PBIS Is (Not) Behavior Analysis: a Response to Horner and Sugai (2015).
PBIS is a mixed bag—audit each piece for behavior-analytic proof before you use it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Loukus (2015) wrote a position paper. It argues PBIS is not the same as behavior analysis.
The author says we must test each PBIS part on its own. Only keep pieces that have solid data.
What they found
The paper finds PBIS mixes behavior-analytic and non-behavior-analytic ideas.
It warns schools not to adopt the whole package without checking each step.
How this fits with other research
Malott (2018) later offered a training model that puts JABA and JEAB first. This builds on K’s call to stay close to data.
Blydenburg et al. (2016) surveyed training directors. They admit programs skip key areas. Their data echo K’s worry that weak training lets non-behavior-analytic pieces slip in.
Sosa et al. (2022) seems to clash. They say feedback-control theory should replace classic behavior analysis. K wants to guard the old borders; Sosa wants new ones. The tension is friendly, but real.
Moore (2022) extends the guard-rail idea. He shows how to teach radical behaviorism in a full grad course so students can spot non-behavior-analytic parts in any package.
Why it matters
Before you say “we do PBIS,” list every practice in it. Check each one against JABA or JEAB. If no data exist, drop it or test it yourself. This keeps your school program truly behavior-analytic and protects your professional identity.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one PBIS practice you use, open JABA, and find—or fail to find—data that supports it.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
I comment on Horner's and Sugai's article regarding the lessons learned from implementing Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS)-that is, the things to consider when attempting to extend other works in behavior analysis to the likes of mainstream society. In adopting a critical eye toward the PBIS model, I comment first on the need for dissemination of behavioral principles to a public audience, and then outline the suggestions made by the authors for enhancing acceptance across disciplines. I clarify the definition of PBIS presented by the authors, and summarize the benefits and drawbacks associated with the conceptual argument surrounding the contention that PBIS is a behavior analytic approach to system-wide change, and argue instead for the distinction of elements in the PBIS model and their respective empirical effectiveness. I refer to other works in behavior analysis that are relevant to the current discussion and offer additional considerations for behavior analysts interested in forging ahead with endeavors that aim increase dissemination, particularly those that incorporate a culmination of alternative professional practices.
Behavior analysis in practice, 2015 · doi:10.1037/h0100681