Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | callum-brooks |
View: | 52 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Universal Screening: A Look at Behavior Screening Tools in Tiered Systems of Support
Chicago, October 29, 2014
Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., BCBA-D, University of Kansas
Lisa Powers, Ph.D., St. Louis Special School District
Wendy Peia Oakes, Ph.D. Arizona State University
Agenda
• Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention
• The Importance of Systematic Screening• Using Screening Data ...
– implications for primary prevention efforts– implications for teachers– implications for student-based interventions at
Tier 2 and Tier 3
• Directions and Experiences from the Field
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk
Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral Social
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3)
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
≈
≈
≈
PBIS Framework
Validated Curricula
Lane & Oakes
Goal: Reduce HarmSpecialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk
Primary Intervention PlanStatement
Purpose Statement
School-Wide Expectations
1. 2. 3. *see Expectation Matrix
Area I: AcademicsResponsibilities
Students will:
Area II: BehaviorResponsibilities
Students will:
Area III: Social Skills Responsibilities
Students will:
Faculty and Staff will: Faculty and Staff will: Faculty and Staff will:
Parents will: Parents will: Parents will:
Administrators will: Administrators will: Administrators will:
Lane & Oakes 2012
Essential Components of Primary Prevention Efforts
Systematic ScreeningAcademic Behavior
Treatment Integrity
Social Validity
Measure Aug
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March
April May
School Demographics
Student Demographic Information
Screening Measures
SRSS-IE
Student Outcome Measures - Academic
Student Outcome Measures - Behavior
Program Measures
Social Validity - PIRS
Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET)
CI3T Treatment Integrity
Lane & Oakes
See Lane, Menzies, Oakes, and Kalberg (2012)
WHAT SCREENING TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE?
SSBD Screening ProcessPool of Regular Classroom Students
TEACHER SCREENINGon Internalizing and Externalizing
Behavioral Dimensions
3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing
Behavior Criteria
TEACHER RATINGon Critical Events Index and Combined
Frequency Index
Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI
DIRECT OBSERVATIONof 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
(Lane & Oakes, 2012)
Externalizing
1.44%
Winter 2007
(N=60)
Winter 2008
(N=69)
Winter 2009
(N=66)
Winter 2007
(N=60)
Winter 2008
(N=69)
Winter 2009
(N=66)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
137 7
1713
6
47 62 5943
56
60
Nominated But Did Not Exceed Criteria
Exceeded Norma-tive Criteria
Screening Time Point
Num
ber
of S
tude
nts
InternalizingExternalizing
6.18% 3.50% 3.18% 8.90% 6.50% 2.73%% computed based on
total # students screened
Source. Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 20120. Figure 2.2 WES Elementary Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) results comparing the percentage of students nominated and exceeding normative criteria for both
externalizing and internalizing behavior disorders over a three year period.
SSBD Results – Winter 2007 through Winter 2009Risk Status of Nominated Students
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 categoriesLow 0 – 3Moderate 4 – 8High 9 – 21 (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994)
Lane & Oakes
Student Risk Screening ScaleMiddle School Fall 2004 - Fall 2011
Fall Screeners
n = 12
n = 20
n = 507
Per
cent
age
of S
tude
nts
N=534
N=502
N=454
N=476
N=477
N=470
N=524
N= 539
Lane & Oakes
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, HM=H
Course Failures 0.68 (1.50)
2.78 (3.46)
4.17 (3.49)
L<M, HM=H
SAMPLE DATA: SRSSMiddle School Study 1: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups
(Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007)
Lane & Oakes
Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, & SRSS-IE12 with the SSBDTarget as Measured by the SSBD
Student Condition According to the
SSBD
SRSS-IE Comparison
ROC
With Condition
N
Without the
Condition N
Area Under
the Curve (AUC)
Internalizing 21 1026 SRSS-I5 .849 SRSS-IE12 .818 Externalizing 51 1026 SRSS-E7 .952 SRSS-IE12 .921
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.
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.
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IETEACHER 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
(Lane, Oakes, Harris, Menzies, Cox, & Lambert, 2012)
Original SRSS-IE 1412 items retained for use at the elementary level14 items under development in middle and high schools
How do we score and interpret the SRSS-IE at the Elementary Level?
