School Psychology Consultation, Teacher Efficacy, and Student … · 2017-02-05 · SCHOOL...

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION 2

1 Brisbane School District, 2 Holy Names University, 3Oakland Unified School District, 4Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, and Harvard

Medical School, 5 University of California, San Francisco *Previously known as Collaborative Problem Solving

School Psychology Consultation, Teacher Efficacy, and Student Social-

Behavioral Change

Sally Payson Hays, Ph.D.1, Katherine Kosmos Ed.M., Ed.S.2, Valerie Lopes. Ph.D.3, Ross

Greene, Ph.D.4, Elizabeth Ozer, Ph.D.5

ABSTRACT

This study evaluated a 12-week school-based school-psychologist/teacher

consultation program implemented at twelve schools in the Oakland Unified

School District over a period of three years. Following the Collaborative

Proactive Solutions (CPS)* model (Greene, 2016) this program targeted dyadic

teacher-student relationships through psychologist case consultation as a method

for improving teacher efficacy in addressing the needs of students, and improving

students’ social-behavioral functioning. Pre-post outcomes were compared with

1) a treatment as usual group in which teachers participated in no intervention and

school psychologists taught students social skills in a pull-out program using a

cognitive-behavioral curriculum, and 2) a control group where neither students

nor teachers participated in any intervention. Statistical analyses indicate that both

students and teachers who participated in the CPS program demonstrated more

positive changes on outcome measures when compared with those who were in

treatment as usual or received no intervention. Teacher outcomes indicated

significantly greater improvement in teacher efficacy for teachers in CPS than the

comparison program and controls, and teachers whose students received no

treatment demonstrated a decrease in teacher efficacy. Teacher ratings on the

Behavior Scale for Children-2nd Edition (BASC-2) indicated improved outcomes

regarding student social-emotional functioning for both greater symptom

reduction and increased skills, and statistically significant improvements for

students rated in the high-risk range prior to treatment. Finally, positive changes

for teachers implementing CPS were significantly related to improved student

outcomes, whereas changes in teacher efficacy for participants in the comparison

program and control group were not related to changes in student functioning.


Introduction

In an effort to help teachers work more effectively social-behavioral challenges, the

Psychological Services Department in Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) implemented a

Collaborative Proactive Solutions (CPS) program during three consecutive school years (2011-

2015) at twelve school sites across the district. Developed by Dr. Ross Greene, the CPS

program in OUSD was implemented through weekly school psychologist-teacher consultation

over a period of twelve weeks. Primary objectives of the program were to support teachers’

abilities to effectively understand and address the challenging social and emotional behaviors of

students still enrolled in regular education and to alter teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy

as educators. The overall goal was to increase teacher efficacy and as a result reduce negative

student behaviors and symptoms, and improve positive adaptive behavior (as measured by the

teacher form of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition, BASC-2), with the

ultimate goal of reducing student referrals for special education, behavior intervention services,

and disciplinary action.

Collaborative Proactive Solutions: Dr. Greene developed the Collaborative Proactive

Solutions (CPS) model to address limitations of behavioral systems of reward and punishment in

modifying behaviors of children who present with impulsive, explosive, inattentive, oppositional

and defiant behaviors (2004, 2008, 2011, 2016). A central premise of the CPS model is that these

behaviors are a function of a child‘s lagging developmental skills outstripped by situational

demands (2016). Greene cites 30 years of research which demonstrates that students who exhibit

challenging behaviors lack essential skills in the broad domains of flexibility/adaptability,

problem solving, and frustration tolerance (2004, 2008, 2011, 2016). The premise that

behaviorally unsuccessful students suffer from deficits in cognitive and social functioning is


supported by the research regarding school-based interventions that target students’ social-

emotional competencies (Barrett, 1998; Bernard, 2006; Franklin, Moore, and Hopson, 2008;

Gerrity and DeLucia-Waack, 2010; Ghafoori and Tracz, 2001; Macklem, 2011). CPS is a

transactional model of adult-child interaction that removes conflict resolution from a power

struggle in which adults either impose unilateral adult-driven goals upon children (what Greene

describes as Plan A) or give way to child-driven goals (Plan C). Instead, Collaborative Proactive

Solutions provides adults and children an alternative approach to problem solving where they

collaboratively create a mutually agreed upon solution (Plan B) that incorporates the goals of

both children and adults equally (Greene, 2004, 2008). Through the process of successful

problem-solving, adults both model how to use social-behavioral skills, and support children in

developing skills further.

Teacher Efficacy: According to Bandura, personal self-efficacy plays a central role in

determining behavior across diverse domains. Perceived self-efficacy refers to a belief in one’s

capacity to organize and execute specific courses of action and is a strong predictor of behavior,

as people tend to avoid activities that they believe they cannot carry out, and engage in activities

that they judge themselves capable of handling (Ozer and Bandura, 1990; Bandura, 1997).

Support for focusing interventions at the teacher level can be found in the research on perceived

teacher-efficacy, especially in how it relates to teacher willingness to maintain students with

social-behavioral challenges in regular education settings rather than referring them for more

restrictive environments. Well-established research indicates that teachers' perceived self-

efficacy is a factor in higher referral rates for both disciplinary action and special education

services (Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993, 1996; Meijer, & Foster, 1988;

Maniadaki, 2006; Tejada-Delgado, 2009). Some researchers have found direct correlations


between referral rates and teacher efficacy—with the more efficacious less likely to refer

students both for discipline and special education evaluation (Meijer and Foster, 1988; Soodak &

Podell, 1993; Egyed and Short, 2006). Maniadaki (2006) found evidence that referral rates for

assessment of ADHD related strongly to teacher-efficacy, especially for male students. Brownell

& Pajares (1996) found that teacher efficacy has a strong influence on teacher’s willingness to

work with behaviorally challenging and learning disabled students as well as on the subsequent

perceived success of those students (both by teachers and the students themselves). Soodak &

Podell (1996) found that when teachers view students’ emotional states as factors beyond their

control, that they may not feel equipped to address student social emotional difficulties

regardless of whether or not this is true. According to Soodak & Podell, this sense of

powerlessness may lead regular education teachers to refer children (to resource specialists,

behaviorists, or school psychologists) because they do not feel equipped to address student

social-behavioral needs.

Consultation Model: The model for implementation was based on research regarding the

locus of intervention (teacher-focused versus student-focused), as well as models of delivery for

teacher training (Domitrovich, Bradshaw, Poduska, Hoagwood, Buckley, Olin, and Romanelli,

2008; Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009), and the role of school psychologists as

behavioral consultants in schools (Caplan and Caplan, 1993, 1999; Meyers, 1995; Erchul and

Martens, 2002). According to psychologists who advocate the use of consultation, teacher-

focused interventions have potential to address a variety of student academic and social

behavioral issues at both a primary and secondary prevention level that maximizes school

resources. School psychologists long have provided secondary and tertiary prevention via direct

pull-out services to address social-emotional needs of students, including: psycho-education,


social skills training, individual counseling, and group counseling (Domitrovich, et al., 2008;

Macklem, 2011). Historically in OUSD, if psychological services were provided to address

social-behavioral issues, these primarily consisted of pull-out one-on-one counseling and more

often group therapy with a social-skills focus. By their very nature, direct pull-out services such

as these are not only expensive, but they reach a limited number of students, and must be

replicated continually as students graduate and new students enroll. Moreover, students may not

transfer to the classroom skills which are taught in social skills training. Finally, if student

behavior problems arise not only from student skill deficits but from teacher lack of training in

responding to such deficits, focus on the student portion of the equation addresses only half of

the problem.

