Introduction

This article analyses universal behavioral interventions characterized by a positive approach. These interventions involve the entire school, without focusing on individuals with special needs, and are administered within positive education frameworks. The focus was on school-wide interventions carried out by educators and educational staff. Therefore, this study considers “universal positive behavioral interventions”, namely interventions based on a prosocial perspective rather than a punitive one, aiming to promote positive change in the school climate and increase the frequency and quality of positive behaviours. This perspective finds a theoretical basis in both positive psychology and Positive Behavior Support (PBS or PBIS).

As highlighted by Kristján Kristjánsson, positive psychology is not just a simple theory but can be considered a movement, which focuses on the systematic study of human happiness in all its forms [1]. Particularly interesting is the definition given by Wong, who emphasizes that one of the key objectives of positive psychology is to “develop good and respectable people, as well as a civil society promoting meaning/virtue (p.7)” [2]. From the early stages of the positive psychology movement, important applications have also emerged in the educational context, giving rise to the so-called “positive education”. Following White and Waters and White the term “positive education” does not identify a structured and defined intervention program but rather should be understood as an “umbrella term used to describe empirically validated interventions and programs of positive psychology that impact student wellbeing (p. 2)” [3-5].

The interventions based on the PBS approach are often well- structured programs guided by particular attention to evidence. Like positive education, PBS aims to improve student’s quality of life and reduce problematic behaviours. In recent decades, PBS has experienced significant growth, with this approach being applied to an increasing number of subjects and, like Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), at different levels of implementation, from school-wide to individual students [6,7]. As stated by Carr et al. “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 first to improve the quality of life of the individual and secondarily to reduce their problematic behaviours (p. 4)” [8].

Objective of the Review

The objective of this review is not to verify the effectiveness of the “universal positive behavioral interventions”. In literature, the effectiveness of these types of interventions has been extensively investigated, for example, for PBIS see Noltemeyer et al. and for the Good Behavior Game, Nolan et al. [9,10]. The literature will be selected to highlight relevant features of the universal positive behavioral interventions as applied in real contexts, to better understand the mechanisms that can influence on specific students’ behaviors within the school environment. It is evident how these interventions are increasingly structured, requiring greater attention not only on implementation but also on pre and post- intervention phases, such as organization, teacher training, follow- up, and duration. From the analysis of the literature on “universal positive behavioral interventions”, it would be interesting to delve into some themes. For example, if there are studies in the literature comparing “universal positive behavioral interventions” based on different approaches; this could help understand how transferable the results obtained are to other contexts and for addressing different behavioral problems. Furthermore, it would be important to understand which types of behavioral problems may be more responsive to improvement and how such interventions integrate and fit into the school organization. Another aspect that would be interesting to delve into is the link between the approach used in interventions and the specific culture.

It was decided to focus on “universal positive behavioral interventions” in the age group between 3 and 12 years old, which appears to be less studied in the literature. These considerations led to a literature analysis aimed at answering the following questions:

1. What are the most common approaches in “universal positive behavioral interventions”?
2. For what types of problems are these interventions primarily applied?
3. What characterizes the implementation of these programs? What are the common features and what type of organization do these interventions have?
4. How do “universal positive behavioral interventions” change over time and across countries?
5. And where are they most prevalent?

Methodology

A scoping review was conducted to analyze and synthesize “positive behavioral interventions” in schools, focusing on students. The study relied on searching the “SCOPUS” electronic database, and selecting various articles, and the analysis was carried out by two researchers and conducted twice.

Research Procedure

The electronic database included SCOPUS, and the following terms were used for a Boolean search: (“positive behavior” AND (school OR scholastic OR education) AND (program OR strategy OR politics) AND (child OR pu- pil OR student) AND NOT (university OR tertiary OR higher OR vocational)) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR EX- CLUDE (DOCTYPE, “bk”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE , “cp”)) AND (“POSITIVE behavior” AND (school OR scholastic ) AND (family OR teacher OR children)) AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAR- EA, “ARTS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “HEAL”) OR EX- CLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NURS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, DENT”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “COMP”) OR EX- CLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NEUR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ECON”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENGI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJA- REA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “VETE”) OR EX- CLUDE (SUBJAREA, “DECI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “IMMU”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHAR”)) AND (EX- CLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “bk”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cp”)) AND (“POSITIVE behav- ior” AND (school OR scholastic) AND (family OR teacher OR children)) AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ARTS”) OR EX- CLUDE(SUBJAREA, “HEAL”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NURS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “DENT”) OR EX- CLUDE (SUBJAREA, “COMP”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAR- EA, “NEUR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EX- CLUDE (SUBJAREA, “AGRI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ECON”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENGI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “VETE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUB- JAREA, “DECI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “IMMU”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHAR”)) AND (EXCLUDE (DOC- TYPE, “ch”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “bk”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cp”)) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “er”) OR EX- CLUDE (DOCTYPE, “no”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ed”)) AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MULT”)) AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MEDI”))

