Logistics of behavior screenings How and why do

Logistics of behavior screenings: How and why do we conduct behavior screenings at our school? Oakes, W. P. , Lane, K. L. , Cox, M. , & Messenger, M. (2014). Logistics of behavior screenings: How and why do we conduct behavior screenings at our school? Preventing School Failure, 58, 159 -170, DOI: 10. 1080/1045988 X. 2014. 895572

Agenda • Introduction • Overview of Behavior Screening Tools Available • Step-by-Step Procedures – Selecting – Scheduling – Preparing – Administering – Scoring and Interpreting 2

Introduction Academic screenings allow for efficient assessment of which students need instruction beyond Tier 1 to meet end of the year benchmarks for reading and math. Academic screening in an Rt. I model support a problem solving approach to meet students needs. Behavior screenings allow for efficient detection of students with internalizing and externalizing behavior challenges, with information used to inform instructional programming.

Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk ≈ Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈ Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk Secondary Prevention (Tier 2) PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings Validated Curricula ≈ Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic Behavioral Social

AN OVERVIEW OF BEHAVIOR SCREENING TOOLS

SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992)

Pool of Regular Classroom Students TEACHER SCREENING on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavioral Dimensions 3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing Behavior Criteria PASS GATE 1 TEACHER RATING on Critical Events Index and Combined Frequency Index Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI PASS GATE 2 DIRECT OBSERVATION of Process Selected Pupils in Classroom and on Playground Exceed Normative Criteria on AET and PSB PASS GATE 3 Pre-referral Intervention(s) Child may be referred to Child Study Team SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS SSBD Screening Process

Number of students Sample Data – SSBD 2007 -2011 Risk Status for Nominated Students Externalizing 47 6. 8 % 63 1. 5 2. 1 7 2. 6 1% 1% 9 78 66 2. 4 7% % 13 57 11 14 Note. The numbers represent totals for the students for whom the SSBD was completed.

Number of students Sample Data – SSBD 2007 -2011 Risk Status for Nominated Students Internalizing 46 4. 4 % 55 2. 7 1. 4 13 2. 2 4% 3% 6 78 66 2. 6 4% 8% 17 60 12 12 Note. The numbers represent totals for the students for whom the SSBD was completed.

SAMPLE DATA: SSBD WINTER 2009 -2010 CRITICAL NEED COMPARISON BY GRADE LEVEL Grade Level Total Number of Students Screened 72 K *5 1 st 2 nd 66 *9 E/ 8 I 60 *10 * Students missing Students w/ Critical Need Critical Internalizing Critical Externalizing 24 4 (5. 56%) 1 (1. 39%) 3 (4. 17%) 24 1 (1. 54%) 0 (0. 00%) 1 (1. 54%) 18 3 (5. 00%) 2 (3. 33%) 1 (1. 67%) Students Nominated

SSBD Data Over Time Comparing Fall 2007 to Winter 2007 6. 23% (29) 5. 17% (24) 3. 65% (17) n = 465 n = 464 n = 465 1. 29% (6) n = 464

EARLY SCREENING PROJECT: A PROVEN CHILD FIND PROCESS (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1994)

Early Screening Project Procedures Teacher Ranking Three Highest Ranked Children on Externalizing and Internalizing Behavioral Criteria Pass Gate One Teacher Rating Exceed Normative Criteria Pass Gate Two (Optional) Stage Three Stage Two Stage One Pool of Regular Classroom Preschoolers Observation and Parent Questionnaire Prereferral Interventions Child may be referred to the Child Study Team (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1995, pp. 4)

STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)

Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994) • The SRSS is 7 -item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. • Uses 4 -point Likert-type scale: never = 0, occasionally = 1, sometimes = 2, frequently = 3 • Teachers evaluate each student on the following items - Steal - Low Academic Achievement - Lie, Cheat, Sneak - Negative Attitude - Behavior Problem - Aggressive Behavior - Peer Rejection • Student Risk is divided into 3 categories • Low 0 – 3 • Moderate 4 – 8 • High 9 - 21

Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994)

Percentage of Students Sample Data: SRSS – Elementary N = 477 n = 21 (4. 40%) n = 11 (3. 11%) n = 44 (9. 22%) n = 23 (6. 50%) n = 412 (86. 37%) n = 320 (90. 40%) N = 354

Sample Data: SRSS by Grade Level K 1 st 2 nd Number of Students in Grade Level Low (0 -3) Moderate (4 -8) High (9 +) 99 73 (73. 74%) 16 (16. 16%) 10 (10. 10%) 100 85 (85. 00%) 9 (9. 00%) 6 (6. 00%) 99 89 (89. 90%) 9 (9. 09%) 1 (1. 01%) Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened.