Since school psychologists are not in direct contact with the majority of students in any

given school, and it is prohibitively costly to design interventions that rely solely on

psychologists to pull out and “fix” problem students, the consultation model was developed to

enable psychologists to have a maximum impact by supporting faculty in their work with

students (Caplan and Caplan, 1993). In a multiple-role capacity, school psychologists who use

consultation in their practice work collaboratively as individuals and in teams of psychologists

with school staff to address student issues (Erchul and Martens, 2002). The consultation model

presupposes that, in their position at the front-line of public education, teachers have the greatest

impact upon students, even if they may not be experts in psychology or even in behavior. School

psychologists long have provided successful indirect intervention to students by collaborating

with their teachers to enhance their classroom behavior management skills, conducting error and

task-analysis as it relates to student skill level and functioning, and providing support for

student-focused problem-solving (Meyers, 1995; Erchul and Martens, 2002). Therefore, it makes

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Meyers%2C+Joel)


sense to explore which model of service delivery, teacher-targeted versus student-targeted

(historically the treatment as usual at OUSD), is most effective in changing how teachers

perceive their efficacy addressing the psychosocial needs of students, as well as teacher ratings

of students’ social-behavior change.

Studies evaluating teacher referral rates for discipline and special education also support

focusing interventions at the teacher level. In a study of thirty-one Maryland public elementary

schools, Pas, Bradshaw, Hershfeldt, and Leaf (2010) found that after controlling for other

independent factors students in classes with historically high referral rates for discipline in

comparison to students from classes with low referral rates, were significantly more likely to be

referred themselves (Pas, et al., 2010). These findings indicate that teachers play a role in rates of

referral independent of student factors. If, as this research suggests, causes of student

misbehavior are not solely due to student characteristics but are also a product of educator

factors, teacher training may offer one way to improve student social-behavioral functioning and

reduce referral rates for discipline (Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, and Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw,

Buckley, and Ialongo 2008; Caplan, 1993, 1999; Erchul and Marten, 2002; Greene, 2011; Pas,

Bradshaw, and Mitchell, 2011).

Research Hypotheses

The primary hypothesis evaluated in this study is that measurable changes in teacher

efficacy regarding their confidence to successfully address behaviors of challenging students will

differ according to participation in the following: teacher-focused Collaborative Proactive

Solutions; student-focused Treatment as Usual CBT Skills group; and no treatment at all.

A secondary research hypothesis was that the treatment would differentially affect

student social-emotional and behavioral functioning as reflected by pre-post teacher ratings of


students using the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2; Kamphaus, Reynolds,

and Hatcher, 1999). Group difference outcomes were evaluated both for all students, as well as

for a sub-group of those rated by their teachers as demonstrating at-risk, or clinically significant

social-behavioral weaknesses prior to treatment.

Finally, a third hypothesis was that the changes in teacher efficacy according to the

different treatment outcomes would be correlated with changes in student social-emotional and

behavioral functioning.

Program Design

Collaborative Proactive Solutions: Prior to program implementation, ten school

psychologists were trained in CPS by Dr. Ross Greene in a four-day seminar, and two

psychologists joined the program after the first year and were trained in a two-day seminar.

During program implementation, ongoing monthly phone meetings to support program fidelity

were provided to psychologists implementing the program (22 sessions over the course of two

school years, with each psychologist participating in a minimum of 16 sessions with Dr. Greene

(range = 16-20). In these phone sessions, psychologists presented cases and Dr. Greene critiqued

previously recorded and reviewed teacher-student sessions mediated by the psychologist

implementing the training program. Not all psychologists participated in all of the phone

trainings, as some psychologists mastered the intervention sooner than others (according to a

rubric determined by Dr. Greene who has trained hundreds, if not thousands of clinicians in his

approach). Dr. Greene was responsible for monitoring psychologists’ development and

supporting their implementation of CPS with their teachers. By the end of their second year of

participation, all psychologists in the program were considered by Dr. Greene able to provide

CPS intervention in OUSD under his supervision with fidelity. One psychologist participated in


the program only one year, discontinuing participation after year one. Two psychologists joined

the program after the second year of implementation, and one psychologist participated in the

program the first year and the third year taking a leave of absence in between. The rest of

psychologists (N = 9) participated in the program for all three years.

Subsequent to initial training and during ongoing case-consultation and coaching from

Dr. Greene, the participating twelve psychologists recruited 2-5 teachers at their school sites to

participate in weekly groups as a part of ongoing professional development. At all school sites

in OUSD, teachers participate in Professional Communities; CPS was one of the options

provided to teachers at the schools where participating psychologists were working. Participation

on the part of the teachers was voluntary. From psychologists, CPS teachers received a

combination of didactic training followed by case-consultation, and psychologists worked to first

model the program, and then record teachers independently implementing it with targeted

students. The first 4-5 group sessions consisted of school psychologists providing didactic

training regarding the CPS model, presenting student cases using the model, and introducing

tools for assessment and evaluation. Additionally, the teachers read Dr. Greene’s book, Lost at

School (2008). Once teachers became familiar with the model, they applied the CPS techniques

with two or more of their more challenging students meeting as a group for the remaining 7-8

sessions, and with the psychologist and targeted student as the teacher gradually became more

independent using the model. With ongoing support, group discussion, and consultation with the

psychologist (supported simultaneously by Dr. Greene reviewing recorded psychologist coaching

of student-teacher interactions) teachers participated in guided discussions regarding identifying

needs of their students, developing plans for implementing CPS, and ongoing implementation.


Treatment As Usual Skills Groups: In order to support students whose teachers were not

participating in CPS, OUSD Psychological Services provided an equal number of students in the

first year of the program with intervention through Treatment as Usual (TAU) skills groups using

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This pull-out program also spanned 12-weeks and was

conducted by each site’s school psychologist directly with groups of 2-4 students for one hour

per week. Using a highly-scripted curriculum available for use by all psychologists in the

district, psychologists trained TAU skills groups to use emotional self-regulation techniques and

social-behavioral skills as alternatives to acting-out behavior (the most common reason for

discipline referral in the OUSD). This intervention was provided as a part of the repertoire of

support typically provided by psychologists at OUSD. Although both programs focused on

behavioral intervention, redefinition/reframing of problems, and task-specific problem-solving,

the primary difference between CPS and TAU skills groups is the theoretical locus of the

problem and target of intervention: CPS targeted teachers and focused on building dyadic

relationship skills between them and their students; the TAU skills group targeted students’

cognitive-behavioral functioning with a focus on self-soothing, self-understanding, and self-

regulation. The second difference is that CPS is designed to be completely individualized to

specific students, whereas TAU skills group followed a scripted procedure that is the same for all

students. The rationale for implementing these programs simultaneously was to determine the

extent to which perceived teacher-efficacy was affected by participation in a teacher-targeted

approach as opposed to the more standard of care student-targeted intervention traditionally

provided through group social skills training available at OUSD. It should be noted that all of the

participating school psychologists had had training in group therapy as a part of their education

to become school psychologists, and they all rated themselves as capable of providing this


support prior to program participation. After the first year pilot analysis indicating that the TAU

skills groups were not as effective as CPS in affecting both teacher efficacy and student

outcomes (along with a greater teacher demand for CPS) , it was decided to discontinue the TAU

skills groups after the first year of implementation.

