Developing and Evaluating the Feasibility of a Behavioural Educational Programme for Transporting Students With Disabilities on School Buses

ABSTRACT

Background

Prevalence rates of intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) continue to increase in the United States, and a high proportion of these students are estimated to ride buses daily to and from school. There is a need for transportation staff to (1) have a greater understanding of the challenges students with I/DD face during their daily bus journey and (2) learn how to provide behavioural support that is rooted in evidenced‐based practices.

Aims

This work aimed to develop and evaluate a behavioural educational programme to address gaps in transportation staff knowledge and skills related to I/DD and examine feasibility of the programme through participant feedback.

Methods

Development of the programme was guided by caregiver focus groups, interviews with key stakeholders and field observations. Three training modules, a social narrative and a caregiver input form were developed. Training modules included topics related to the characteristics of I/DD, positive behavioural support, increasing communication with district staff and caregivers, the functions of behaviour and how to safely de‐escalate behaviour. Implementation of the programme included training delivery to transportation staff (N = 886) at three school bus locations across the United States. Participants completed posttraining evaluations.

Results and Conclusions

The overwhelming majority of participants reported agreement with statements related to satisfaction with the three trainings, as well as perceived increases in their knowledge and confidence in supporting students with I/DD on the school bus. Acceptability and preliminary effectiveness are established for the programme. Participants' previous experience transporting students with disabilities was positively associated with acceptability and preliminary effectiveness. Caregiver and educator training programmes have demonstrated effectiveness in behavioural interventions for children with I/DD, but this study provides evidence of the feasibility of a behavioural education programme developed specifically for school bus transportation staff. This programme serves as a model for student transportation companies and school districts that are seeking strategies to better serve their students with I/DD in their bus‐riding journeys.

Summary.

• Although behavioural supports for children with I/DD are well documented, research has primarily focused on caregivers and educators, not transportation staff. The study addressed this gap by developing and evaluating a behavioural educational programme for transportation staff, examining its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness.

• Using insights from focus groups, interviews and observations, a three‐module training curriculum was created to improve transportation staff's skills in managing I/DD‐related behaviours. The modules included behavioural supports, de‐escalation techniques and practical applications through vignettes and group discussions.

• The training programme was well received, with over 90% of participants expressing satisfaction and recommending it to co‐workers. Additionally, participants reported increased understanding of I/DD, greater awareness of challenges faced by students with I/DD and increased confidence in supporting these students, with over 80% likely to use the skills learned on the job.

• The positive preliminary findings suggest that similar training programmes could be widely implemented, significantly improving the safety and accessibility of school transportation for students with I/DD. By equipping transportation staff with the necessary knowledge and skills, training programmes may enhance staff awareness and confidence, fostering a more supportive environment for students.

• The study provides a foundation for future research to develop and further evaluate the effectiveness of such training programmes. This includes exploring long‐term outcomes, real‐world behavioural changes and incorporating caregiver feedback to validate the programme's efficacy.

Most recent prevalence data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that diagnoses of developmental disabilities in children in the United States are on the rise. Between 2019 and 2021, the prevalence of any diagnosed developmental disability increased from 7.40% to 8.56% in youth aged 3–17 years (Zablotsky et al. 2023). Rates for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), specifically, have increased, with recent data suggesting that an estimated one in 36 children have ASD as of 2020, up from the previous rate of 1 in 44 in 2018 (Maenner et al. 2023). It is well known that children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) benefit from a variety of evidence‐based behavioural supports at home, in the classroom and in the community (Agran et al. 2020; Bearss et al. 2013; Strauss et al. 2013). Research has explored the benefits of caregiver training and teaching strategies to support this population (Agran et al. 2020; Bearss et al. 2013; Strauss et al. 2013). However, this research has primarily focused on the roles of parents and educators, not necessarily personnel who work with students in other contexts, such as transportation staff. Notably, many students with I/DD rely on daily bus transportation to and from school, yet this area has received scant attention in research, and interventions targeting the bus‐riding journey for children with I/DD are limited. This is concerning as children and adolescents with I/DD are at increased risk of adverse events and abuse in educational and community settings (Horner‐Johnson and Drum 2006; Sullivan and Knutson 2000). Parents of students with I/DD are much more likely to worry about safety during their child's bus journey while travelling to and from their educational building, compared with parents of students without I/DD (Downie et al. 2020).

