Emerging Practices in Secondary School-Wide Screening for Students At- Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Presented by Ellie L. Young, Ph.D. &

Emerging Practices in Secondary School-Wide

Screening for Students At-Risk for

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Presented by Ellie L. Young, Ph.D.

& Brenda Wesson, B.S.

Peaceable Schools

• Positive behavior support strategies to increase the capacity of schools to implement effective prevention and intervention practices for all students.

• Funding from 5 yr federal grant• Field Initiated Research. U.S.

Department of Education. CFDA 84.324C

What is “School-wide Positive Behavior Support”?

SW-PBS is a whole-school approach to discipline that includes a broad range of systemic & individualized strategies for achieving social & learning outcomes while preventing problem behavior with all students.

(Horner and Sugai, 2000)

Slide courtesy of Ken Merrell, University of Oregon

Levels of Intervention

• Focus on – prevention, – early identification and intervention

• Unique features • school-wide screening at the middle

and junior high school• preventative social skill training for all

students • targeted secondary level interventions

for identified ‘at-risk students• Achievement Plus Class

Interventions for all students

Teach and review school norms and rules through weekly school-wide social skill instruction

Direct instruction of social skillsHow to listenHow to apologizeHow to follow directionsHow to respond to teasing

Secondary Level of InterventionAchievement Plus Class

Key Curriculum Features:

1. Social Skills Instruction2. Organizational Skills3. Learning Strategies & Study Skills4. Emotional Resiliency: Strong Kids and

Strong Teens1. http://orp.uoregon.edu/strong%20kids.htm

5. Self-Management

Why conduct school-wide screening?

• Screening and assessment provide the basis for effective intervention; but are largely absent from actual practice, especially in middle schools and junior high schools.

• Prevention and early intervention are much more likely to be successful with students not yet identified as EBD/ED and reduce the need for other intensive special education or community services.

Importance of Screening at the Secondary Level

• Transition from elementary setting to secondary setting. Several significant educational changes

– Self-contained classrooms (1 teacher) vs. departmentalized classrooms (many teachers)

– Higher expectations for independent management of emotional, social, and academic issues.

• Developmental changes

– Physical development– Increased social circles– Move from same-gender friendships to mixed-gender

friendships and romantic relationships– Cognitive development

(Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., Midgley, C. (1991)

Research Question?

How accurate is the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) in identifying students in grades 7-9 at risk for internalizing and externalizing behavior problems?

SSBD

Total Students 23,078Male 12018 Female 11060

Secondary Students 11,326Free & Reduced Lunch 29%

African American 0% Asian 0%Native American 1% Hispanic 6%Pacific Islander 1% Caucasian 92%

Nebo School District Overview

Supportive Data Sources• Office referrals• Correlation with assessment

instruments normed for age group including the Achenbach Teacher Report (TRF) Form and AGS Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Teacher Version

Administration of Instruments

First wave: SSBD—Stage 1

Teachers were given descriptions of internalizing and externalizing behaviors

Teachers were instructed to review their entire class rosters (approximately 180 students) and nominate up to 5 students in both externalizing and internalizing categories.

Top Problem Behaviors

Externalizers1. Ignores teacher

warnings or reprimands

2. Physically aggressive

3. Damages others' property

4. Is teased, neglected, and/or avoided by peers

5. Has tantrums

Internalizers1. Painful shyness2. Sad affect,

depression, and feelings of worthlessness

3. Is teased, neglected, and/or avoided by peers

4. Gets lost in own thoughts

5. Ignores teacher warnings or reprimands

SSBD Stage One: Data Summary

1. Frequency Scores = # of teacher

nominations

2. Composite Scores = Sum of ranks across all nominations

3. Students were ranked in descending order based on the frequency score

Student Frequency Comp Ranking

Student # of nominations

Teacher1 Rank

Teacher2 Rank

Teacher3 Rank

Teacher4 Rank

Teacher5 Rank

Composite Ranking

Student1 5 4 3 4 53 19

Student2 5 4 3 5 44 20

Student3 4 3 4 54   16

Student4 4 3 4 43   14

Student5 4 3 4 32   12

Student6 4 3 2 43   12

Student7 3 2 4 3    9

Student8 3 2 4 3    9

Requisite Scores for Advancing to SSBD Stage Two:

Frequency = > or equal to 2 Composite Rank = > or equal to 5

Assessments used in Stage Two:• TRF• SSRS• SSBD Critical Events Checklist

r p n SSBD Stage 1 Frequency Composite .34 .017 48 Critical Events Score .45 .019 27 Adaptive Score .23 .258 26 Maladaptive Score -.09 .649 26 Total Referrals to the Office -.32 .000 113

r p n SSBD Stage 1 Frequency Composite .50 .000 65 Critical Events Score .61 .000 44 Adaptive Score -.17 .281 43 Maladaptive Score .47 .001 44 Total Referrals to the Office .47 .000 113

The largest correlation occurred between the TRF Internalizer Raw Score and the SSBD Stage II Internalizer Critical Events Score.