Control Group: A smaller number of students and teachers were recruited as controls for

pre- and post- evaluation only. These students were provided the standard of care for children

with social-behavioral difficulties which could include individual counseling (not provided by

the school psychologist), behavior support, or after school tutoring dependent upon what was

available at the site. No specific consultation or support was attempted by the school

psychologist to support teachers in addressing the needs of these students. A portion of control

students functioned as a wait-list and participated the following year in CPS subsequent to

involvement as control subjects (N= 7).

Methods

Participants:

Over the three-year period of the study, one hundred and forty-five children and seventy-

two teachers were enrolled in the CPS study at twelve schools. At nine of these twelve schools,

during year one of the study, sixty-one students were also enrolled in Treatment as Usual (TAU)

group skills training led by the same psychologist implementing CPS. Twenty-eight teachers

participated in the pre-post BASC-2 evaluation of the skills group students. Thirty-nine control

students and twenty-five teachers were recruited for pre- and post- evaluation only, 45% of them

as waitlist controls, and the remaining 55% recruited via Student Study Teams or teacher

referral. While teachers frequently participated in the training over more than one school year,

and participated in group case-consultation with more new students using the CPS model,


teachers and the students with whom they worked were only evaluated as a part of this study

during their first year of participating in the program (with the exception of the waitlist control

students who were evaluated during a previous year before participating in CPS, N=7).

Two hundred and forty-five students (K-12), 125 teachers, and 12 psychologists

participated in the study at twelve different school sites. Attrition was low (1 psychologist, 7

teachers; 6 students), most often due to the transience of student participants leaving one school

for another or departing the district altogether (N = 5). At all sites, teachers were recruited

through self-selection. Student participants were recruited through: 1) a school-wide screening

for social-emotional functioning—scoring in the elevated or significantly elevated range for

social-emotional problems on the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS) an

abbreviated form of the BASC-2 self-report (Kamphaus and Reynolds, 2007); or 2) through

existing standard systems in place at school sites for obtaining extra support for social-behavioral

difficulties (e.g., Student Study Teams, referral from parents, teachers, and other school staff).

Prior to treatment, two hundred and five students (84%) in the study were rated in the At-Risk or

Clinically Significant range on one or more BASC-2 composite scale.

Grade, Ethnicity, and Gender: The greatest proportion of student participants were

enrolled in the elementary grades (average grade 3.5, N = 198 or 81%). The majority (85%) of

student participants were African American (N=154) or Hispanic (N=54). Thirty-two percent of

student participants were female (N=79), and sixty-eight percent were male (N=166). The

student sample consisted of a greater proportion of children of color and males than the ratio of

students in the Oakland Unified School District as a whole; but is consistent with the target

population of students in the district who are identified disproportionally for Emotional

Disturbance and discipline problems (Kosmos, 2011; Urban Strategies Council, 2012).


Instruments

Teacher Measures

A 53-item online survey was created to assess teacher efficacy using items from the

following: 25 items from the long version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES

Tschannen-Moran, and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001); and 28 items from the Social-Behavioral Teacher

Efficacy Scale (SBTES) developed for this project. Items were worded to ask teachers to rate

their level of confidence regarding specific tasks (e.g. How confident are you that you can

improve the understanding of a student who is failing), as well as their ability to influence their

students to improve skills deficits (e.g. How confident are you that you can influence your

student to improve his or her sense of time?). Teachers responded to these items by rating their

level of confidence on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from Not at all Confident to Completely

Confident. Both the TSES and the SBTES were used to evaluate teacher outcomes.

The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale: Widely used in other school districts, the Teacher

Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) has demonstrated a correlation between low teacher efficacy and

poor student outcomes. It is composed of three factors that can be sub-categorized into the

following teacher efficacy sub-scales: Instructional Practices, Classroom Management, and

Student Engagement (e.g. How confident are you that you can motivate students who show little

interest in school work? (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001).

The Social-Behavioral Teacher Efficacy Scale: Despite being quite comprehensive, the

TSES is missing a key component that the CPS model specifically targets: teacher-efficacy

regarding students’ social-behavioral functioning, particularly with challenging students. This

potential gap led to development of the Social Behavior Teacher Efficacy Scale (SBTES) by


combining evaluation methodology of existing measures (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy,

2001; Henson, 2002; Bandura, 2006) and adapting the diagnostic tool Assessment of Lagging

Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP, Greene, 2008, 2016) used in the CPS program to target

specific skills deficits for intervention. The SBTES is adapted from the ALSUP by rewording

items to ask teachers to rate their level of confidence regarding their ability to influence their

students to improve social-behavioral skill deficits (e.g., How confident are you that you can

influence your student to reduce inflexible interpretations, cognitive distortions and biases?).

Items are designed to tap into student deficits typically leading to challenging behavior including

weaknesses in executive functioning, language-processing, emotion regulation, cognitive

flexibility, and social skills (Greene, 2006, 2008; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, and Kenworthy 2000;

Kamphaus, et al. 1999). Using pre-treatment data only, the SBTES was analyzed for reliability

(Cronbach’s Alpha .979) and factor analysis to determine sub-scales, as well as content validity

to determine if the measure and its sub-scales assess what it is designed to evaluate. The 28

items in the SBTES were first submitted to principal-axis factoring with varimax rotation.

Correlations between items were examined, as were factor loadings in order to determine which

items could be collapsed, eliminated, or reworded to make the measure simpler and more user-

friendly. Three factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one, accounting for 90.4% of the

variance in the respondents’ scores. Rotation converged after 11 iterations, so the rotated factor

matrix was examined. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 11.1 and accounted for 39.8% of the

variance in respondents’ scores. The second factor had an eigenvalue of 7.1 and accounted for

25.2% of the variance in respondents’ scores. The third factor had an eigenvalue of 5.6 and

accounted for 19.9% of the variance in respondents’ scores. Sub-scale reliability was run and all


three factors remain highly reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha ranging from .979-.988). Intercorrelations

were conducted and all three sub-factors were highly correlated (p<.001).

Five school psychologists were asked independently to name these three factors in the

SBTES. All were in agreement that these factors should be titled: Flexibility/Social Skills,

Communication/Emotional Regulation, and Executive Functioning. These sub-scales

conceptually reflect the theory of the CPS model and lagging skills the model is designed to

target.