1. All scores will be automatically calculated.
2. SRSS scores are the sum of items 1 – 7 (range 0 – 21)
3. Internalizing scores are the sum of items 8-12 (range 0-15)
EXAMINING YOUR SCREENING DATA …
… implications for primary prevention efforts
… implications for teachers
… implications for student-based interventions
See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening GuideSpring 2012 – Total School
Reading Skills Math Skills Prosocial Behavior
Motivation to Learn
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
43.35 47.96 56.1255.42
45.60 47.55 36.73 38.24
11.04 4.49 7.14 6.34Adequate progress Moderate DifficultiesSignificant Difficulties
Subscales
Perc
ent
of
Stu
dents
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
Student Risk Screening ScaleMiddle School Fall 2004 - Fall 2011
Fall Screeners
n = 12
n = 20
n = 507
Per
cent
age
of S
tude
nts
N=534
N=502
N=454
N=476
N=477
N=470
N=524
N= 539
Lane & Oakes
EXAMINING YOUR SCREENING DATA …
… implications for primary prevention efforts
… implications for teachers
… implications for student-based interventions
See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
Examining Academic and Behavioral Data Elementary Level
Examining Academic and Behavioral Data Middle and High School Levels
Comprehensive, Integrative,Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Support
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Basic Classroom ManagementEffective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring
- -Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assessment
Low-Intensity Strategies for Academics and Behavior
Active Supervision
ProximityPacing
Appropriate use of Praise
Opportunities to Respond
Instructive Feedback
Incorporating Choice
Self-AssessmentHow am I doing with … basic classroom management strategies? Instructional considerations? Low-intensity strategies?
Consider a book study … Build school site capacity
Active Supervisio
n
Behavior Specific Praise
Increased OTRs
Choice
EXAMINING YOUR SCREENING DATA …
… implications for primary prevention efforts
… implications for teachers
… implications for student-based interventions
See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
Goal: Reduce HarmSpecialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk
Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral Social
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3)
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
≈
≈
≈
PBIS Framework
Validated Curricula
Comprehensive, Integrative,Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Support
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Basic Classroom ManagementEffective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring
- -Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assessment
BASC2 – Behavior and Emotional Screening ScaleSpring 2012
Total Sixth Seventh Eighth0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
85.42 87.67 82.18 86.21
10.74 8.68 12.38 11.33
3.85 3.65 5.45 2.46Normal Elevated Extremely Elevated
Subgroup
Perc
en
t of
Stu
den
ts
N = 24
N = 67
N = 533
N = 624 n = 219 n = 202 n = 203
A Step-by-Step ProcessStep 1: Construct your assessment schedule
Step 2: Identify your secondary supportsExisting and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteriaNomination, academic failure, behavior screening scores,
attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measuresPre- and posttests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteriaReduction of discipline contacts, academic success, reduction of
truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
Intervention Grids
Procedures for Monitoring: Assessment Schedule
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
School Demographics
Student Demographics X X X X X X X X X X
Student Outcome Academic Measures
Benchmarking - AIMSweb X X X
Report Card Course Failures X X X X
Student Outcome Behavior Measures
Screener - SRSS X X X
Discipline: ODR X X X X
Attendance (Tardies/ Unexcused Absences) X X X
Referrals
SPED and Support-TEAM X X X
Program Measures
Social Validity (PIRS) X X X
Schoolwide Evaluation Tool X
CI3T Treatment Integrity X
Looking at Data …Expanding Your Tool Kit
• What data do you already collect?
• What are the cut scores for each screening tool?
• Remember … It is a just a screener.
Examining Academic and Behavioral Data Elementary Level
Sample Secondary Intervention GridSuppor
tDescription
Schoolwide Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria
Behavior Contract
A written agreement between two parties used to specify the contingent relationship between the completion of a behavior and access to or delivery of a specific reward. Contract may involve administrator, teacher, parent, and student.
Behavior: SRSS - mod to high riskAcademic: 2 or more missing assignments with in a grading period
Work completion, or other behavior addressed in contractTreatment IntegritySocial Validity
Successful Completion of behavior contract
Self-monitoring
Students will monitor and record their academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on-task behavior each day.
Students who score in the abnormal range for H and CP on the SDQ; course failure or at risk on CBM
Work completion and accuracy in the academic area of concern; passing gradesTreatment IntegritySocial Validity
Passing grade on the report card in the academic area of concern
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies (2009). pp. 131 - 137, Boxes 6.1 - 6.4
Goal: Reduce HarmSpecialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk
Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral Social
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3)
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
≈
≈
≈
PBIS Framework
Validated Curricula
Comprehensive, Integrative,Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Support
Assess, Design, Implement, andEvaluate
Basic Classroom ManagementEffective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring
- -Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assessment
Changes in Harry’s Behavior
4/27 4/28 4/29 4/30 5/5 5/10 5/13 5/14 5/17 5/18 5/19 5/20 5/21 5/24 5/25 5/26 5/27 5/280
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Date of Session
Per
cen
tage
of
AE
T
Baseline 1 Baseline 2
Intervention 2
Intervention 1
Cox, M., Griffin, M. M., Hall, R., Oakes, W. P., & Lane, K. L. (2012). Using a functional assessment-based intervention to increase academic engaged time in an inclusive middle school setting. Beyond Behavior, 2, 44 – 54.