Sample Data: SRSS Middle School Study 1: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Variable Risk Low (n = 422) M (SD) Moderate (n = 51) M (SD) High (n = 12) M (SD) Significance Testing ODR 1. 50 (2. 85) 5. 02 (5. 32) 8. 42 (7. 01) L<M<H In-School Suspensions 0. 08 (0. 38) 0. 35 (1. 04) 1. 71 (2. 26) L<M<H GPA 3. 35 (0. 52) 2. 63 (0. 65) 2. 32 (0. 59) L>M, H M=H Course Failures 0. 68 (1. 50) 2. 78 (3. 46) 4. 17 (3. 49) L<M, H M=H (Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007)

Variable ODR GPA Low (n = 348) M (SD) 3. 87 (6. 27) 3. 10 (0. 86) Risk Moderate (n = 54) M (SD) 6. 89 (6. 34) 2. 51 (0. 80) (Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008) High (n = 19) M (SD) 9. 89 (8. 23) 2. 16 (0. 83) Significance Testing L < M, H M=H L > M, H M=H Student Risk Screening Scale Sample Data: SRSS High School: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Time 1 to Year 2 Instructional Rater

Student Risk Screening Scale. Internalizing Externalizing (SRSS-IE) Aggressive Behavior Lonely Negative Attitude Low Academic Achievement Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior Peer Rejection Behavior Problem Anxious Sad; Depressed Shy; Withdrawn Emotionally Flat Lie, Cheat, Sneak 0 = Never Steal TEACHER NAME 2 = Sometimes 3 = Frequently Use the above scale to rate each item for each student. Student Name Self-Inflicts Pain 1= Occasionally

Convergent Validity: SRSS-E 7, SRSS-I 5, and SRSS-IE 12 with the SSBD Note. SSBD refers to the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1992). SRSS-IE 5 refers to the version with 5 times retained. SRSS-IE 12 refers to the original 7 items from the SRSS developed by Drummond (1994) combined with the new five items constituting the SRSS-IE 5. The SRSS-E 7 refers to the original 7 items constituting the SRSS. Lane, K. L. , Oakes, W. P. , Harris, P. J. , Menzies, H. M. , Cox, M. L. , & Lambert, W. (2012) Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors at the elementary level. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 99 -122.

Student Risk Screening Scale –Early Childhood (SRSS-EC) r e d n U o l e v e d t n e pm

STRENGTHS AND DIFFICULTIES QUESTIONNAIRE (SDQ; Goodman, 1997)

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) • 2 versions (elementary T 4 -10 and middle/high T 11 -17) • One page is completed on EACH student • All versions of the SDQ ask about 25 attributes, both positive and others negative • These 25 items are divided between 5 scales: • Emotional Symptoms Total Difficulties • Conduct Problems (sum of first 4 scales) • Hyperactivity / Inattention • Peer Relationship Problems • Pro-social Behavior

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) More information can be found at: www. SDQinfo. com

SDQ: Screening Results by Domain Elementary School Winter 2009 100% 90% 5. 63 2. 82 16. 9 32. 39 Percent of Students 80% 33. 8 16. 9 70% 11. 27 8. 45 60% 50% 23. 94 15. 49 Abnormal 91. 55 Borderline 40% Normal 66. 2 30% 59. 15 64. 79 50. 7 20% 10% 0% Emotional Syptoms Conduct Problems Hyperactivity Subscale Peer Problems Prosocial Behavior

SDQ Results: 2 nd Grade Students * = number of students not rated (or missing items) Domain Number of Students Screened Normal Borderline Abnormal Total Difficulties N=77 *6 N=40 (51. 95%) N=12 (15. 58%) N=25 (32. 47%) Emotional Symptoms N=78 *5 N=64 (82. 05%) N=3 (3. 85%) N=11 (14. 10%) Conduct Problems N=78 *5 N=37 (47. 44%) N=7 (8. 97%) N=34 (43. 59%) Hyperactivity N=78 *5 N=51 (65. 38%) N=5 (6. 41%) N=22 (28. 21%) Peer Problems N=77 *6 N=54 (70. 13%) N=11 (14. 29%) N=12 (15. 58%) Prosocial Behavior N=78 *5 N=64 (82. 05%) N=3 (3. 85%) N=11 (14. 10%)

BASCTM 2 BEHAVIOR AND EMOTIONAL SCREENING SYSTEM (BASCTM 2 BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)

BACS 2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scale (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007) A brief, universal screening system for measuring behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses in children and adolescents. • Behavioral areas assessed include: • Internalizing problems • Externalizing problems • School problems • Adaptive skills • Includes 3 forms that can be used individually or in combination: • Teacher- Preschool and Child/ Adolescent • Student self-report- Child/ Adolescent • Parent- Preschool and Child/ Adolescent

Group Roster Report Source: Neithercott & Hanken (2008). Behavioral and Emotional Screening System: A Tier 1 Solution. Presented at the Kansas Association of School Psychologists/ Council for Exceptional Children Conference.