Content Validity: In order to examine the relationship between the SBTES and student

social-emotional and behavioral functioning, correlations were conducted pre-treatment to

determine the relationship of teacher efficacy scores at the full-scale and sub-scale level with

student T-scores on the BASC-2. Correlations were examined first with all subjects, and then

with students whose T-scores were in the at-risk or clinically significant range on the BASC-2,

and their teachers (N=125 teachers, 245 students). The content validity of the SBTES was

examined by conducting correlations between teacher efficacy and teacher ratings of students’

social behavioral functioning on the BASC-2. These correlations compared BASC-2 Composite

scale T-scores (Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, Behavioral Symptoms, School

Problems, and Adaptive Skills) to both full-scale and sub-scale scores on both teacher efficacy

measures to determine if the SBTES related more strongly to student social behavioral outcomes

than the well-established TSES. Results indicated that higher full-scale scores for teacher

efficacy on both the TSES and SBTES were related to lower student scores for Behavioral

Symptoms (p<.01). However, higher scores only on the SBTES were negatively correlated to

lower T-scores for Externalizing Problems (p<.01) and Internalizing Problems (p<.05). At the

sub-scale level, higher scores for teacher efficacy on all three of the SBTES sub-scales, and all


three of the TSES sub-scales correlated significantly to lower T-scores for Behavioral Symptoms

(p<.01). None of the TSES sub-scales correlated to teacher ratings of students for any of the

other BASC-2 Composite T-scores. In contrast, higher scores on all three of the SBTES sub-

scales were negatively correlated to lower T-scores for Internalizing Problems and (p<.05).

Further, higher scores for Communication/ Emotional Regulation and Executive Function on the

SBTES were also negatively correlated to lower T-scores for Externalizing Problems (p<.05).

Finally, higher scores for Executive Functioning and Flexibility/Social Skills on the SBTES were

positively correlated to higher T-scores for Adaptive Skills (p<.05).

Student Measure

The teacher report of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-

2, Kamphaus, et al. 1999) was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on the social-behavioral

functioning of student participants. The BASC-2 is one of the most commonly used standardized

and reliable instruments for assessing social and mental health functioning of students. The

teacher report form consists of 139-items that requires teachers to rate the frequency of certain

student behaviors observed at school on a 4-point Likert scale (Never, Sometimes, Often,

Always). Items correspond to negative clinical scales (Aggression, Hyperactivity, Conduct

Problems, Attention Problems, Learning Problems, Anxiety, Depression, Somatization,

Atypicality and Withdrawal) as well as positive adaptive capabilities (Adaptability, Social Skills,

Leadership, Study Skills, Functional Communication). Items for each scale are computer

summed from which T-scores are derived. The scores of scales are then combined to generate

four negative composite indices. Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, School

Problems, and Behavioral Symptoms; whereas the Adaptive Skills composite reflects student

strengths. Derived T-scores represent a continuous scale with cut-off scores for clinical severity


on the negative problem composites categorized as follows: Normal = 25-59; At-Risk = 60-69,

and Clinically Significant >70. For Adaptive Skills the T-score cut-offs for clinical severity are:

Normal >40; At-Risk = 30-39, and Clinically Significant <30 = (Kamphaus, et al. 1999).

Data Collection

Data was collected prior to program implementation and post-program implementation,

approximately 12 weeks later. Control data was collected either via a waitlist (with students

participating one year after having been assessed as a control the year before), or as a

comparison group. Control data was also collected for pre-post comparison over a period of

approximately 12 weeks.

Data Analysis:

Pre-treatment group comparisons: No significant group differences were noted for pre-

treatment teacher efficacy scores when all teachers in the study were compared year by year, as

well as when they were broken into treatment groups, and compared according to pre-program

teacher efficacy scores. Multivariate Analysis was conducted correcting for multiple analyses by

using a higher level of significance to diminish the possibility of a type 1 error (p < .01). No

significant group differences in student scores pre-program were noted for student ethnicity;

gender; or grade. Level of high-risk for social behavioral problems prior to program participation

was determined by teachers rating students in the at-risk or clinically significant range on at least

one BASC-2 Composite scale on the intake evaluation. 84% of students in the study were rated

in the high risk range prior to intervention, a statistic that was not significantly affected by study

year, and was consistent across all program groups. No significant differences between groups

were noted prior to participation for either the sum of significant composite scores or for the


percentage of students rated at-risk. Due a lack of significance between pre-treatment groups of

both students and teachers, it was decided analyze all data together regardless of treatment year.

Post-treatment group comparisons: MANCOVA was run to assess the impact of

treatment on teacher efficacy and student outcomes at both the composite and scale level Teacher

covariate was year of participation, and student covariates were ethnicity, grade, year of

participation, gender, and the sum of significant composite scores prior to intervention (e.g. high-

risk students). The number of student participants was significantly different across groups. T-

tests of program numbers indicated significant differences between the larger CPS sample,

(Teacher N = 72; Student N = 145) and the comparison groups as well as between the smaller

number of participants in the TAU Skills Group (Teacher N= 28; Student N = 61) and Controls

(Teacher N= 25; Student N = 39).

Because the Box M analysis for the teachers was not significant, but it was significant for

student outcomes (likely due to a larger N of CPS student participants compared to the smaller

comparison TAU Skills, and Control groups) in order to diminish the risk of a type 1 error,

Multivariate Analyses used different tests to establish significance for teachers (Wilks’ Λ) versus

students (Pillai’s Trace). Correlations between student outcomes and teacher outcomes were

obtained by first determining a mean change score for each teacher for all their students (this was

done because some teachers worked with two or more students, and other teachers, only one, and

it was considered important not to skew the results by having some teacher efficacy scores

matter more than others—especially those who may have more experience because they worked

with more students. While this tactic may have depressed significance, it was considered

preferable to the likelihood of a type 1 error).


Results

Post-treatment Analysis of Teacher Efficacy: Outcomes indicate significant program

impact on teacher efficacy according to both teacher efficacy scales even when controlling for

treatment year. There was a statistically significant difference in Teacher Efficacy based on

Program, F (12, 202) = 2.645, p < .05; Wilk's Λ = 0.747, partial η2 = .136, but not study year,

with power above .97. (Note: power in MANCOVA is essentially equivalent of effect size, with

closer to 1.0 stronger indication that the independent variable is having an impact on the

dependent variable). Between-Subjects Effects indicate that for all teacher efficacy variables,

significant group differences were noted regarding pre-post treatment changes (p ≤ .01) after

controlling for participation year, with power for all variables greater than .9. Further post-hoc

Bonferoni analysis of the change in teacher efficacy indicates group differences are evident for

CPS teachers in comparison to the Treatment as Usual Skills Group and Controls (p ≤ .002) with

effect sizes medium to strong (.45-.63), but that changes in teacher efficacy of TAU Skills Group

teachers and Control teachers were not significantly different from each other.

Within-subject changes in Teacher Efficacy analyzed via paired T-tests indicated that

CPS teachers demonstrated significant positive changes on both measures and for all subscales.

Neither the TAU Skills Group, nor controls demonstrated significant changes in teacher efficacy

as assessed by either measure. Shown in Table 2 are pre-post Teacher efficacy scores and within

subject change significance.