Concerning themes emerging from the transportation literature include lack of bus driver knowledge and understanding of I/DD, a high ratio of students to one bus attendant, lack of bus driver or attendant attention to children with I/DD, high incidence of staff turnover and ineffective oversight and accountability (Graham et al. 2014). Student riders with I/DD may demonstrate heightened emotional and behavioural difficulties, limitations in verbal communication and resistance to safety restraints (i.e., seat belts and adapted safety restraints), all contributing to increased safety risks and negative outcomes during transportation (Angell and Solomon 2018).

Transport adaptations for children with I/DD should not be limited only to physical adaptations (Falkmer et al. 2004), although much of the research has focused on this area. Although safety restraints play a key role in ensuring the safety of all bus riders, parents of children with I/DD worry about their children escaping their restraints, and 20% of parents reported their child demonstrated aggression or self‐injurious behaviour while in safety restraints (Downie et al. 2020). Recent literature about transportation accessibility recommends equipping bus transportation staff with specific knowledge and training, such as an understanding of positive behaviour supports and driver‐implemented behavioural management strategies to prevent behavioural difficulties and/or de‐escalate behaviour incidents, reduce distractions and improve student and transportation staff experience (Downie et al. 2020; King et al. 2019). Further, there is consensus within existing literature for increased attention to research and practice, including clarifying roles, responsibilities and training of bus drivers and bus attendants, as well as their inclusion in the transportation plans of children with I/DD (Angell and Solomon 2018; Goodboy et al. 2016; King et al. 2019; Nakamura and Ooie 2017; Tiernan et al. 2013). However, few studies have explored the perspectives of bus drivers and bus attendants, even though they are the key intermediaries of safety in school transportation, and there are few, if any, published programmes providing training to staff on best behavioural practices for working with children with I/DD.

The current study highlights the process by which the study team developed and evaluated a behavioural educational programme designed to enhance the bus‐riding experience for students with I/DD, which occurred in collaboration with First Student, a leading provider of student transportation in North America. First Student completes approximately 5.5 million student journeys each day across 39 American states and eight Canadian provinces (First Student n.d.). We outline procedures taken by our study team to develop the components of the programme, including a three‐module training curriculum designed to address identified gaps in transportation staff knowledge related to I/DD and evidence‐based positive behavioural supports. We examine the feasibility of the programme with transportation staff in three First Student locations. The study team specifically aimed to examine the acceptability (i.e., extent to which a new programme is judged to be suitable and satisfying to its population) and preliminary effectiveness (i.e., extent to which the programme produces effects when delivered under real‐world conditions) of the behavioural education programme (Bowen et al. 2009; Marchand et al. 2011). Programme evaluation findings can guide future programme development.

1. Method

1.1. Programme Development

The study consists of two phases, the development phase and the evaluation phase. Implementing effective transportation support in school commuting environments requires the cooperation of parents and schools, as well as contributions from transport operators, road administrators and traffic administrators (Nakamura and Ooie 2017). Therefore, formative research in the development phase included caregiver focus groups, interviews with key stakeholders and members of the study team riding on bus routes to observe student behaviours and student–driver interactions. These procedures, as well as an extensive literature review, demonstrated demand for an intervention and guided the study team's decision‐making about what to include in the intervention to meet the needs of the target population. The programme included transportation staff training, social narratives and a tool for increasing communication with caregivers. The present study received approval by the Institutional Review Board of a Midwestern United States academic medical centre.