The total of 687 abstracts in SCOPUS were identified through the database search and exported to Excel. The screening was conducted twice by two researchers, and after removing duplicates (104), a total of 583 studies were included for review. The abstracts were reviewed to check for eligibility using the following criteria: a) the study was conducted in preschools and kindergartens up to K-6 schools; b) if a “universal positive behavioral intervention” TIER 1 was implemented in schools or in some classes; c) if schools implemented an intervention strategy to address behavioral problems. Studies were excluded if they did not fall within the age range of 3 to 12 years, if the intervention was not conducted at a school or was conducted at high schools or universities, and if the intervention solely targeted parents or teachers without involving students or was exclusively or primarily directed towards special categories (BES, FBA, autistic, immigrants), TIER 2 and TIER 3 interventions.

Finally, meta-analysis and review studies were excluded.

Full Text Review

Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria from the abstract reviews. After reviewing the full text, using the same inclusion criteria described above, 29 studies remained, as 3 studies were removed for falling under TIER 2, 6 studies were not related to “positive behavioral interventions”, and 2 studies were conducted  at K-12 schools.

Full-Text Coding and Data Extraction

The study characteristics were extracted into Excel using the following criteria:

The selected articles were examined using a grid created specifically for coding by two of the authors (SB and LS). Nine main categories were identified: intervention country; school level (age of subjects involved in the intervention); sample size; type of intervention, i.e., methodological framework inspiring the intervention; type of behavioral problems targeted by the intervention; strategies and technologies used in the intervention; study methodology; tools for verification and evaluation; intervention duration (see Table 1). The selection and definition of categories were made concurrently with the authors’ reading of the articles. After this initial phase, all 42 selected articles were reviewed by two of the authors, considering the identified categories and selected questions, and discrepancies were discussed until reaching 100% agreement.

                                                Table 1: Coding Categories and Coding Questions

Literature Analysis

From the analysis of the selected works, a clear prevalence of the US over the rest of the world in the application of a positive approach to behavioral treatments emerges. The dissemination of such approaches outside the United States and English-speaking countries (UK, Australia, Canada) appears to be limited to some isolated experiences, mostly at the level of interventions in individual schools (Turkey Greece Spain Finland China) [11-16]. These experiences, besides being rare, also appear to be generally recent, as if only in recent years these types of approaches have been receiving some attention outside the Anglophone context. The reasons for this situation can be diverse: from difficulties in finding materials, instructions, guides, and references that are not in English; to a pronounced adaptation of many of these approaches to the organization of the AngloAmerican school system: from the use of the Office Discipline Referrals system (ODRs) to monitor the progress of the intervention, to the organization of work that fits the articulation of curricular school activities of that system, to the methods of selection and enrolment of statistical samples used for the studies. born in an Anglophone context, studies concerning different cultural and national contexts are beginning to appear, although the reference bibliographies are still strongly oriented towards authors with that cultural background and almost exclusively in English, even if by authors of another native language. This circumstance, which in the field of research does not entail evident risks, is instead a strong factor limiting the dissemination of practices and experiences in the field of applied didactics. Often teachers, psychoeducational operators, and school staff members who are not native English speakers have difficulty finding informative material and tools in their language.

Regarding the development over time, Table 2 shows how the selected works are distributed in the period 2007-2022, with 15 studies in the four years 2019-2022, 8 in the previous four-year period 2015-2018, and 3 in each of the periods 2007-2010 and 2010-1014. From these data, it is evident how the dissemination of this type of intervention, at the primary school level, can be considered recent, especially when looking outside the US, and has been increasing in recent years. Excluding study, all extra-US studies are from the period 2017-22 [8].

                                       Table 2: Year, Country, and Size of Selected Studies

The selected studies address all age groups of primary school, ranging from 5 years old to 12-13, with differences due to different school systems, which involve variations in entry and exit ages from the primary cycle. These studies do not always involve the entire school; often programs and interventions directed only at selected classes are found, involving a few selected teachers. Infrequent are interventions designed for multiple schools or entire school districts. In total, 13 studies describe school-level interventions (SW in the table) and 16 studies refer to interventions implemented at the class level (CW in the table), although universal, meaning they target all students without particular exclusion or inclusion criteria. In some cases, these interventions are also part of schoolwide programs [17-21]. From this analysis, it is evident that universal and schoolwide approaches are not yet consolidated practice for behavioral interventions at school. The full implementation of these interventions establishes considerable organizational and cultural challenges, as it is discussed later. Therefore, the selection often includes targeted and circumscribed interventions, whose impact remains limited, and whose results cannot be easily generalized.