Post-treatment Analysis of Student Outcomes: A one-way MANCOVA revealed no

significant main effects based on program for ethnicity, year of participation, grade, or gender;

however, a statistically significant difference was noted in student outcomes based on program

for high-risk students, F (5, 200) = 9.246,p < .000; Pillai’s Trace = .188, partial η2 = .188. This


outcome indicates that 36.6% of the variance of the dependent variables for high-risk students is

accounted for by the differences between groups. Power to detect the effect was 1.0. Thus, while

the hypothesis that treatment program had an impact on teacher ratings of student social-

behavioral change was not confirmed for all student participants, when students at high-risk for

social-behavioral problems prior to intervention were assessed, the type of program appears to

have had a significant impact on student outcomes.

Given the significance of the overall test for high-risk students only, the univariate main

effects were examined further. Univariate main effects for program differences with the

covariate sum of significant composite scores were found at p < .01 for four of the five

composite scores: Externalizing Problems (F (1, 86) = 17.67; p < .001; partial η2 = .080, power

.987); School Problems (F (1, 55) = 25.66; p < .001; partial η2 = .112, power .999); Behavorial

Symptoms (F (1, 73) = 26.33; p < .001; partial η2 = .115, power .999); and Adaptive Skills (F (1,

43) = 11.15; p < .01; partial η2 = .052, power .941); but not on Internalizing Problems (F (1, 252)

= .82; p = .38; partial η2 = .004, power .147).

Within Subject Changes, All students: Looking further at within-subject changes for pre-

post outcomes it appears that while group differences for all students did not reach significance,

the trend for within-subjects changes is similar to those students rated high-risk prior to

intervention, and are therefore worth noting. Only CPS students demonstrated significant

positive within-subject changes with decreases in School Problems (p < .01) and Behavioral

Symptoms (p < .05) and improvement in Adaptive Skills (p < .01). These changes were greater

for high-risk CPS students with larger decreases in Externalizing Problems (p < .01), School

Problems (p < .01) and Behavioral Symptoms (p < .01) and greater improvement in Adaptive

Functioning (p < .01), despite a smaller N (15% fewer students). In contrast, TAU Skills group


students as a whole demonstrated a significant change in composite scores only for increased

Behavioral Symptoms (p < .05), and at the scale level for significantly increased Conduct

Problems (p < .05), Depression (p < .01), and Withdrawal (p < .01). Control students overall at

the scale level demonstrated significant increased Anxiety (p < .05), and decreased Social Skills

(p < .01) and Leadership (p < .05). Shown in Tables 4-5 are pre-post composite scores for all

students.

Within Subject Changes, High-Risk students: High-risk CPS students demonstrated

significant decreases as measured by the following composite scores: School Problems (p < .01)

and Behavioral Symptoms (p < .01) and greater improvement in Adaptive Skills (p < .01).

Improvements at the scale level were noted for CPS high-risk students’ decreasing Depression (p

< .01), Attention Problems (p < .01) and Learning Problems (p < .05); increased Adaptability and

Leadership (p < .01), as well as improved Study Skills and Functional Communication (p < .05).

Conversely neither high-risk TAU Skills group students nor Control students demonstrated

significant change in composite scores. However at the scale level, decreased Adaptability (p <

.05) was noted for High-Risk TAU Skills group students, and High-Risk Control students

demonstrated significant increased Anxiety (p < .05). Shown in Table 5 are pre-post composite

scores for high-risk students.

Percentage of Students with Pre-post Composite Category Changes: Frequencies of

students rated by teachers as having shifted in T-score severity on BASC-2 Composite scales

(i.e., from the Clinically Significant to the At-Risk, or At -Risk to the Normal range or vise-versa)

are listed in Table 6. Of the students whose teachers participated in CPS, 37% were rated as

demonstrating enough measureable change in behavioral and emotional status post treatment on

at least one composite scale to move from one level of severity to a less severe category level


(i.e., from Clinically Significant to At-Risk, or At -Risk to Normal). In comparison, over the same

period only 26% of students in the TAU skills group, and 21% of the Control students were rated

as moving to a less severe category on one composite scale. CPS teachers rated 23% of their

students as shifting to a less severe category on two or more composite scales as compared to

teacher ratings of 16% of students in TAU skills group and 13% of Control students. ANOVA

indicates that improvement on one composite was not significant according to group (p =.08),

but for those improving on more than one composite groups differences were significant (p

<.01). Post hoc analysis indicates differences found between CPS and the other two groups, but

not between TAU Skills groups and Controls.

Conversely, less than 33% of the CPS students were rated as shifting to a more severe

level on any one composite scale, whereas 41% of TAU students, and 76% of the Control

students did so. Finally, fewer than 18% of CPS students were rated as having moved to a more

severe category on two or more composite scales, while 28% of TAU skills group students, and

38% of the Control students did so. ANOVA indicates that improvement on one composite was

not significant according to group (p =.8), but for those improving on more than one composite

groups differences were significant (p <.08), as was also the case for those demonstrating worse

functioning on one or more composite (p <.001). Post hoc analysis indicated differences found

between CPS and the other two groups, but not between TAU Skills groups and Controls with

the exception of the percentage of students demonstrating worse outcomes on only one

composite (TAU Skills groups and Control groups changes were significantly discrepant from

each other (p <.001). Groups difference effect sizes ranged from small to medium (Table 6 and

Figure 1).


Correlations Between Teacher Variables and Student Variables. Table 7 illustrates that

CPS teachers demonstrated a significant relationship between improvement in teacher efficacy

on the Executive Functioning sub-scale of the SBTES with the following improvement on

student composite scores: decreases in Externalizing Problems and Behavioral Symptoms (p <

.01); and improvements in Adaptive Skills (p < .05). No correlations in changes at the composite

level were noted for CPS student outcomes with teacher efficacy as measured by other sub-scales

of the SBTES or for the measure as a whole. No positive changes as measured by the whole and

sub scales on the TSES were related to any changes in student outcomes regardless of treatment.

Looking further at the scale scores that make up the BASC-2 Composites, a relationship

between increased teacher efficacy and improved student functioning was found only with

outcomes of CPS participants, and only on the measure developed for this project (SBTES).

Significant relationships (p < .05) were noted in improved teacher efficacy for promoting student

Executive Functioning with decreases in student Hyperactivity and Attention Problems,

Depression and Withdrawal, and improvements in student Adaptability and Social Skills.

Significant relationships (p < .05) were also noted in improved Teacher Efficacy for promoting

student Communication and Emotional Regulation with decreases in student Hyperactivity and

Attention Problems, Depression and Withdrawal, and improvements in student Social Skills and

Study Skills. These outcomes indicate that increased teacher efficacy for promoting student

Social-Behavioral functioning as a result of CPS participation may be related to actual improved

teacher ratings of that student’s functioning. No correlations were noted between student changes

on either composite or scale scores with any change in scores on any teacher efficacy measures

for students and teachers in both the TAU Skills groups and Controls.


Final data collection looked at outcome data analyzing percentages of participating CPS

teachers providing feedback regarding their experience, and what they believed they and their

students got from program participation. These outcomes indicated that most of the teachers

believed that the program was a worthwhile experience (>90%) that improved their

understanding of their students (>80%), provided them with tools to use in the future (> 80%),

helped them to support their students in improving problem solving skills (>70%), and that they

would recommend the program to other teachers (90%), see Table 10. Qualitative feedback

clarified these ratings further with 28 of participating CPS teachers providing an answer to what

they found most valuable about program participation, see Table 11.