1.1.1. Caregiver Focus Groups

The study team hosted two separate focus groups of caregivers of children with I/DD. Each focus group lasted for 90 min, and preregistration was required. The groups were advertised via the social media of an I/DD specialty clinic at an academic medical centre, as well as the clinic's email listserv. Families were incentivized to attend by offering a meal during the group and $25 gift cards. Seven caregivers attended the first group, and five attended the second. Focus groups were led by the first author (AB), a licensed clinical psychologist. One of the other study members (JS) observed the sessions and took field notes. Families were informed of the purpose of the focus group, which was to learn about their perceived supports and barriers related to their child's bus riding journey to and from school. Possible benefits and risks of participation were shared with caregivers. The focus groups were semistructured with specific questions to elicit conversation. Questions and prompts were informed by existing literature and are provided in Table 1. Focus groups were audio recorded to aid in transcription. Caregiver responses were transcribed by the first author (AB). Two members of the research team (AB and JS) developed an a priori coding framework guided by directed thematic analysis. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2021), a qualitative method used frequently in social science research, was used to distil codes into broad themes to capture the major patterns in the data. Two members of the research team (AB and JS) independently coded each group's data. The two coders then discussed findings to resolve any discrepancies and reach consensus on themes. Of the themes that emerged, caregivers identified that their most significant concern was transportation staff's lack of understanding of I/DD, disruptive and/or challenging behaviours and how to safely manage them.

TABLE 1.

Caregiver focus group facilitation questions.

Number	Question
1	What are your general impressions about your child's experience riding the bus?
2	What concerns you the most about your child riding the bus?
3	What has been the worst experience you/your child has had with the bus? (Follow‐up: How was this communicated to you and how was it resolved?)
4	What has worked well/helped support your child with bus riding?
5	What is the ideal experience your child could have on the bus?
6	If you could change anything about your child's bus journey to improve his/her experience, what would it be?
7	What do you wish drivers and monitors knew about your child?
8	What extra resources do you think could make your child's experience better?

1.1.2. Stakeholder Interviews

The study team conducted interviews with key First Student stakeholders to better understand the operational procedures of a bus depot and the perceptions of current staff knowledge and skills as it related to transporting children with I/DD. Location managers, bus drivers, bus attendants, special education liaisons and school district transportation staff were included. The concerns shared by caregivers about transportation staff's lack of understanding of I/DD and how to safely manage challenging behaviours were echoed by location managers, who support their drivers and attendants with the management of challenging behaviours. Another theme identified in interviews was inconsistent communication between parents, educational care teams and transportation staff regarding accommodations, behavioural supports and disciplinary procedures for students riding the bus.

1.1.3. Field Observations

Members of the study team completed a series of field observations by riding on various bus routes in different United States cities. The purpose of the field observations was to observe a sample of the typical behaviours of students with I/DD on the bus and obtain a sample of the current strategies used by drivers and attendants to support and manage them. The routes were thoughtfully preselected by the locations' manager to provide diversity in behaviours and staff skills. Some routes were considered behaviourally challenging, and some routes were selected because the managers perceived the driver and/or attendant to be successful in behavioural management skills. Study team members kept notes related to behaviours exhibited by students on the bus, including perceived antecedents and consequences for the observed behaviours.

1.1.4. Training Curriculum

Caregiver focus groups, stakeholder interviews and field observations helped identify specific components to be included in a new programme. Staff training modules were developed to address demand for increasing transportation staff's knowledge and skills regarding I/DD and how to safely manage disruptive and/or challenging behaviours, Training curriculum was divided into three separate 60‐min modules: An Introduction to Behavioral Supports, Preventing and De‐escalating Behavior and What is this Behavior Telling You? Figure 1 describes the topics covered in each training module in more detail. Modules 1 and 2 introduced content in didactic format specific to I/DD, functions of behaviour, positive behaviour supports and de‐escalating behaviour. For Module 3, specific vignettes were developed to reinforce the concepts from Modules 1 and 2 regarding challenging or unexpected behaviours occurring on the bus. Transportation staff worked in small groups to apply their knowledge from Modules 1 and 2 to the vignettes. Groups were asked to identify possible functions for the described behaviour and identify strategies that could be used by transportation staff to either prevent or respond to it. Training module quick reference sheets were developed to serve as a tool for drivers and attendants to keep on‐hand after completing the training.

FIGURE 1.

Training content by module.

