1. 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: 10.1080/1045988X.2014.895572

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

3. 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 RtI 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.

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

5. AN OVERVIEW OF BEHAVIOR SCREENING TOOLS

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

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

8. Note. The numbers represent totals for the students for whom the SSBD was completed. 47 13 63 7 57 9 66 11 78 14 Number of students Sample Data – SSBD 2007-2011 Risk Status for Nominated Students Externalizing 6.8% 1.5% 2.17% 2.41% 2.61%

9. Note. The numbers represent totals for the students for whom the SSBD was completed. 46 17 55 13 60 6 66 12 78 12 Number of students Sample Data – SSBD 2007-2011 Risk Status for Nominated Students Internalizing 4.4% 2.78% 1.44% 2.63% 2.24%

10. Grade Level Total Number of Students Screened Students Nominated Students w/ Critical Need Critical Internalizing Critical Externalizing K 72 *5 24 4 (5.56%) 1 (1.39%) 3 (4.17%) 1 st 66 *9E/ 8I 24 1 (1.54%) 0 (0.00%) 1 (1.54%) 2 nd 60 *10 18 3 (5.00%) 2 (3.33%) 1 (1.67%) * Students missing SAMPLE DATA: SSBD WINTER 2009-2010 CRITICAL NEED COMPARISON BY GRADE LEVEL

11. SSBD Data Over Time Comparing Fall 2007 to Winter 2007 6.23% (29) 5.17% (24) 3.65% (17) 1.29% (6) n = 465 n = 464n = 465n = 464

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

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

14. STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)

15. 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 Low0 – 3 Moderate4 – 8 High9 - 21

16. Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994)

17. N = 477 n = 11 (3.11%) n = 23 (6.50%) n = 320 (90.40%) N = 354 n = 21 (4.40%) n = 44 (9.22%) n = 412 (86.37%) Sample Data: SRSS – Elementary Percentage of Students

18. Grade Level Number of Students in Grade Level Low (0-3) Moderate (4-8) High (9 +) K99 73 (73.74%) 16 (16.16%) 10 (10.10%) 1 st 100 85 (85.00%) 9 (9.00%) 6 (6.00%) 2 nd 99 89 (89.90%) 9 (9.09%) 1 (1.01%) Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened. Sample Data: SRSS by Grade

19. VariableRisk Low (n = 422) M (SD) Moderate (n = 51) M (SD) High (n = 12) M (SD) Significance Testing ODR1.50 (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 GPA3.35 (0.52) 2.63 (0.65) 2.32 (0.59) L>M, H M=H Course Failures0.68 (1.50) 2.78 (3.46) 4.17 (3.49) L<M, H M=H Sample Data: SRSS Middle School Study 1: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups (Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007)

20. VariableRisk Low (n = 348) M (SD) Moderate (n = 54) M (SD) High (n = 19) M (SD) Significance Testing ODR3.87 (6.27) 6.89 (6.34) 9.89 (8.23) L < M, H M = H GPA3.10 (0.86) 2.51 (0.80) 2.16 (0.83) L > M, H M = H Sample Data: SRSS High School: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Time 1 to Year 2 Instructional Rater Student Risk Screening Scale (Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008)

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

22. Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, and SRSS-IE12 with the SSBD Note. SSBD refers to the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1992). SRSS-IE5 refers to the version with 5 times retained. SRSS-IE12 refers to the original 7 items from the SRSS developed by Drummond (1994) combined with the new five items constituting the SRSS-IE5. The SRSS-E7 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.

23. Student Risk Screening Scale –Early Childhood (SRSS-EC) Under development

24. STRENGTHS AND DIFFICULTIES QUESTIONNAIRE (SDQ; Goodman, 1997)

25. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) 2 versions (elementary T4-10 and middle/high T11-17) 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 Conduct Problems Hyperactivity / Inattention Peer Relationship Problems Pro-social Behavior Total Difficulties (sum of first 4 scales)

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

27. SDQ: Screening Results by Domain Elementary School Winter 2009 Percent of Students Subscale

28. DomainNumber of Students Screened NormalBorderlineAbnormal 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%) SDQ Results: 2nd Grade Students * = number of students not rated (or missing items)

29. BASC TM 2 BEHAVIOR AND EMOTIONAL SCREENING SYSTEM ( BASC TM 2 BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)

30. 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 BACS2 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.

31. 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. Group Roster Report

32. 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 BASC2-BESS at the middle school level. Manuscript in preparation. BASC2 – Behavior and Emotional Screening Scale Spring 2012

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

34. 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)

35. 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)

36. N = 54 N = 223 N = 212 n = 489 n = 490 n = 490 n = 489 N = 22 N = 233 N = 235 N = 35 N = 180 N = 275 N = 31 N = 187 N = 271 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 SSiS-PSG at the elementary school level. Manuscript submitted for publication. Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide Spring 2012 – Total School

37. STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS … Selecting Scheduling Preparing Administering Scoring & Interpreting

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

39. Begin drafting your Procedures for Monitoring A _CI3T Plan 10 minutes Monitoring Procedures: Student Measures Academic:Behavior:Social Skills: Program Measures: Social Validity:Treatment Integrity: Program Goals:

40. Measure AugSeptOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun 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) CI3T Treatment Integrity Draft D _ CI3T Assessment Schedule 40

41. Questions, thoughts, and considerations …. Activities!

42. Discuss the following screening considerations with your team. ConsiderationGuiding Questions CI3T Team Response Population Served What grade or age levels does your school support (preschool, elementary, middle, and/or high school)? Facets of Interest What facets of behavior challenges are you interested in finding? (e.g., Antisocial behavior in general? Externalizing and internalizing? Motivational concerns?) Perspective Do you want to obtain information from parents and students as well as the teacher perspective? Will you involve more than one teachers’ perspective? Cost Are you able to consider commercially available screening tools? Or are free access tools the primary option? TimeHow much time is available to devote to the universal behavioral screening process, taking into account preparation, administration, scoring, and interpretation? ConsiderationGuiding Questions CI3T Team Response Technology What technology and other resources are available to complete the screening tools? For example, do all teachers have access to computers? Or are paper-pencil techniques the main option, taking into account the cost of making copies and time for scoring and compiling results? Intervention Is the team looking for a screening tool available as part of a family of tools including more comprehensive assessments (e.g., rating scales) and prepared intervention materials to use in conjunction with screening data outcomes? Policies What are your state and district policies with respect to screening? Are all available tools viable options in your district? What are the expectations with respect to obtaining permission? Fig. 1 Considerations and questions to guide the process of selecting a behavior screening tool. (p. 163)

43. Discuss the following screening recommendations. #1 Construct a fully-developed CI3T plan before screening. A blueprint for how an when data will be collected. How and when data will be analyzed. A plan for responding to identified needs (Tier 2 and Tier 3) #2 Build in the systems and structures to afford professional development opportunities to continually revise the CI3T plan based on new information learned. What resources are available for professional development? How and when will these occur? #3 Build in systems and structures to develop expertise in behavior screenings. Identify team members to be the leads on screening. Identify district technology personnel for screener preparation, scoring and analysis. Develop a structure for educators to examine data for schoolwide program improvements and to connect students to intervention. #4 Know your state and local laws regarding screenings and be transparent. Who in your district would be the person to consult regarding state and local laws and policies on screening.? What procedures will be used for parent permission?

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