Discussion

Outcomes of this research indicate that participation in the Collaborative Proactive

Solutions at OUSD may have improved teacher efficacy as assessed using an established teacher

efficacy measure (TSES) but even more using a measure regarding student Social-Behavioral

functioning (SBTES). CPS participation also appeared to have a significant positive impact on

changes in teachers’ ratings of students’ social-behavior especially for those rated at high risk

prior to intervention. Even more, positive changes in CPS teacher efficacy to affect the social-

behavior of their students was related to teacher ratings of improved student outcomes. Further

correlation analysis indicated that changes in teacher efficacy for TAU skills groups were not

related to student outcomes, and if anything were negatively related. This negative correlation

was stronger for the teachers whose students received no support: Control teachers demonstrated

decreases in teacher efficacy, and decreases in student social-behavioral functioning. Although

group comparisons of all students did not demonstrate significant pre-post changes, teacher


ratings of high-risk students participating in the study did indicate a significant difference

between treatment effects, and the within-subject changes indicated more of an impact upon CPS

students than those in the TAU and Control groups. Teacher ratings of students in TAU skills

groups indicated that the program directly administered by the school psychologist to children

had little or no positive impact, and no treatment at all actually led to worse outcomes. When

outcomes of students rated at higher risk (those who exhibited poor social-behavioral functioning

prior to intervention) were analyzed separately, the post-treatment impact of CPS appeared to be

even stronger in comparison with high-risk TAU skills group and Control students. Conversely,

high-risk Control students demonstrated significantly worse Internalizing Problems (p< .05) over

the same time period. Perhaps the most important finding of this research is that while increased

teacher efficacy was related to improved teacher ratings of student outcomes for participants in

CPS, this was not the case for the other two groups. While some improvements in teacher

efficacy were noted for both TAU and controls, these within-subject improvements were both

not significant, and not related to student outcomes.

There is also some indication that there was a larger shift in the overall percentage of

students moving to less significant levels on the BASC-2 for students in CPS, while the opposite

was true for the students in the TAU and control groups. It is tricky to compare shifts from one

BASC-2 category on a student by student basis, since moving from one level to another might be

a matter of a few points one direction or another; nonetheless looking at this trend for all groups

is intriguing, especially as these categories are widely used to assess many thousands of children

nationwide, and thus considered fairly robust.

Other studies administering measures directly to students (such as the student form of the

BASC-2) or using teacher reports rely on the assumption that student social-behavioral


functioning is a product of student changes only (Nugent, et al. 2013; Rajendran et al. 2013;

Thaler, Mayfield, Reynolds, Hadland, and Allen, 2012). The assumption underlying this

research is different: we assume that improved teacher ratings of student functioning reflects

improved skills-building within the dyadic relationship of students and teachers together and is

directly related to improved teacher efficacy, especially when evaluating teacher ability to

support improved social-behavioral functioning. BASC-2 teacher reports are one of the most

frequently used measures to assess student emotional disturbance, yet acknowledgement of the

subjective nature of a teacher-generated report is rare (Angkustsiri, Leckliter, Tartaglia, Beaton,

Enriquez, and Simon, 2012; Earhart, Jimerson, Eklund, and Hart, 2009; Miller,

Martinez, Shumka, and Baker, 2014). This research relies upon the “dyadic interaction” inherent

in this subjectivity because outcomes might be, by their very nature, dependent upon perceptions

of teachers who are struggling to address the needs of challenging and disruptive students. The

treatments evaluated in this study differ specifically in the target of intervention: treatment of

social-behavioral functioning directly with psychologist-implemented skills training of students

versus student social-behavioral functioning indirectly shaped through psychologist-led teacher

training and consultation. Since Collaborative Proactive Solutions was implemented specifically

at OUSD to try and reduce teacher referrals of students displaying poor social-behavior, it is

entirely appropriate to assess its impact upon teacher perspectives of both their own capacity,

and student functioning, as well as the relationship between the two. Thus, teacher reports of

improved student functioning may indicate not just success with improved student outcomes, but

perhaps more importantly the impact of psychologist consultation on teachers’ efficacy to

understand and address needs of more challenging students—precisely the target of

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mayfield%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Reynolds%20CR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hadland%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Allen%20DN%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Miller%20LD%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Martinez%20YJ%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Shumka%20E%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Baker%20H%5Bauth%5D


Collaborative Proactive Solutions in OUSD. Further, this research suggests consultation may be

an effective service delivery model for this intervention.

There are a number of limitations to the present study. First, it was very difficult to

ensure that there was consistency across psychologists implementing the CPS and TAU

programs. This is in part because the professional experience varied greatly within the study

sample (as is the reality of most psychological services staff in any given district, even one as

large as OUSD). For instance some of the psychologists in the program had been working in the

field for a very long time (almost 20 years), while others were relatively new to the profession

(within two years of starting as a school psychologist). Each psychologist came from different

training backgrounds (two had earned PhD’s, the rest MA’s, MSEds, etc.) with various emphases

in their respective graduate trainings. Compounding this is the differential amount of training

provided with Dr. Greene (from the first ten psychologists participating in a 4-day seminar,

versus the two later joining psychologists who only participated in 2-day trainings). Also, there

were differences in the number of monthly supervision sessions with Dr. Greene attended by

individual psychologists, with some who started later attending fewer sessions (it is impossible to

say if this affected psychologist capacity, as one of the psychologists who joined the program

later was one of the first deemed by Dr. Greene to have qualified as meeting training criteria). It

was also problematic that the training part of this program for psychologists was occurring

concurrently with program implementation and evaluation (so student and teacher training,

particularly in the first year of implementation was at times facilitated by a psychologist who Dr.

Greene had not yet determined was implementing CPS with fidelity). For this reason alone,

significant changes in psychologists’ skills acquisition could have occurred between the early

stages of the study and the end, which in turn could have led to differential outcomes for both


students and teachers. This study attempted to control this differential by evaluating as a

covariate the year of program participation (not-significant for outcome changes for either

students or teachers), but it would have been preferable to have been more consistent from the

outset. Another difficulty was assessing the fidelity of psychologist implementation of the

scripted Treatment As Usual social skills group. Since this program was not the target of

evaluation, and since it was one of a number of options available for psychologists to use in their

repertoire, it is entirely possible and perhaps likely that variations of skills existed between the

psychologists in implementing this comparison program. The defense for using this program as

a comparison anyway is that this kind of alternative program is how supports are implemented in

school districts as a general rule, and certainly is the case for OUSD. The wide discrepancy

between any given psychologist and another is simply a factor in every single district in the

country—but the truth is also that this variability makes accurate and rigorous research difficult,

especially in a limited fashion as was the case with this study. It is also true, that just because the

state of the state makes rigorous research challenging, the need for evaluating programs in real-

life settings is also very compelling. So with a caveat acknowledging that there were too few

psychologists in this study to meaningfully evaluate within-program differences statistically,

within-psychologist differences is a serious limitation unavoidable due to the reality of

evaluating a program in a real-life setting, with real-life psychologists, teachers, and students.