1.1.5. Social Narrative

In addition to the training curriculum, positive behaviour support materials were developed with the intent to promote positive behaviours on the bus. Descriptions and instructions for use were incorporated into the content of the training modules. For example, social narratives explain what to do in everyday situations, guide students' behaviours with the use of pictures and text and are considered an evidence‐based practice in education and therapy (Marshall et al. 2016). A social narrative about riding the bus was developed for use with students with I/DD. This narrative provided information related to what children can expect when riding a bus, including the sensory experiences and the rules and expectations, to better prepare them for their bus ride. This narrative was made available to disperse to families via printed book format and video link format.

1.1.6. Caregiver Input Forms

Lastly, formative research highlighted the importance of transportation staff knowing and building relationships with their students. In school settings, relationship building, which includes positive contact with families, has been shown to be an effective strategy for reducing exclusionary discipline outcomes (Anyon et al. 2018). However, the demand to have efficient operational procedures limits the amount of time transportation staff can spend with caregivers discussing and learning about their child. Additionally, some children with I/DD may not have the verbal or social‐pragmatic communication skills to share about themselves to contribute to building a positive relationship with their driver or attendant on the bus. Therefore, the study team developed a caregiver input form. Separate from the content of a child's Individualized Education Program (IEP), the caregiver input form was designed to help drivers and attendants informally learn about the interests, hobbies, sensory sensitivities and behavioural considerations of the students on their routes. Throughout the training modules, staff were educated on how to use a student's interests or hobbies to build a relationship, reinforce positive behaviour or redirect from disruptive behaviour. Staff were also educated how to elicit this input from caregivers and create a system to share information with substitute drivers and attendants in the event of an absence.

1.2. Programme Evaluation

Three First Student locations across the United States were selected to trial the programme. Two locations were in the Midwestern United States (Wichita, KS, and Green Bay, WI), and one was in the Pacific Northwest (Portland, OR). Each location held contracts with a local public school district to operate students' transportation to and from school. The locations were chosen by First Student's corporate office based on their managers expressing interest in participation and willingness to dedicate the time required for staff training. All participants attended the training as a requirement for their employment. Quick reference sheets, social narratives and caregiver input forms were mailed to each location. Training took place in community meeting spaces near the respective bus depots (e.g., church hall, hotel conference room and school auditorium). Training content was delivered in‐person by a doctoral level psychologist with expertise in behavioural science and I/DD. Fidelity of the delivery of the training was maintained by using the same presenter and same presentation slides for all locations. Content was delivered in English, using A/V equipment and accompanying PowerPoint slide decks. Each participant received lunch, a copy of the presentation slides and quick reference sheets. Further, all transportation staff were paid by their employer for their time spent in training. Anonymous posttraining evaluations were administered to each participant, and they were asked to leave them at their seat at the conclusion of each module. Training modules were scheduled to be delivered at each location with 4–6 weeks between the first, second and third modules. All three locations received both the first and second modules. Unfortunately, because of the coronavirus pandemic, the training programme was suspended before two locations could receive the third module. Only the Pacific Northwest location received the third module.

1.3. Measures

1.3.1. Posttraining Evaluation

Each training module concluded with an opportunity for participants to provide feedback via anonymous paper‐and‐pencil evaluations. The intent of the posttraining evaluation was to gather information about participant satisfaction with the training and ultimately improve future iterations of this programme. The posttraining evaluation was developed specifically for this study and used for each of the three training modules. Participants rated eight items on a 4‐point Likert scale of (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) disagree and (4) strongly disagree. See Table 2 for a full list of the posttraining evaluation questions. Participants were also asked to record the length of time they have been working in the transportation industry and the length of time they have been transporting students with I/DD, specifically. Item‐level analysis from the posttraining evaluation was used to evaluate two feasibility components of the programme, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness.

TABLE 2.

Posttraining evaluation questions.

