Session #A4 Universal Screening for Behavior

1. Session #A4Universal Screening for Behavior Jennifer Rose, Illinois PBIS Network Lynn Owens, Schaumburg CCSD 54

2. Session Objectives • This session will provide the tools to help prepare for screening: • 1. Provide the rationale and benefits of Universal screening for behavior • 2. Identify characteristics of evidence-based screeners for behavior • 3. Illustrate how to organize Tier 2 teams and systems for implementing screening and interventions

3. Rationale: Prevalence Rates • How prevalent are emotional disorders among school-age children and youth?

4. Rationale: Early intervention is vital • Research suggests that there’s a ‘window of opportunity’ ranging between 2-4 years when prevention is critical Great Smoky Mountains Study: Age Between First Symptom and Initial Diagnosis Source: O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009

5. Rationale: Student Benefits Associated with Universal Screening • “The Commission found compelling research sponsored by OSEP on emotional and behavioral difficulties indicating that children at risk for these difficulties could also be identified through universal screening and more significant disabilities prevented through classroom-based approaches involving positive discipline and classroom management.” Source: U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families

6. “Untreated emotional problems have the potential to create barriersto learning that interfere with the mission of schools to educate all children.” (Adelman & Taylor, 2002) “Without early intervention, children who routinely engage in aggressive, coercive actions, are likely to develop more serious anti-social patterns of behaviors that are resistant to intervention.” (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004) Youth who are the victims of bullying and who lack adequate peer supports are vulnerable to mood and anxiety disorders (Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hawker & Boulton, 2000) “Depressive disorders are consistently the most prevalent disorders among adolescent suicide victims (Gould, Greenberg, Velting, & Shaffer, 2003) . Rationale: Poor outcomes associated with delaying intervention

7. Universal Screening: Instrument Selection Criteria • Glover & Albers (2007) co-authored an article regarding application of the TheStandards for Educational and Psychological Testing in selecting a universal screening instrument for use in schools • Key criteria: • Appropriateness for intended use • Technical validity • Usability/practicality

8. Universal Screening: Instrument Selection Criteria • Appropriateness: • Matches developmental and contextual elements/needs of the population and school • Compatible with delivery model • Frequency of screening • Outcomes are consistent with goals • Research validates instrument for intended screening purpose

9. Universal Screening: Selection Criteria • It is technically-valid: • Adequate norms • Recent • Comparable to target population demographically/geographically • Satisfactory size • For example, the sample should contain at least 100 persons in the norm group for each age group measured

10. Universal Screening: Selection Criteria • Validity continued • Social validity (e.g., instrument/screening process is seen as both acceptable and important) • For example, if an instrument is perceived as time-consuming, or the process of universal screening is not deemed as relevant to stakeholders, then results may not be valid and there will be a lack of staff buy-in

11. Universal Screening: Selection Criteria • Usability/practicality: • Cost-effective • Does not require specialized training to administer or evaluate results • Does not interfere with instructional time or other required tasks • Efficient • For example, identifies students who are withdrawn (internalizers) as well as those who act out (externalizers) • Can be completed quickly • Informs interventions • Results can be used to identify appropriate interventions • Aids in improving student outcomes

12. Summary of Featured Instruments • The following universal screening instruments are discussed to provide examples of various research-validated screeners: • Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) • Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2/BESS) • Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) • Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) • Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) PLEASE NOTE: THIS LIST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AS AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY OF THE FEATURED SCREENERS BY THE ILLINOIS PBIS NETWORK

13. Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders SSBD: Walker & Severson, 1992

14. Overview • Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1992) for grades 1-6 • Validated by the Program Effectiveness Panel of the U.S. Department of Education • Six research studies confirm the SSBD’s ability to systematically screen and identify students at-risk of developing behavior problems • Universal screening with the SSBD is less costly and time-consuming than traditional referral system (Walker & Severson, 1994) • Inexpensive • Manual= $ 131.49 (includes reproducible screening forms) • Quick • Entire screening process can be completed within 45 minutes to 1 hour per classroom

15. Multiple Gating Procedure (Adapted from Severson et al. 2007) Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students on Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) Gate 1 Pass Gate 1 Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) on Critical Events, Adaptive and/or Maladaptive Scales Gate 2 Tier 2 Intervention Pass Gate 2

16. Rank Ordering

17. Scoring • Teachers complete Critical EventsIndex checklist for top three internalizers and externalizers • Internalizers with four or more and externalizers with five or more critical events immediately pass gate two and are eligible for simple a secondary intervention (i.e., CICO)

18. Sample of SSBD Critical Events Form

19. Sample of SSBD CFI Form

20. BASC-2/Behavioral and Emotional Screening System BASC-2/BESS: Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007

21. Overview Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS) (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007) Developed as a school-wide (Universal) screening tool for children in grades Pre-K to 12 Similar to annual vision/hearing screenings Identifiesbehavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses Externalizing behaviors (e.g., acting out) Internalizing behaviors (e.g., withdrawn) Adaptive skills (e.g., social and self-care skills)