Difficulty of standardization in this study was problematic for teachers as well, and one

of the greatest drawbacks in the study was that the amount of teaching experience was not

calculated from the outset in the evaluation (something researchers realized after the fact that

should have been part of initial design, but given the anonymous nature of the teacher efficacy

evaluation, to obtain this information after, was considered perhaps something that might be


controversial with the teacher’s union, and thus not pursued). There were further problems with

creating equivalent treatment, comparison, and control groups for both students and teachers, and

the process of recruitment was altered to exclude the BESS as a tool for identification over the

period of study implementation. It was impossible to recruit teachers and students for program

participation using an objective method that would distribute subjects evenly and randomly to

treatment groups, and in a related flaw, the control group was significantly smaller than the size

of the respective treatment populations (CPS and TAU skills groups). The reality in busy and

overburdened urban school districts is that teachers are less likely to participate in any evaluation

that does not offer them any benefit in return—as was the case for the Control group in this

research. For all of these reasons, the whole study runs the risk of being subject not only to a

self-referral bias, but of attributing changes seen in teacher efficacy and student social-behavior

to differential treatment instead of more inherent skills of psychologists and teachers predating

any intervention. Further studies would incorporate a more stringent training protocol and

schedule, and more exact evaluation of adults’ skills sets and training prior to program

participation.

Programmatic limitations include the study being limited to twelve schools in Oakland

Unified School District; replication is needed in larger more diverse samples drawn from a broad

range of schools and grade levels. With a sufficiently large enough sample of schools, it would

be possible to conduct school-level analysis and assess between-school differences. Additionally,

it will be important to replicate this program in other inner-city school districts to improve the

generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions


The results of this project modestly supports directing resources through school

psychologist consultants to act as change agents in affecting both teacher efficacy, as well as

social-behavioral outcomes for students. With the hope that both student and teacher skills

acquired would last beyond the period of treatment, it is possible this intervention may have a

greater impact than can be measured by this research. Further, the case for potential for use of

psychologists’ skills and efforts beyond more conventional pull-out, student-targeted

interventions (which in this research was actually less powerful than a consultation model where

teachers are both the target of and conduit for treatment) is compelling. Future work includes

expanding the Collaborative Proactive Solutions beyond OUSD to a greater number of schools,

as well as following students and teachers for an entire school year. Long term evaluation goals

would include following study participants regarding educational outcomes longitudinally (e.g.,

subsequent referral rates for discipline and special education), as well as teacher efficacy after

program participation to evaluate any lasting impact.

For a variety of reasons—budgetary, a shift towards use of Restorative Justice, and

prevention as a part of Response to Intervention (RTI) initiatives—there is a need for programs

in public schools to provide teachers with explicit training to address students’ social-behavioral

difficulties in non-punitive ways. This project not only suggests the use of school psychologist

consultation is a way to implement Collaborative Proactive Solutions, but also that the program

itself may be a potentially effective way to improve teacher efficacy which in turn is related to

improved teacher perceptions of student social-behavior.


Table 1.

Teacher Efficacy MANCOVA

Multivariate Testsa

Effect Value F Hypothesis

df

Error df Sig. Partial

Eta

Square

d

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powerd

Intercept

Pillai's

Trace .082 1.508b 6.000 101.000 .183 .082 9.045 .561

Wilks'

Lambda .918 1.508b 6.000 101.000 .183 .082 9.045 .561

Hotelling's

Trace .090 1.508b 6.000 101.000 .183 .082 9.045 .561

Roy's

Largest

Root

.090 1.508b 6.000 101.000 .183 .082 9.045 .561

Study

Year

Pillai's

Trace .027 .466b 6.000 101.000 .832 .027 2.798 .183

Wilks'

Lambda .973 .466b 6.000 101.000 .832 .027 2.798 .183

Hotelling's

Trace .028 .466b 6.000 101.000 .832 .027 2.798 .183

Roy's

Largest

Root

.028 .466b 6.000 101.000 .832 .027 2.798 .183

Program

Pillai's

Trace .261 2.551 12.000 204.000 .004 .130 30.617 .973

Wilks'

Lambda .747 2.645b 12.000 202.000 .003 .136 31.735 .978

Hotelling's

Trace .328 2.736 12.000 200.000 .002 .141 32.833 .982

Roy's

Largest

Root

.292 4.967c 6.000 102.000 .000 .226 29.802 .990

a. Design: Intercept + StudyYear + Program

b. Exact statistic

c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

d. Computed using alpha = .05


Table 2.

Teacher Efficacy Pre-post Data Across Treatment Groups (N=125)

Program

Collaborative

Proactive Solutions

N=72

TAU Skills Group

N=28 Control

N=25

Measure M SD M

Change M SD

M

Change M SD

M

Change

Social-Behavioral

Teacher

Efficacy Scale

Pre 4.9 2 1.8***

6.0 2 +.9

6.6 2 +.3

Post 6.8 2 6.9 2 6.9 1

Communication/

Emotional

Regulation

Pre 5.0 2

2.0***

6.2 2

+.7

6.6 2

+.4 Post 7.0 2 6.9 2 7.0 2

Flexibility/

Social Skills

Pre 4.8 2 1.9***

6.7 2 +.2

6.8 1 +.1

Post 6.7 2 6.9 2 6.9 2

Executive

Functioning

Pre 4.8 2 1.5***

6.8 2 +.1

6.5 1 +.4

Post 6.7 2 6.9 2 6.9 2

Teacher Sense of

Efficacy Scale

Pre 6.3 2 1.2***

7.2 2 -.1

6.7 1 -.4

Post 7.5 1 7.1 2 6.3 2

Classroom

Management

Pre 6.3 2 1.6***

7.0 2 .1

7.5 2 .0

Post 7.6 1 7.1 2 7.5 2

Instructional

Practices

Pre 6.5 2 1.2***

7.3 2 .1

7.7 1 .0

Post 7.7 1 7.4 2 7.7 2

Student

Engagement

Pre 6.0 2 1.2***

7.1 1 -.2

6.7 1 -.6

Post 7.2 2 6.9 2 7.0 2

Significance (2-tailed): *** 0.001 ** 0.01 level *0.05

Scoring for both the SBTES and the TSES is on a Likert scale from 0-10 with 0 = not at all

confident and 10 = completely confident;

Within-program change significance was obtained through paired T-test analysis

d Represents the effect size for within-program change


Table 3.

Student Outcomes MANCOVA of BASC-2 TR

Multivariate Testsa Effect Value F Hypo-

thesis

df

Error df Sig. Partial

Eta

Square

d

Noncent.

