District-wide Screening for At-risk Students: Strategies for Success Tim Lewis & Barbara Mitchell University of Missouri Jen Rose Illinois PBIS Network.

District-wide Screening for At-risk Students: Strategies for Success

Tim Lewis & Barbara MitchellUniversity of Missouri

Jen RoseIllinois PBIS Network

What Do We Know?

• Approximately 1 in every 4 to 5 youth in the U.S. meets criteria for a mental disorder with severe impairment across their lifetime (Merikangas et al., 2010).

• Among those affected only 30% actually receive services (U.S. Public Health Service, 2000)

What Do We Know?

• The most common conditions include– Anxiety (31.9%) – Behavior disorders (19.1%) – Mood disorders (14.3%)– Substance use disorders (11.4%)

• Approximately 40% of individuals meet criteria for multiple disorders.

(Merikangas et al., 2010)

What Do We Know?• The median age of onset occurs during school-

age years– 6 years for anxiety– 11 years for behavior– 13 years for mood – 15 years for substance use disorders.

(Merikangas et al., 2010)

• Academic success is linked with social & behavioral skills

• Early identification with intervention can decrease the likelihood of academic failure– Prevent onset

• Preventive supports reduce the need for more intensive supports later.– Minimize impact of risk

What Do We Know?

• Teacher nomination• Existing school data• Universal screening instrument

Allows for early intervention?Identifies internalizing & externalizing?

Identification Process

Screening

• Simply indicates there might be an issue• Not intended to be:

– Prescriptive– Evaluative

• Will require additional data triangulation to provide appropriate supports

• Advantages – Fast, efficient, and respectful– Include all children and youth of interest– If we make an error, the error tends to identify

students who are not at-risk– Informs schools about the student population– Find groups of students with common needs– Facilitates resource mapping of services

(University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior)

Systematic Screening

• Not common because…– Schools tend to be a reactive rather than proactive

with respect to behavior – Impression that kids will “grow out of it”– Concern about profiling/stigmatizing – Fear of costs and potential to identify large

number of EBD students

Systematic Screening

• Not Common Because – Easier to screen vision & hearing because

response falls in the realm of the parents– Political realities of managing parent reactions to

behavior screenings; confidentiality– Systems skill set

• Do we know how to respond to behavior with the same confidence that we respond to academic concerns?

Systematic Screening

• Screening Instruments at a Glance– Name of Instrument– Description / Use– Age of Students– Method– Time to Administer– Cost– Ordering Information

Systematic Screening

pbismissouri.org

Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment

School-Wide Prevention Systems

SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, SD-T, EI-T

Check-in Check-out (CICO)

Group Intervention with Individualized Feature (e.g., CICO with ind. features and Mentoring)

Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)

Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP

Person Centered Planning: Wraparound/RENEWFamily Focus

ODRs,Credits, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc.

Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals)

Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc.

Social/Academic Instructional Groups (SAIG)

Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:A Multi-Tiered System of Support Model (MTSS)

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Aug. 2013 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004

Tier 2/Secondary

Tier 3/Tertiary

Inte

rven

tio

nAssessm

en

t

Individual Student Information System (ISIS)

Illinois PBIS Network: Screening Instruments Used During Demonstration Project

Screener Summary of FeaturesSystematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1990)http://store.cambiumlearning.com

• Well-validated (Endorsed in 1990 by the Program Effectiveness Panel of the U.S. Department of Education; Cited in over 25 peer-reviewed journal publications)

• Efficient (Screening process can be completed within approximately 1 hour)

• Most effective instrument for identifying internalizers (Lane et al., 2009)

• Inexpensive (Manual= $ 134.49; includes reproducible screening forms)

BASC-2/BESS (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007)http://www.pearsonassessments.com

• Measures behaviors associated with internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors and academic competence

• Incorporates three validity measures to rule out response bias

• Normed utilizing large (N= 12,350 children & youth), nationally-representative sample

• Web-based screening capacity available via AIMSweb

Illinois PBIS NetworkMultiple Gating Procedure

(Adapted from Walker & Severson, 1992)

Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students

on Each Dimension (Externalizing &

Internalizing)

Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) using either SSBD,

BASC-2/BESS, or other evidence-based instrument

Gate 1

Gate 2

Pass Gate 1

Pass Gate 2Tier 2

Intervention

Illinois PBIS Network: Process Summary

Timeline of events Developed materials to support screening process

• Parent information letter (English & Spanish versions)• Overview and administration power points• Universal screening implementation timeline• Teacher ranking and timeline documents• Scoring tool for excel• Parent permission letter for tier 2 intervention (English & Spanish versions)

Documents are available at www.pbisillinois.org under ‘Curriculum’ tab

Identified and trained in-district universal screening coordinators Led overview meetings with instructional staff Co-facilitated screenings Coached tier 2 teams in review of results and implementation of simple

tier 2 intervention (e.g., CICO)

Illinois PBIS Network: Parent Information Letter

Illinois PBIS Network: Screening Implementation Timeline

Illinois PBIS Network: Teacher Ranking and Timeline Document

Teacher Rank Ordering for Universal Behavioral Screening: Externalizers

• Property destruction (e.g., damaging books, desks, other school property) • Repeatedly quarrels with peers/adults • Coercion of others (e.g., bullying behaviors includes physical actions and verbal threats) • Regularly does not follow school/classroom rules • Consistent refusal to follow teacher’s directions • Frequently blurts out/speaks in class without permission • Often moves around the classroom/hallways without permission • Spreads rumors with the intention to harm others • Stealing

Externalizers: Students regularly displaying at least ONE of the listed behaviors

Externalizers: Top three students regularly displaying at least ONE of the listed behaviors

ID # Race/ethnicity

STEP ONE STEP TWO

Illinois PBIS Network: Results Summary

During the last year of the grant, 2010 11 ‐61 Illinois schools screened approximately 28,000 students representing a diverse demographic profile: White, 32% Black/African American, 20%

Hispanic/Latino, 38%

Illinois PBIS Network

Illinois PBIS Network: Current Status

Two years following the conclusion of the grant, the practice of universal screening is showing evidence of sustainability In the 2012-13 school year, sixty schools across

seven geographically-dispersed districts provided documentation of implementing universal screening for behavior

Expanded selection of universal screening instruments to include the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in 14 schools

Illinois PBIS Network: 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

Illinois PBIS Network: 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

Illinois PBIS Network: Universal screening readiness checklist

Select an evidence-based screening instrumentUse The Standards 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

Illinois PBIS Network: Universal screening readiness checklist

Data Develop data collection and progress

monitoring systemDetermine systematic process for using results

to inform interventionsPlan for sharing screening and progress

monitoring results with staff and families