Number	Question
1	As a result of this training, my understanding of developmental disabilities has increased.
2	As a result of this training, I am more aware of the challenges students with developmental disabilities may face riding the bus.
3	As a result of this training, I am more confident in my ability to help a student with a disability.
4	The presenter was knowledgeable about the material.
5	The materials and/or handouts used in this training were helpful.
6	I am satisfied with the information I received at today's training
7	I am likely to use something I learned in today's training on the job.
8	I would recommend this training to a co‐worker.

1.3.1.1. Acceptability

Acceptability of a programme includes the extent to which it is judged as suitable, satisfying or attractive to the programme recipients (Bowen et al. 2009). Four posttraining evaluation items were used to assess the degree of satisfaction participants had with components of each training module: The presenter was knowledgeable about the material, The materials and/or handouts used in this training were helpful, I am satisfied with the information I received at today's training, I would recommend this training to a co‐worker. Acceptability criteria were set at 80% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements.

1.3.1.2. Preliminary Effectiveness

Preliminary effectiveness refers to whether a programme produces the desired effects when delivered under real‐world conditions (Marchand et al. 2011). Preliminary effectiveness outcomes for the behavioural education programme include participants' perceptions of increased knowledge related to I/DD and participants' perceptions of increased confidence in supporting students with I/DD on the bus. Four posttraining evaluation items were used to assess preliminary effectiveness of each training module: As a result of this training, my understanding of developmental disabilities has increased, As a result of this training, I am more aware of the challenges students with developmental disabilities may face riding the bus, As a result of this training, I am more confident in my ability to help a student with a disability, I am likely to use something I learned in today's training on the job. Preliminary effectiveness criteria were set at 80% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements.

1.3.1.3. Participant Characteristics

Participants of this training programme included all bus drivers, attendants and managers at three North American First Student bus depot locations (N = 886). A total of 444 participants completed voluntary evaluation forms after the first training session (Module 1), though the total number of participants in attendance at that session is unknown. Of the 444 forms, 60 were completed in Location 1, 342 in Location 2 and 42 in Location 3. A total of 376 participants completed evaluation forms after the second training session (Module 2), although the total number of participants at the second training is unknown. Of the 376 forms completed, 47 were in Location 1, 256 in Location 2 and 73 in Location 3. Only one location (Location 3) received the third training session (Module 3), for which 66 participants completed evaluation forms. Specific demographic information pertaining to race, ethnicity, educational background or age of participants was not gathered and is unknown. Participants' experience in the student transportation industry ranged from 1 week to 40 years across the three sites. Participants' experience specifically transporting students with I/DD ranged from 0 days to 37 years.

1.4. Statistical Analysis

To examine the acceptability for each of the three training modules, we first calculated the internal consistency of the four items in the evaluation related to participants' satisfaction with the training (i.e., presenter's knowledge, materials/handouts, satisfaction with information and would recommend to others) using Cronbach's alpha. We then computed a mean score for the four acceptability items of the posttraining evaluation. These analyses were replicated for the four items in the evaluation related to preliminary effectiveness (i.e., increased understanding of I/DD, increased understanding of challenges they may face riding the bus, increased confidence in ability to help and likely to use something on the job). Per cent of agreement (i.e., agree or strongly agree) with each of the eight items was also calculated. Univariate ANOVA or chi‐square was used to assess if these variables differed by training module. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the overall percentage of participants with varying levels of experience in the transportation industry and experience transporting students with disabilities. Spearman's rank order correlations were used to assess whether experience in the transportation industry or experience transporting students with I/DD were associated with acceptability and preliminary effectiveness. All analyses were conducted in SPSS v25.0, and the selection of tests was based on the data (ANOVA for continuous data, chi‐square for categorical data, Kruskal–Wallis H test a nonparametric test for ordinal data and three groups, Spearman for nonparametric rank order data).

2. Results

2.1. Participants' Previous Experience

Participants reported a range of previous experience in the transportation industry and experience transporting students with I/DD (Table 3). Across the three locations, participants' experience in the industry ranged from 1 week to 40 years. The largest proportion of participants, 18.1%, have spent 5–9 years working years in the transportation industry. Participants' experience transporting students with I/DD ranged from 0 days to 37 years. The largest proportion of participants, 22.6%, have spent less than 1 year transporting students with I/DD.