22. Sample of BASC-2/BESS Form

23. Administration & Scoring Criteria • The BASC-2/BESS uses T-scores to communicate results relative to the average (mean=50) • Identifiers and percentile ranks are provided for ease of interpretation • Normal risk level: T-score range 10-60 • Elevated risk level: T-score range 61-70 • Extremely Elevated risk level: T-score range ≥ 71

24. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire SDQ: Goodman, 2001

25. Overview • The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001) is a freepsychological measure available at www.sdqinfo.org • Assesses emotional functioning of children aged 3-17 based on parent, or teacher reports • Various uses: Screening, clinical assessment, progress monitoring, research tool

26. Administration & Scoring Criteria • The SDQ is comprised of five scales with five corresponding items • Each item is scored on a three-point Likert type scale • Not true=0; Somewhat true=1; Certainly true=2 • Factor analytically derived tool based on standard classification of psychological disorders

27. Overview SDQ scales and corresponding items

28. Sample SDQ Form

29. Student Risk Screening Scale SRSS: Drummond, 1993

30. Overview • The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1993) is a free screening instrument • Initially developed for elementary school students • Preliminary research indicates that the SRSS is also acceptable for use in middle and high schools • Extensive research supports validity/reliability of the SRSS • Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007; Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008; Lane et al., 2010; Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007; Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2003

31. Administration Sample Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) Results

32. Administration & Scoring Criteria • Behaviors are rated from 0-3 • 0= never; 1= occasionally; 2=sometimes; and 3=frequently • Risk status is based upon the following ranges: • High=9-21; moderate=4-8; and low=0-3 • Schools can create their own screening forms using excel, or other computer software

33. Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide SSIS: Gresham & Elliott, 2008 Originally the SRSS

34. Overview • The Social Skills Improvement System, Performance Screening Guide (SSIS, 2008; Gresham & Elliott) developed as a classwide screener • Normed for students ages 3-18 • The SSIS consists of 83 items categorized as ‘Social Skills,’ ‘Problem Behaviors,’ and ‘Academic Competence’

35. Overview • Social Skills=46 items measured using four-point Likert scale combined with rating of significance of behavior • Subscales: • Communication • Cooperation • Assertion • Responsibility • Engagement • Self-control

36. Sample SSIS Social Skills form

37. Administration • ProblemBehaviors=30 items, four-point Likert scale • Subscales: • Externalizing • Bullying • Hyperactivity/inattention • Internalizing • Autism Spectrum

38. Sample SSIS Problem Behaviors form

39. Administration • AcademicCompetence= 7 items, class ranking plus five-point Likert scale to assess academic skill areas • Motivation to learn • Reading skills • Math skills

40. Sample SSIS Academic Competence form

41. Universal Screening: Sample of Evidence-Based Screening Instruments

42. Universal Screening: Sample ofEvidence-Based Screening Instruments

43. Universal screening readiness checklist • Build a foundation • Secure district and building-level administrative support for universal screening • Establish universal screening committee consisting of district and building-level administrators, student support personnel, teachers, family and community representatives and assign roles • Clarify goals • Identify purpose of universal screening (e.g., mental health, social skills assessment) • Determine desired outcomes

44. Universal screening readiness checklist • Identify resources and logistics • Identify resources for supporting students identified via screening (in-school and community-based) • Create a timeline for executing screening process including frequency of screening (e.g., once, or multiple times per year?) • Develop budget for materials, staff, etc. • Create administration materials (e.g., power point to share process with staff, parents and community members, consent forms, teacher checklists) • Schedule dates for screening(s) and meetings to share school-wide results

45. Universal screening readiness checklist • Select an evidence-based screening instrument • Use TheStandards for Educational and Psychological Testing, or resources from other professional organization resources (e.g., National Association for School Psychologists; NASP), as guidelines for selecting an appropriate screener

46. Universal screening readiness checklist • Data • Develop data collection and progress monitoring system • Determine systematic process for using results to inform interventions • Plan for sharing screening and progress monitoring results with staff and families

47. Contact Information • Jennifer Rose, Ph.D.,NCSP, Tertiary Research and Evaluation Coordinator, Illinois PBIS Network, jen.rose@pbisillinois.org

48. Universal ScreeningElementary and Jr. High Lynn Owens, MSW, MEd Schaumburg CCSD 54 District External Coach

49. District 54 Demographics • 21 Elementary Buildings (K-6) • 5 Jr. High Buildings (7-8) • 1 Elementary & Jr. High Building (K-8) • District Enrollment: 14, 318 • Low Income: 18% • IEP: 11.3% • Bi-Lingual: 17.5% • Ethnicity: • White: 46.3% • African American: 6.5% • Hispanic: 22.5% • Asian: 20.0% • American Indian: 0.3% • Multi-Racial: 3.3%

50. District 54 PBIS Implementation & Universal Screening 2010-2012 • 26 Elementary and Jr. High Buildings Implementing at all 3 Tiers of PBIS • Tier 2 Demo Site August 2009-June 2012 • 4 Cohorts 2011-12SY • 8 buildings implementing Tiers 1, 2, & 3 • 17 buildings implementing Tiers 1 &2