Background/Introduction Despite widespread use, Positive Behavior Support/Management (PBS/M) teacher professional development for primary teachers varies in dose, delivery, and fidelity monitoring; prior syntheses have not differentiated between primary and other levels or linked PBS/M components to teacher and student outcomes across contexts. Methods This systematic review (2006–2024) identifies core components of PBS/M professional development (PD) for primary teachers and measures used, synthesizes directions of effect across outcomes and contexts, and appraises study methodological quality using MMAT (2018). Studies were eligible if they reported teacher-level outcomes in primary/elementary settings (ages 6–11) with empirical designs. Outcomes were synthesized using SWiM-consistent vote-counting by direction of effect, classifying each finding as positive (+), no change (0), or mixed (±), with consistency defined a priori as ≥70% alignment across ≥3 studies per cell. Results Thirty-three studies were included: 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 16 non-randomized controlled studies, and 2 mixed-methods studies, spanning 10 countries (69.7% USA), with 51.5% conducted in low-SES school settings. Results indicate that four PBS/M PD families dominated. Classroom management and practices (CMP) was the most consistently positive outcome (positive in ≥75% of studies reporting this domain), particularly under medium-duration mixed-method programs. Teacher self-efficacy (TSE) showed consistently positive gains in non-USA and mixed-locale contexts. Teacher wellbeing (TSBW) was consistently mixed across components and contexts. Mixed trainer teams aligned with better outcomes. Methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. MMAT flagged strong measurement/randomization but concerns about baseline imbalance, confounding, blinding, and attrition. Discussion Interpretation is qualified by the mainly USA evidence base, reliance on teacher self-report, and the vote-counting method's inability to estimate pooled effect sizes.
Supsin et al. (Wed,) studied this question.