TABLE 3.

Participant years of relevant experience.

Time in transportation industry	N (%)
< 1 year	191 (21.6%)
1–2 years	141 (15.9%)
3–4 years	116 (13.1%)
5–9 years	160 (18.1%)
10–14 years	111 (12.5%)
≥ 15 years	80 (9.0%)
Not reported	87 (9.8%)

Time transporting students with disabilities	Overall
< 1 year	200 (22.6%)
1–2 years	133 (15.0%)
3–4 years	123 (13.9%)
5–9 years	143 (16.1%)
10–14 years	95 (10.7%)
≥ 15 years	72 (8.1%)
Not reported	120 (13.5%)

2.2. Acceptability

Good internal consistency (α = 0.856) for the set of items in the posttraining evaluation related to acceptability was established prior to further analysis (Cronbach 1951). The range of scores for acceptability across all three training modules was 1–4, with lower scores indicating greater acceptability. Table 4 provides response descriptives by training module. Acceptability (F(1, 872) = 0.56, p = 0.573) scores did not vary significantly by training module. Table 5 presents the percentage of strongly agree and agree responses for each item by training module. The overwhelming majority of participants reported satisfaction (i.e., responded strongly agree or agree) with the presenter's knowledge (Module 1 = 95.5%; Module 2 = 97.8%; Module 3 = 89.3%) and training materials (Module 1 = 91.4%; Module 2 = 93.6%; Module 3 = 89.3%) for each of the three training modules. More than 90% of participants reported feeling satisfied with the knowledge they received (Module 1 = 93.3%; Module 2 = 93.6%; Module 3 = 93.9%). Finally, over 90% of participants would recommend the training to a co‐worker (Module 1 = 92.1%; Module 2 = 94.4%; Module 3 = 94.0%). Spearman's rank‐order correlations were not significant for years spent in the transportation industry and acceptability (ρ = 0.051, p = 0.154). However, years spent transporting students with I/DD was positively correlated with acceptability (ρ = 0.091, p = 0.012), although this association was small to negligible.

TABLE 4.

Response descriptives for acceptability and preliminary effectiveness by module.

Module	n	M (SD)
Training Module 1—An Introduction to Behavioral Supports
Acceptability	436	1.63 (0.49)
Preliminary effectiveness	437	1.77 (0.50)
Training Module 2—Preventing and De‐Escalating Behavior
Acceptability	373	1.63 (0.45)
Preliminary effectiveness	374	1.75 (0.45)
Training Module 3—What is this Behavior Telling You?
Acceptability	66	1.69 (0.54)
Preliminary effectiveness	66	1.76 (0.48)

Note: Because of the coronavirus pandemic, training module 3 was not offered at all three locations.

TABLE 5.

Percent of participant agreement by module.

	Module 1	Module 2	Module 3
Item	Percent Strongly agree/agree	Percent Strongly agree/agree	Percent Strongly agree/agree
As a result of this training, my understanding of developmental disabilities has increased.	91.9%	95.0%	87.9%
As a result of this training, I am more aware of the challenges students with developmental disabilities may face riding the bus.	89.6%	94.9%	87.9%
As a result of this training, I am more confident in my ability to help a student with a disability.	88.3%	92.5%	86.3%
The presenter was knowledgeable about the material.	95.5%	97.8%	89.3%
The materials and/or handouts used in this training were helpful.	91.4%	93.6%	89.3%
I am satisfied with the information I received at today's training	93.3%	93.6%	93.9%
I am likely to use something I learned in today's training on the job.	92.2%	94.6%	90.9%
I would recommend this training to a co‐worker.	92.1%	94.4%	94.0%