Methodological Features

Regarding the main target behaviors of the selected interventions, the decision to choose interventions with a universal impact led to the exclusion of interventions targeting specific cognitive or emotional disorders. The results showed interventions and programs aimed at strengthening social skills (5 studies), intervening on the school climate by mitigating disruptive behaviors (7 studies), promoting physical and mental well-being and positive values such as kindness (4 studies). Some target behaviors are noteworthy, as their frequent occurrence in the selected studies indicates that they may be considered widespread problems. Programs addressing bullying and cyberbullying stand out, appearing as the focus of several studies (5 studies), especially the more recent ones. Additionally, interventions targeting off/ on-task behaviors (3 studies), and transition phases during class changes (2 studies) are highlighted. Finally, some behavioral interventions with still marginal targets but of definite interest, such as attitudes towards the environment and food safety, are noted [16,18]. These target behaviors are addressed with different methodological approaches, although PBIS seems to prevail over other approaches. Indeed, 21 out of 29 studies refer to PBIS in various forms, often adapted according to the specific problem of interest. From this perspective, PBIS appears as a very versatile and flexible framework. It is found to be applied to enhance social skills improve the school climate by promoting positive behaviors and mitigating disruptive ones and strengthen children’s mental health [11,20-25]. Moreover, PBIS is implemented using various strategies, both group and individual, such as interdependent group contingency, positive peer reporting and “tootling”, stop/ walk/talk, and environmental management [11,17,19,21,26-31]. In the case of bullying and cyberbullying, specific programs within PBIS have been developed, such as “Expect Respect” and “Bullying prevention in PBS” (BP-PBS) [17,30,31]. Besides PBIS, both at the school-wide (SW) and class-wide (CW) levels, there are other approaches that, although like PBIS from an operational perspective, have different theoretical references. In the case of interventions aimed at promoting students’ well-being and, particularly, preventing mental health-related issues, there is frequent reference to Social Emotional Learning [14,25]. Close to the SEL framework, some programs based on the interdependent group theory, such as the “Good Behavior Game” and the “Do Better Game” are noted, especially in interventions targeting social skills with the application of tangible and intangible social reinforcements [32,33]. Also noteworthy is the recent introduction of interventions based on Restorative Practices, targeting issues such as cyberbullying and the school climate [34,35].

From the literature analysis, some interesting insights emerge, where positive behavioral practices are also applied outside of these theoretical and methodological frameworks. For example, concerning the phenomenon of bullying, the development of the “Threat Assessment of Bullying Behavior in Youth” (TABBY) program is noted, within the context of projects funded by the EU, which draws on Bronfenbrenner’s (1989) ecological approach to developmental psychology [13]. Additionally, the Making Socially Accepting Inclusive Classrooms (MOSAIC) program aims to address the problem of integrating ADHD children through a systemic approach that modifies peer dynamics, training teachers to promote an inclusive classroom environment [13]. Another intervention found is based on Teacher-Child Interaction Training (TCIT), a program inspired by ParentChild Interaction Therapy (PCIT), which aims to intervene in the classroom climate by promoting prosocial behavior [36]. Other interventions, more heterodox compared to these, but interesting as they seem to open up to new practices and interesting research avenues, include an intervention aimed at character education and values, and a meditation-based intervention [12,37].

Results

The literature analysis presented does not intend to be exhaustive or conclusive. Starting from some keywords, articles focusing on the description of universal behavioral interventions, based on positive psychology approaches, implemented in a school context, aimed at a population not exceeding 12 years of age, without specific problems or disorders, and addressing widely prevalent issues or attitudes were selected. The aim was to isolate from these interventions some common characteristics and recurring themes, as well as to highlight persistent gaps in this field.

Regarding recurring characteristics, the most common ones are highlighted below.From a methodological perspective, interventions that refer to Positive Behavior Support (PBS), directly or indirectly, constitute a clear majority. This may be due to several factors:

• Historically, the PBS approach was among the first behavioral approaches to be described and formalized. It has been recognized in the United States as the intervention of choice in some cases of specific disorders. Its dissemination benefits from a wide organizational network and a specialized journal.
• Geographically, it is still predominantly widespread in Anglo- Saxon countries, also thanks to a lot of informational material in English, but there is an increase in its dissemination in Europe as well, especially thanks to the development of national PBS approaches and the new attention towards cultural specificities.
• Methodologically, the PBS approach is well-documented, and its structure well-defined, allowing for easier adoption, relying on a long experience and consolidated scientific results.
• Of course, some factors oppose its rapid and widespread adoption.
• Organizationally, implementing a PBS intervention may require redesigning information transmission and sharing processes, setting up work teams, and strong leadership to guide the entire school community through the definition of a common vision and shared goals.
• In terms of implementation, PBS must build a common knowledge base through a teacher training process that may take time and a certain stability in the staff in service, not always easy to achieve in some specific national contexts.
• From a cultural point of view, a paradigm shift is required that embraces an epistemology of teaching as a science based on evidence, integrating the more established paradigm that considers teaching as an art, or as a good craftsmanship activity. The collection, analysis, and discussion of quantitative data must become common practice, as well as the adoption of both formative and summative assessment and evaluation systems.

