Cited by 17Behavioral and Psychological StudiesSchool Health and Nursing EducationEducation Discipline and Inequality

A Mixed-Methods Approach for Embedding Cost Analysis Within Fidelity Assessment in School-Based Programs

Bradshaw, Catherine P., Debnam, Katrina J., Player, Daniel, Bowden, Brooks, Lindstrom Johnson, Sarah·2023·Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

This mixed-methods study describes a framework for conducting cost analyses of school-based programs leveraging fidelity data and applying the ingredients method. We illustrate this approach by applying it to Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), drawing on multiple sources of data from a sample of U.S. 77 schools that were trained in PBIS. We concluded that the average per school cost of PBIS was US$53,216.00 (median = US$36,698), with an average per-pupil cost of US$90.00 (median = US$58.00), which is considerably less than other school-based prevention models. The cost did, however, differ by implementation level, such that high-fidelity implementation tended to cost more than low-fidelity implementation. We provide a case illustration to elucidate some of the cost drivers of PBIS implementation. Specifically, these data highlight the variability in the amount of training and coaching by the specific evidence-based program implemented within the tiered PBIS framework. Through this case illustration, we demonstrate the utility of tracking costs of school-based program within the context of fidelity data collection. The findings also suggest the potential cost savings of PBIS, both when compared with other evidence-based interventions as well as the known costs of negative school outcomes like dropout.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0198742920944850

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bradshaw, C. P., Debnam, K. J., Player, D., Bowden, B., & Lindstrom Johnson, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
Corresponding author
Bradshaw, Catherine P.
Venue
Behavioral Disorders
Published
2020-08-11
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
174-186
ISSN
  • 0198-7429 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-5307
OpenAlex
W3048800194
Cited by
17
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Behavioral Disorders (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute of Education Sciences (R305H150027)
  • National Institute of Justice (2014-CK-BX-0005)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
Keywords
cost analysis, implementation fidelity, school programs, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, cost per student, cost drivers, school dropout, evidence-based interventions, school prevention programs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review