2.3. Preliminary Effectiveness

Good internal consistency (α = 0.858) for the set of items in the posttraining evaluation related to preliminary effectiveness was established prior to further analysis (Cronbach 1951). The range of scores for preliminary effectiveness across all three training modules was 1–4, with lower scores indicating greater agreement with the statement. Table 4 provides response descriptives by training module. Preliminary effectiveness (F(1, 874) = 0.44, p = 0.643) scores did not vary significantly by training module. Table 5 presents the percentage of strongly agree and agree responses for each item by training module. The overwhelming majority of participants reported that their understanding of developmental disabilities increased after attending a training module (Module 1 = 91.9%; Module 2 = 95.0%; Module 3 = 87.9%). Additionally, the majority of participants reported that they are more aware of the challenges students with developmental disabilities may face when riding the bus (Module 1 = 89.6%; Module 2 = 94.9%; Module 3 = 87.9%). A high percentage of participants reported feeling more confident in their ability to help a student with a disability after the training (Module 1 = 88.3%; Module 2 = 92.5%; Module 3 = 86.3%) and that they are likely to use something they learned on the job (Module 1 = 92.2%; Module 2 = 94.6%; Module 3 = 90.9%). Spearman's rank order correlations were significantly positively associated between preliminary effectiveness and years spent in the transportation industry (ρ = 0.111, p = 0.002) and years spent transporting students with disabilities (ρ = 0.169, p < 0.001). However, these associations were small to negligible.

3. Discussion

This study highlights the steps taken to develop and evaluate an educational programme for school bus transportation staff, aimed at enhancing their knowledge and skills as it pertains to transporting students with I/DD. In the development phase, it was particularly important for the study team to incorporate the voices of parents and caregivers of children with I/DD to better understand the perceived demand of an educational programme and the successes and challenges of their own child's bus‐riding experiences. Consistent with the existing literature, caregivers identified concerns with transportation staff's lack of understanding of I/DD, disruptive and/or challenging behaviours and how to safely manage them. Interviews with various transportation staff yielded similar concerns for gaps in transportation staff's knowledge of these topics. Inconsistent communication practices between transportation staff, educational care teams and caregivers of students riding the bus were also identified. Field observations permitted members of the study team to observe a sample of behaviour management strategies used by transportation staff and the practical considerations for the use of positive behavioural supports and building positive relationships with students on the school bus. The educational programme developed for transportation staff included three training modules that covered content related to characteristics of I/DD, functions of behaviour, tools to promote positive behaviour, de‐escalation strategies and increasing communication with caregivers. A social narrative and a caregiver input form were also developed to provide students with clear expectations of a bus‐riding journey and help transportation staff learn about the unique considerations of their students. This programme is unique because of the educational content and use of positive behavioural supports specifically adapted for transportation staff on school buses, contributing to a scarce body of literature supporting children with I/DD in transportation. The training content and supporting materials developed are consistent with well‐researched positive behavioural supports effective for this population in a variety of other settings (Beqiraj et al. 2022; Marshall et al. 2016; Meyer et al. 2021).

The study team assessed the feasibility of the FirstServes programme, the behavioural education programme focused on enhancing transportation staff's skills and knowledge related to supporting students with I/DD. Transportation staff completed posttraining evaluations at the completion of each training. Overwhelmingly, the majority of participants found the training acceptable, with no significant differences across the three training modules. The percentage of participants that reported satisfaction with the presenter's knowledge, training materials and knowledge received exceeded 80%. Across all three training modules, approximately 93% of participants would recommend the training to their co‐workers. Associations between the participants' previous relevant experience and acceptability were examined. Although the number of years spent in the transportation industry was not significantly associated with acceptability, the number of years spent transporting students with disabilities was. The results of this study suggest that the training programme was widely accepted by the employees that participated in it.