Correlations Between TRF with SSBD & Office ReferralsInternalizers

Correlations Between TRF with SSBD & Office ReferralsExternalizers

The largest correlation occurred between the TRF Externalizer Raw Score and the SSBD Stage II Externalizer Critical Events Score.

r p n SSBD Stage 1 Frequency Composite .25 .090 47 Critical Events Score .42 .025 28 Adaptive Score .19 .341 27 Maladaptive Score -.12 .547 27 Total Referrals to the Office -.35 .000 108

r p n SSBD Stage 1 Frequency Composite .44 .000 63 Critical Events Score .37 .017 42 Adaptive Score -.30 .059 41 Maladaptive Score .60 .000 42 Total Referrals to the Office .40 .000 111

Correlations Between SSRS with SSBD & Office ReferralsInternalizers

Correlations Between SSRS with SSBD & Office ReferralsExternalizers

The largest correlation occurred between the SSRS Externalizer Raw Score and the SSBD Stage II Externalizer Maladaptive Score.

The largest correlation occurred between the SSRS Internalizer Raw Score and the SSBD Stage II Internalizer Critical Events Score.

What we learned

• Moderate correlations for students with externalizing behaviors

• More work to do to identify students with internalizing behaviors

• Include more data points– Office discipline referrals– Attendance– Counselor Referrals– Grades– Other

Other questions

Have changes occurred school-wide in disciplinary referrals?

Peaceable School Violations

  Problem Behavior Definition

PSV 1Abusive Language/Inappropriate Language/Profanity

Verbal messages that include swearing, name calling,or use of words in an inappropriate way.

PSV 2 Physical ContactNon-serious, but inappropriate physical contact (e.g., pinching, poking, tapping or poking with objects.

PSV 3 Non-compliance Brief or low-intensity failure to respond to adult requests.

PSV 4Defiance/Disrespect/Insubordination

Refusal to follow directions, talking back and/or socially rude interactions.

PSV 5 Minor Disruption Low-intensity, but inappropriate disruption.

PSV 6 Major DisruptionBehavior causing an interruption in a class or activity. Disruption includes sustained loud talk, yelling, or screaming; noise with materials; horseplay or roughhousing; and/or sustained out-of-seat behavior.

PSV 7 Property misuseLow-intensity misuse of property (e.g., writing on desk, pencil fighting, tearing or writing in textbook).

PSV 8 LitteringPurposefully leaving litter/trash within the schoolor on school grounds.

PSV 9 Harassment Low-intensity, inappropriate physical, verbal, and/or sexual harassment

PSV 10Lying/Cheating Academically

Student delivers message that is untrueand/or deliberately violates rules.

Springville PSVs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Springville Disorderly Conduct ODRs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Aug

. 02

Aug

. 03

Aug

. 04

Sep

. 02

Sep

. 03

Sep

. 04

Oct

. 02

Oct

. 03

Oct

. 04

Nov

. 02

Nov

. 03

Nov

. 04

Dec

. 02

Dec

. 03

Dec

. 04

Jan.

03

Jan.

04

Jan.

05

Feb.

03

Feb.

04

Feb.

05

Payson PSVs

0

50

100

150

200

Payson Disorderly Conduct ODRs

020406080

100120140160180

Discussion

• Data analysis is preliminary• Larger samples are needed to make a

more conclusive analysis• On the basis of the current sample, the

SSBD appears to identify students with externalizing behaviors with greater certainty than internalizing behaviors

• If the scores for the measures have a reasonable correlation, using only SSBD stage 1 or both SSBD stage 1 and 2 is probably the most efficient and valid means of screening at the secondary level.

Student Responses to the Peaceable Schools Model

“I learned to realize when I’m doing something wrong”

“My grades really improved because now I care about my life; I don’t fight a lot with my parents anymore; I can control my anger now.”

“I can talk to my teachers, I study more and I get better grades.”

Future Research

• Continued data collection and analysis

• The correlations r = .42 and r = .45 (internalizers) and r = .60 and r = .61 (externalizers) may be impacted by the preliminary sample sizes. Future research will increase sample size; as a result, correlations may be stronger.

• Future Research will consider using direct observational data in a secondary setting to compare with SSBD Stage II scores