The present study investigated relationships among technical assistance, school leadership quality, and multitiered system of support (MTSS) implementation. The findings indicated technical assistance improved school leadership quality, and improved leadership significantly mediated the relationship between technical assistance and MTSS implementation for both behavior and academic systems. These results provide support for the foundational role of school leadership in MTSS implementation. Implications for providers of technical assistance are discussed.
AlgozzineB.BarrettS.EberL.GeorgeH.HornerR.LewisT.. . . SugaiG. (2014). School-wide PBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. Available from www.pbis.org
2.
AlgozzineB.SweeneyH. M.ChoiJ. H.HornerR.SailorW.McCartA. B.. . . LaneK. L. (2017). Development and preliminary technical adequacy of the schoolwide integrated framework for transformation fidelity of implementation tool. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35, 302–322. doi:10.1177/0734282915626303
3.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. (2016). Inclusion’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Annuals, 24(3), 1–29.
4.
BlaseK.KizerL.Van DykeM. (2009). The hexagon tool: Exploring context. Chapel Hill: National Implementation Research Network, FPG Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
5.
BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (Eds.). (2013). Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
CamburnE.RowanB.TaylorJ. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347–373.
7.
CharltonC. T.SabeyC. V.DawsonM. R.PyleD.LundE. M.RossS. W. (2018). Critical incidents in the scale-up of state multitiered systems of supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20, 191–202. doi:10.1177/1098300718770804
8.
ChoiJ.MeisenheimerJ. M.McCartA. B.SailorW. (2017). Improving learning for all students through equity-based inclusive reform practices: Effectiveness of a fully integrated schoolwide model on student reading and math achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 28–41. doi:10.1177/0741932516644054
9.
FixsenD. L.BlaseK. A.MetzA.Van DykeM. (2015). Implementation science. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 695–702). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
10.
Florida Department of Education. (2014). Self-assessment of MTSS implementation (National pilot version 2.0). Tallahassee: Author.
11.
FrazierP. A.TixA. P.BarronK. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
12.
FurneyK.AikenJ.HasaziS.Clark/KeefeK. (2005). Meeting the needs of all students: Contributions of effective school leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 15, 546–570.
13.
GomezK. A.GomezA. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research (2nd ed.). Chichester, NY: John Wiley.
14.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
15.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
16.
HeckR. H. (2010). Proposing and testing a multilevel model of school and teacher effects on student achievement. In HoyW.DiPaolaM. (Eds.), Analyzing school contexts: Influences of principals and teachers in the service of students (pp. 39–69). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
17.
HeckR. H.HallingerP. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 626–658.
18.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
19.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.BolgerN. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233–265). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
KincaidD.ChildsK.GeorgeH. (2010). School-wide benchmark of quality (Revised ed.). Tampa: University of South Florida.
21.
KoopmanJ.HoweM.HollenbeckJ. R.SinH. P. (2015). Small sample mediation testing: Misplaced confidence in bootstrapped confidence intervals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 194–202. doi:10.1037/a0036635
22.
KozleskiE. B.HuberJ. J. (2012). System-wide leadership for culturally-responsive education. In CrockettJ. B.BillingsleyB. S. & M. L., (Eds.), Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (pp. 155–169). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
23.
KozleskiE. B.WaitollerF. R. (2010). Teacher learning for inclusive education: Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal for Inclusive Education, 14, 655–666.
24.
LeithwoodK.SunJ. P. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 387–423. doi:10.1177/0013161X11436268
25.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
26.
MarksH.PrintyS. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformation and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370–397. doi:10.1177/0013161X03253412
27.
McCartA.McSheehanM.SailorW.MitchinerM.QuirkC. (2016). SWIFT differentiated technical assistance (White paper). Lawrence, KS: SWIFT Center.
28.
McCartA.SailorW.BezdekJ.SatterA. (2014). A framework for inclusive educational delivery systems. Inclusion, 2, 252–264. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-2.4.252
29.
McIntoshK.GoodmanS. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support blending RTI and PBIS. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
MitchinerM. (2014). Assessing state readiness for change to participate in schoolwide inclusive school reform: A state selection process using broad factors of the hexagon tool (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI-a closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and the National Center on Response to Intervention.
35.
NelsonL. L. (2014). Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using universal design for learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
36.
NovakK. (2014). UDL now! A teacher’s guide to applying universal design for learning in today’s classrooms. Wakefield, MA:CAST Professional Publishing.
37.
PolitD. F.BeckC. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 489–497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147
38.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10. 3758/bf03206553
39.
PreacherK. J.HayesF. H. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In HayesA. F.SlaterM.SnyderL. B. (Eds.), The SAGE sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
RobinsonV.HohepaM.LloydC. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why: Iterative best evidence synthesis programme. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
41.
RuffiniS. J.MiskellR.LindsayJ.McInerneyM.WaiteW. (2016). Measuring the implementation fidelity of the response to intervention framework in Milwaukee public schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest.
42.
SailorW. S. (2017). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 41, 1–17. doi:10.1017/jse.2016.12
43.
SailorW. S.McCartA. B. (2014). Stars in alignment. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 55–64. doi:10.1177/1540796914534622
44.
SailorW. S.McCartA. B.ChoiJ. (2018). Reconceptualizing inclusive education through multi-tiered system of support. Inclusion, 6, 3–18. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-6.1.3
SchreiberJ. B.NoraA.StageF. K.BarlowE. A.KingJ. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338.
47.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
48.
SugaiG.HornerR. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237.
49.
SugaiG.Lewis-PalmerT.ToddA.HornerR. H. (2001). School-wide evaluation tool. Eugene: University of Oregon.
50.
WaldronN.McLeskeyJ. (2010). Establishing a collaborative culture through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 58–74.
51.
WardC.St MartinK.HornerR.DudaM.Ingram-WestK.TedescoM.ChaparroE. (2015). District capacity assessment. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