The study team also evaluated the preliminary effectiveness of the programme. We wanted to know if participants perceived increases in their knowledge or confidence using the skills covered in the training modules, which would provide evidence that the programme shows promise of being successful for the intended population in future iterations. Posttraining evaluations yielded promising results. At each of the three training modules, the majority of participants reported increases in their understanding of I/DD and the challenges that students with I/DD may face when riding the bus. Participants also reported feeling more confident in their ability to help a student with I/DD and that they were likely to use something from the training while on the job. The percentage of participants that reported increases in their knowledge and confidence, as well as the percentage of participants that reported they were likely to use the skills on the job exceeded 80%, which was the previously established preliminary effectiveness criteria. There were no significant differences in preliminary effectiveness across the three training modules. Associations between the participants' previous relevant experience and preliminary effectiveness were examined. Both the number of years spent in the transportation industry and the number of years spent transporting students with I/DD were positively associated with increases in perceived knowledge and confidence using the skills taught. One possible explanation for these associations is that transportation staff that have spent greater amounts of time with children with I/DD are able to better reflect on their experiences and connect the training content to previous real‐life interactions. This is consistent with previous theories of adult learning that assume adults' previous experiences serve as a rich resource for learning and that their readiness to learn is associated with their relative use of the knowledge (Knowles 1980). It will be important for future studies to further evaluate effectiveness, with additional measures that will capture real‐world changes (beyond perceptions) in the behaviour of transportation staff following participation in the programme. To do this, the authors recommend competency‐based and performance‐based training components of behavioural skills training (Reid 2017).

This study makes a significant contribution to the literature by providing evidence of the feasibility of a behavioural education programme developed for school bus transportation staff. Prior research supports adult training as an effective strategy for supporting the behaviours of children with I/DD but primarily focused on caregivers and educators in the home, classroom and community settings (Agran et al. 2020; Bearss et al. 2013; Strauss et al. 2013). The school bus is a unique setting that many students with I/DD experience daily, yet it has rarely been included in the behavioural education literature. We believe this programme responds to previous literature identifying concerns with the safety and accessibility of transportation for students with I/DD and the need for increasing transportation staff skills and knowledge (Angell and Solomon 2018; Downie et al. 2020; Graham et al. 2014). By outlining the development and evaluation of this novel programme, we hope to encourage future development, implementation and evaluation of programmes expanding on behavioural‐based education for transportation staff.

3.1. Limitations

Though this study offers evidence of acceptability and preliminary effectiveness for a behavioural education programme for transportation staff, there are limitations that must be considered. Three training modules were developed, but because of the coronavirus pandemic and associated closures, Module 3 was not implemented at all three study locations. Far fewer participants received the third training module, and this limits our ability to draw conclusions about its feasibility.

Another significant limitation to this study is the dependence on participants' perceptions of increases in knowledge and confidence after receiving training, based on self‐rated posttraining evaluations. Future studies should consider collecting data at additional time points after staff training, to evaluate the longer term outcomes of training participation. Because the goal of this education programme is to teach skills that result in behavioural change in transportation staff, future programme evaluation may consider the use of behavioural outcome management (Reid et al. 2011) to directly observe staff–student interactions on bus routes. This will offer meaningful evidence regarding the maintenance of knowledge and skills learned in the training modules.

The evaluation of this educational programme included transportation staff self‐ratings post‐training, but not the perspective of students or their caregivers post‐training. Caregiver feedback was elicited in the development phase, but not the evaluation phase of the current programme. To validate the efficacy of any transportation staff educational programme, the perspective of caregivers whose children are served by staff participating in the programme will be necessary.

4. Conclusion

This study highlights the development and evaluation of a behavioural education programme intended to increase the knowledge and skills of transportation staff to better support children with I/DD on school buses. By conducting the programme in three locations and analysing participant feedback, we offer evidence that the FirstServes training programme was widely accepted by a large number of transportation staff. We also offer preliminary effectiveness for this programme, based on more than 80% of participants agreeing that it contributed to their knowledge of the behavioural characteristics of children with I/DD and their confidence using well‐established positive behaviour supports to address them. Further evaluation is necessary to demonstrate the programme's effectiveness and should include competency and/or performance‐based components of the participating transportation staff, as well as caregiver feedback. This programme begins to address the critical need for increasing the safety and accessibility of school bus transportation and has potential to positively impact a substantial number of students with I/DD across the United States who receive school bus transportation.

Author Contributions

Allison Blackburn: conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, data curation, project administration. Meg Stone‐Heaberlin: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, conceptualization. Leanne Tamm: formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, methodology, data curation. Jennifer Smith: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, writing – original draft, project administration, supervision. Nichole Nidey: formal analysis, data curation, conceptualization, writing – original draft.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.