A LOOK TO THE FIELD…
A Statewide Partnership
The University of Kansas
Professional Development Learning Center
STL CI3T Training 2014-2015 - 41
LPSD MS HS CI3T Training 2014-2015 - 42
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk
Goal: Prevent HarmSchool/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral 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 HarmSpecialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk
Positive
Action
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
St. Louis CI3T Training
CI3T Training Series
1:Two-Hour After School
2: Full Day
3:Two-HourAfter School
4: Full Day 5:Two-HourAfter School
6: Full Day 0
11/13/14 12/12/14 1/14/15 2/25/15 4/7/15
5/6/15
Your school has selected a TEAM to attend the training this year. Only they are asked to attend.
STL CI3T Training 2014-2015 - 4
Session 1: 2 hr
MTSS: CI3T
Model: An
Overview
Session 2: full day
Building the Prima
ry Prevention Plan
Session 3: 2 hr
How to
Monitor the Plan
Session 4: Full Day
Building
Tier 2 Suppo
rts
Session 5: 2 hr
Building
Tier 3 Suppo
rts
Session 6: Full Day
Prepare to Implement
HW
Share Screeners; Complete Assessment Schedule
HW
HW
Share revised MTSS: CI3T plan; Complete MTSS: CI3T Feedback Form
HW
STL CI3T Training 2014-2015 - 5
To contribute important information to your school’s TEAM as they attend training and develop
your school’s CI3T Plan___________________________________
We invite your participation….
Specifically, TODAY– SESSS: Schoolwide Expectations
Survey for Specific Settings. Share your opinions about student behaviorsimportant for success at your school (15 min)
– Demo: Tell us about yourself – Complete the brief confidential demographic information form (5 min)
STL CI3T Training 2014-2015 - 45
And….• Provide your opinion on the developing plan in
the SPRING– Primary Intervention Rating Scale (10 min)
Complete a confidential survey giving your opinions on the first complete draft of the plan
– Comprehensive Three-Tiered Prevention Plan Feedback form (10 min)
Complete a short feedback form on the revised and completed CI3T Plan
**You will receive e-mail links to these surveys**STL CI3T Training 2014-2015 -
46
CI3T: Ticket Examples
CI3T: Prima
ry Prevention
Session 1: Overview of CI3T Prevention ModelsSetting a PurposeEstablish team meetings and rolesSession 2:Mission and PurposeEstablish Roles and ResponsibilitiesProcedures for TeachingProcedures for ReinforcingReactive PlanSession 3:Procedures for MonitoringSession 4: Revise Primary Plan using Stakeholder feedbackPrepare presentation
CI3T: Secon
dary Prevention
Session 5:Overview of Teacher focused StrategiesOverview of Student Focused StrategiesUsing data to determineDraft the Secondary Intervention Grid based on existing supports
CI3T: Tertia
ry Prevention
Session 6:Final revisions of CI3T Plan based on stakeholder feedbackDraft Tertiary Prevention Intervention GridsDesign Implementation Manual and Plan for roll out to faculty, students, and parents
MTSS: CI3T Training Series
Additional Professional
Development on Specific Topics
Core Content Curriculum
Teacher Drive Supports: Instructional Techniques to Improve Students’ Motivation; General Classroom Management
Practices; Low Intensity Behavior Supports
Functional Assessment-based Interventions
Reading, Math, Writing Benchmarking and
Progress Monitoring Tools
Student Driven Interventions, Strategies, &
Practices
Check In - Check Out
Additional Tier 3 Supports
CI3
T T
eam
Tra
inin
g S
eque
nce
Implementation
Stages of Tier 2
and 3 within CI3T
Behavior Screening
Tools
Using School-wide
Data to Identify
Students for Tier 2 and
Tier 3 Supports
Using Instructional Techniques to Improve Students'
Motivation
Using Simple Strategies to
Improve Classroom Behavior
Using Self-Monitoring
Strategies to Improve
Academic Performance
Professional Development: A Collaborative Effort to Empower Public School Systems
Project Empower
September 12
October 7
November 21
January 30
March 5
Five 2-hour sessions held after school: 5-7pm
www.ksdetasn.org (Go to Calendar and Search Project Empower)
Recommendationsto Consider
Recommendation #1: Build Stakeholders’ Expertise
Recommendation #2: Develop the Structures to Sustain and Improve Practices
Recommendation #3: Conduct Screenings in a Responsible Fashion
Recommendation #4: Consider Legal Implications- know your state laws
(Lane & Oakes, 2012)
Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention: Step by Step Guide (2014). A special issue of Preventing School Failure.
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vpsf20/current#.U4zbm6ROVD8
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Recommended Resources
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Bruhn, A.L., & Crnobori, M. (2011). Managing Challenging Behaviors in Schools: Research-Based Strategies That Work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R. & Menzies, H. M. (2009). Developing Schoolwide Programs to Prevent and Manage Problem Behaviors: A Step-by-Step Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Recommended Resources