Some of these aspects are also evident from the analysis of the literature selected here. In fact, it can be observed that the adoption of PBIS is more frequent in Anglo-Saxon cultural countries; it is often associated with durations of no less than a year; it includes teacher training programs, and the use of tools to verify the integrity, acceptability, and social validity of the intervention. In addition to PBIS, other methodologies appear in the literature analysis conducted. Interventions that aim to integrate cognitive aspects with emotional ones are highlighted, such as those based on Social Emotional Learning and Mindfulness; studies that refer to the Social Learning Theory or that emphasize the role of the teacher as a model for students; behavioral interventions based on restorative practices and on explicit education about universal values and benevolence, in other words, interventions that focus on the moral development of children [12,14,16,25,34-37,40]. An interesting characteristic common to many positive behavioral interventions aimed at preschool and primary school children is that, unlike what happens with older children, they are mostly designed by organizing classes into groups, predominantly using interdependent contingencies.

Another recurring characteristic in the selected studies is the presence of programs that, although universal, have very specific behavioral targets. There are interventions for managing off-task behaviors and transitions, interventions aimed at nutrition education, incentivizing pro-environmental behaviors, bullying prevention, and cyberbullying prevention [13,16-19,26,27,30,31,34,38,39].

As highlighted in the literature analysis, methodologically, evaluations based on experimental studies with control groups are rare, and qualitative analyses or single-case techniques prevail. This is certainly due to the choice of selecting only field interventions, where it is less “ecologically sustainable” to apply the intervention to only a portion of the school population, but it also seems to reflect a general trend to evaluate such interventions in their context without concern for replicability and generalizability. Another common characteristic is the very limited use of technology, almost always confined to video capture tools or simple time management programs. Excluding the use of a specific tool such  as ClassDojo [33]. From an organizational point of view, common to all interventions is the focus on teacher training, with programs of varying durations, while references to other staff members, both within and outside the school, rarely appear in the literature.

Several gaps have been highlighted in the literature analysis concerning both the methodology of interventions and their organization, follow-up systems, and rewarding mechanisms. Analyzing the methodological aspects reveals the following gaps in the selected literature:

• The lack of a clear reference to theory justifying intervention practices. In some cases, such as PBIS, the supporting theory is well-known, but in others, it is neither evident nor welldiscussed in the exposition.
• Only in rare cases were the cultural specificities of the contexts in which the interventions were implemented considered. Literature often discusses differences in terms of socioeconomic status, belonging to minority groups, and poverty conditions, but differences between national cultures and territorial specificities are scarcely analyzed.
• The choice of target behaviors varies greatly, ranging from interventions targeting general behaviors to those targeting very specific behaviors. Thus, it is unclear in which cases and for what problems it is more appropriate to develop a universal behavioral intervention.
• A very limited use of technology for both behavioralmodeling and monitoring.
• A limited discussion of experimental designs, as if there were a gap between research-oriented studies and those primarily aimed at education.
• In the case of organizational aspects, the following gaps are noticeable:
• Apart from the strong involvement of teachers, which is present in all the analyzed studies, there is a low level of participation concerning students, parents, other school staff, and extraschool staff. Rarely is the contribution of all these figures described in the choices made in the implementation of behavioral intervention. This can be justified regarding students, who in the selected literature are very young, but it is unclear regarding the other figures, especially parental figures.
• The limited attention to the follow-up moment is striking. Only in a few cases is explicit reference made to this phase, and even in these cases, the results and consequences are only hinted at. There are no established rules for its conduct, and the timing and duration appear quite arbitrary and vary in an undefined manner. Essentially, there is a lack of a shared protocol on how and when to conduct follow-up.
• Regarding the duration of behavioral interventions, apart from the implementation of PBIS, where the duration is almost always not less than a year, in other cases, non-uniform periods with durations ranging from one week to two years are highlighted [12,17,18]. So, in the end, it is not clear how much time is needed to achieve an effective behavioral intervention.
• Finally, concerning the analysis of intervention results, a variety of tools are used, making it difficult to compare between different implemented behavioral programs. Without standard measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions, comparison becomes almost impossible. Also, regarding tools for evaluating the validity, internal, external, and ecological, of interventions, there is no clear standard, and when such results are present, they are discussed using different references.

Conclusion

References