BASC 2 – Behavior and Emotional Screening Scale Spring 2012 N = 24 N = 67 N = 533 N = 624 n = 219 n = 202 n = 203 Lane, K. L. , Oakes, W. P. , Common, E. A. , Zorigian, K. , & Brunsting, N. (2014). Project Screen and Support: Initial evidence between the SRSS-IE and the BASC 2 -BESS at the middle school level. Manuscript in preparation.

SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM – PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE (SSi. S-PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)

SSIS-PSG • Four key areas are assessed: • Prosocial Behavior • Motivation to Learn • Reading Skills • Math Skills • Three levels: • Preschool • Elementary • Secondary A comprehensive, multi-tiered program for improving social behavior. Focuses on keystone classroom behaviors and skills. (Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)

PSG: Actions Students Scoring a 1 in any area & Suggested Action Students Scoring a 2 or 3 in any area & Suggested Action (Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Pearson)

Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide Spring 2012 – Total School N = 54 N = 22 N = 35 N = 31 N = 223 N = 233 N = 180 N = 187 N = 212 N = 235 N = 271 n = 489 n = 490 n = 489 Lane, K. L. , Oakes, W. P. , Common, E. A. , Zorigian, K. , & Brunsting, N. (2014). Project Screen and Support: Initial evidence between the SRSS-IE and the SSi. S-PSG at the elementary school level. Manuscript submitted for publication.

STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS … in Select Scoring & Interpreting ring a p e r P g Schedu ling Admin istering

Measure Authors Ordering Information Systematic Screening for Walker & Behavior Disorders (SSBD) Severson (1992) Available for purchase from Cambium Learning/ Sopris West Early Screening Project (ESP) Available for purchase from Applied Behavior Science Press Free Access Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) Walker, Severson, & Feil (1995) Drummond (1994) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Goodman (1997) Free Access online at Which one shall we select? http: //www. sdqinfo. com/ *unless you create your own system BASCTM 2 Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BASCTM 2 -BESS) Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007) Available for purchase from Pearson/ Psych. Corp Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSi. S- Elliott & Gresham Available for purchase from (2007) Pearson/ Psych. Corp

Monitoring Academic: Procedures: Student Measures Program Measures: Social Validity: Behavior: Social Skills: Treatment Integrity: Program Goals: Begin drafting your Procedures for Monitoring A_CI 3 T Plan 10 minutes

Measure Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec School Demographics Student Demographic Information Screening Measures Behavior Screeners: Academic Screeners: Student Outcome Measures - Academic Student Outcome Measures - Behavior Program Measures Social Validity - PIRS Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET) CI 3 T Treatment Integrity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Draft D_ CI 3 T Assessment Schedule Jun 40

Questions, thoughts, and considerations …. Activities! Let’s talk …

Discuss the following screening considerations with your team. Consideration Guiding Questions CI 3 T Team Response Consideration Guiding Questions CI 3 T Team Technology What technology and other resources are available Response to complete the screening tools? For example, do Population What grade or age levels does your school support all teachers have access to computers? Or are Served (preschool, elementary, middle, and/or high school)? paper-pencil techniques the main option, taking into account the cost of making copies and time Facets of What facets of behavior challenges are you interested for scoring and compiling results? Interest in finding? (e. g. , Antisocial behavior in general? Let’s plan Externalizing and internalizing? Motivational Intervention Is the team looking for a screening tool available as concerns? ) Activity 4. 1 part of a family of tools including more Perspective Do you want to obtain information from parents and comprehensive assessments (e. g. , rating scales) students as well as the teacher perspective? Will you and prepared intervention materials to use in involve more than one teachers’ perspective? conjunction with screening data outcomes? Cost Are you able to consider commercially available Policies What are your state and district policies with screening tools? Or are free access tools the primary option? respect to screening? Are all available tools viable Time How much time is available to devote to the universal options in your district? What are the expectations behavioral screening process, taking into account with respect to obtaining permission? preparation, administration, scoring, and Fig. 1 Considerations and questions to guide the process of selecting a behavior screening interpretation? tool. (p. 163)

Discuss the following screening recommendations. #4 Know your state and local laws regarding screenings and be #1 Construct a fully-developed CI 3 T plan before screening. #2 Build in the systems and structures to afford professional #3 Build in systems and structures to develop expertise in behavior development opportunities to continually revise the CI 3 T plan based screenings. transparent. A blueprint for how an when data will be collected. on new information learned. How and when data will be analyzed. Identify team members to be the leads on screening. Who in your district would be the person to consult regarding A plan for responding to identified needs (Tier 2 and Tier 3) What resources are available for professional development? Identify district technology personnel for screener state and local laws and policies on screening. ? How and when will these occur? preparation, scoring and analysis. What procedures will be used for parent permission? Develop a structure for educators to examine data for schoolwide program improvements and to connect students to intervention. Let’s plan Activity 4. 2

Thank you! Moving Forward Questions: Kathleen. Lane@ku. edu Wendy. Oakes@asu. edu