86" instead of ".86"). While I am not entirely certain about this convention, I advise consulting additional sources to confirm whether this revision is needed.

12.Several minor errors require correction. For example, Table 6 lacks a header, line 501 incorrectly uses "2" instead of a superscript for squared values, and Table 2 contains inconsistent capitalization of terms. Please address these issues.

13.Finally, the discussion and conclusion sections should be distinct. The conclusion should follow a structured format: summary, implications, limitations, and future work. This will improve the paper's organization and readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for the extensive updates to the manuscript in response to my comments. I believe that the manuscript is much improved for them.

I just have a few suggestions. 1) The research questions could be reworked so that it's clear that you are looking at how the school, classroom, and teacher characteristics influence implementation. I may be my style of English, but the way they read to me sounds like you are looking at the inverse relationship. 2) Include a limitation section and explain that the results are not causal, neither did they account for other sources of bias and are therefore exploratory. 3) Very small point - I the numerous short paragraphs in the results section hard to follow. I would suggest consolidating so that it feels more like a connected narrative.

 

Good luck with the paper!

 

Review 2.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions on my manuscript. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to revise my work once again, as your insights have significantly contributed to improving the manuscript. In response to your comments, I have carefully addressed the suggested changes.

1. First, I have reworded the research questions to ensure that it’s clear that I am looking at how the school, classroom, and teacher characteristics influence implementation.
2. Additionally, I have revised the limitations section to explicitly state that the findings are exploratory and do not imply causality. This resulted in about 10-15 lines of new text being added to the previous text on the limitations of the study, see lines 588-611.
3. Lastly, I have (3) consolidated shorter paragraphs in the results section to enhance readability and ensure a more connected narrative. It was a small request that had quite big consequences. I removed the small tables and replaced with one table. This way I could merge the short paragraphs into one longer paragraph. I think this helps to create a connected narrative. I hope the reviewer agrees that this is a good solution, otherwise I am willing to revise the text again.

Thank you once again for your careful consideration of my work. I look forward to the possibility of sharing this study with a broader audience and truly appreciate your role in this process.

Best regards,

The author