Parameter

Observed

Powerd

Intercept

Pillai's Trace .125 5.707b 5.000 200.000 .000 .125 28.535 .992

Wilks'

Lambda .875 5.707b 5.000 200.000 .000 .125 28.535 .992

Hotelling's

Trace .143 5.707b 5.000 200.000 .000 .125 28.535 .992

Roy's Largest

Root .143 5.707b 5.000 200.000 .000 .125 28.535 .992

Pre

Significant

Composite

Sum

Pillai's

Trace .188 9.246b 5.000 200.000 .000 .188 46.231 1.000

Wilks'

Lambda .812 9.246b 5.000 200.000 .000 .188 46.231 1.000

Hotelling's

Trace .231 9.246b 5.000 200.000 .000 .188 46.231 1.000

Roy's Largest

Root .231 9.246b 5.000 200.000 .000 .188 46.231 1.000

Program

Pillai's

Trace .054 1.110 10.000 402.000 .353 .027 11.098 .585

Wilks'

Lambda .947 1.108b 10.000 400.000 .354 .027 11.082 .584

Hotelling's

Trace .056 1.107 10.000 398.000 .356 .027 11.065 .584

Roy's Largest

Root .042 1.689c 5.000 201.000 .139 .040 8.443 .578

a. Design: Intercept + StudyYear + Program

b. Exact statistic

c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

d. Computed using alpha = .01


Table 4.

Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Negative Problems

All Students (N=245)

BASC-2 TR

Negative Problem

Collaborative

Proactive Solutions

N= 145

T Scores

TAU CBT Skills Group

N=61

T Scores

Control

N=39

T Scores

M SD M

Change M SD

M

Change M SD

M

Change

Externalizing

Problems

Pre 68.5 11 -1.6

68.6 12 +.2

67.4 17 -.2

Post 66.9 13 69.8 13 67.2 14

Hyper-

activity

Pre 67.2 11 -2.0*

65.5 11 0

65.5 13 -.8

Post 65.2 11 65.5 11 64.7 13

Aggression Pre 69.7 14

-.8 71.2 16

+1.8 68.0 17

-.8 Post 68.9 15 73.0 16 67.2 15

Conduct

Problems

Pre 65.6 11 -.9

65.1 11 +2.1*

66.0 13 +.1

Post 64.7 12 67.2 11 66.1 14

Internalizing

Problems

Pre 59.7 13 -.1

61.3 13 +1.9

58.3 15 +.5

Post 59.6 13 63.2 14 58.8 13

Anxiety Pre 56.4 12

-.5 56.3 11

+.9 55.2 13

+3.0* Post 55.9 11 57.2 11 58.2 15

Depression Pre 64.3 14

-2.1* 62.9 12

+3.1** 61.7 15

+.3 Post 62.2 13 66.0 15 62.0 13

Somatiza-

tion

Pre 55.3 14 +.6

57.3 13 +.7

52.5 13 -2.1

Post 55.9 14 58.0 12 50.4 8

School

Problems

Pre 63.0 9 -2.1**

61.2 9 -.2

63.2 8 +.3

Post 60.9 9 61.4 9 63.5 8

Attention

Problems

Pre 62.5 7 -1.8**

61.8 7 +.1

63.4 8 -1.2

Post 60.7 7 61.9 7 61.2 8

Learning

Problems

Pre 60.5 12 -1.8*

58.8 11 +.2

60.9 11 +.9

Post 58.7 12 59.0 11 62.8 9

Behavioral

Symptoms

Pre 67.4 10 -2.0 *

66.8 10 +1.9*

66.7 14 -.8

Post 65.4 11 69.1 10 65.9 12

Atypicality Pre 61.1 14

-1.3 61.5 11

+1.0 61.9 17

-1.4 Post 59.8 14 62.5 12 60.5 17

Withdrawal Pre 58.0 10

-1.1 59.5 11

+2.9** 59.8 10

-1.3 Post 56.9 10 62.4 10 58.5 12

Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale

for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form: Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School

Problems and Behavioral Symptoms) <60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant

At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically

Significant


Table 5.

Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Positive Skills


BASC-2 TR

Positive Skill

Collaborative

Proactive Solutions

N= 145

T Scores


N=61

T Scores

Control

N=39

T Scores

M SD M

Change M SD

M

Change M SD

M

Change

Adaptive

Skills

Pre 39.4 5 +1.6**

40.9 7 -1.1

38.0 7 -.7

Post 41.0 7 39.8 6 38.7 6

Adapt-

ability

Pre 37.4 8 +1.8**

39.0 7 -2.4**

37.5 9 +.1

Post 39.2 8 36.6 6 37.6 7

Social

Skills

Pre 42.7 7 +1.2

44.4 7 -.4

39.9 7 -3.1**

Post 43.9 7 44.0 7 43.0 7

Leadership Pre 42.7 7

+1.6** 44.2 6

-.3 40.7 6

-1.7* Post 44.3 6 43.9 7 42.4 5

Study Skills Pre 38.3 6

+1.3* 40.0 6

-.2 39.0 6

-1.3 Post 39.6 7 39.8 7 37.7 7

Functional

Commun-

ication

Pre 41.0 8 +1.6*

39.5 8 +.9

39.6 8 +.2

Post 42.6 9 40.4 8 39.8 12

Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05

BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form:

Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School Problems and Behavioral Symptoms)

<60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive

Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically Significant


Table 6.

Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Negative Problems

High-Risk Students (N=205)

BASC-2 TR

Negative Problem

Collaborative

Proactive Solutions

N= 123

T Scores


N=53

T Scores

Control

N=29

T Scores

M SD M

Change M SD

M

Change M SD

M

Change

Externalizing

Problems

Pre 69.7 11 -2.2*

69.3 12 +1.8

68.1 13 -.6

Post 67.5 13 70.1 12 67.5 13

Hyper-

activity

Pre 68.0 11 -2.1**

65.8 12 -.3

66.3 13 -1.4

Post 65.9 11 65.5 13 64.9 12

Aggression Pre 71.0 14

-.5 72.3 15

+.9 69.3 14

-1.1 Post 69.5 15 73.2 16 68.2 13

Conduct

Problems

Pre 66.1 11 -1.6

65.8 11 +2.0

67.4 15 -.9

Post 65.0 12 67.8 11 66.5 15

Internalizing

Problems

Pre 60.6 13 -0

61.4 13 +1.3

60.1 15 -.7

Post 60.6 13 62.7 13 59.4 13

Anxiety Pre 57.0 12

-.7 57.1 12

+.1 56.9 13

+1.8* Post 56.3 11 57.2 13 58.7 16

Depression Pre 65.6 11

-2.7* 63.7 14

+1.2 62.7 15

-.4 Post 62.9 13 64.9 12 62.3 14

Somatiza-

tion

Pre 56.4 15 +.1

57.9 12 +3.5

53.0 14 -1.4

Post 56.5 14 61.4 13 51.6 13

School

Problems

Pre 63.2 9 -1.9**

61.4 9 -.2

63.8 8 -.5

Post 61.3 9 61.2 9 63.3 7

Attention

Problems

Pre 63.3 7 -2.0**

61.9 12 -.3

63.3 8 -1.3

Post 61.3 7 61.6 13 62.0 7

Learning

Problems

Pre 60.8 12 -1.6*

59.2 12 -1.3

62.0 9 -.2

Post 58.9 12 58.9 11 63.5 8

Behavioral

Symptoms

Pre 68.8 11 -2.6**

67.6 9 +1.0

67.7 14 -.6

Post 66.2 11 68.6 10 66.1 12

Atypicality Pre 62.5 14

-1.7 62.4 11

+1.2 61.9 16

-1.8 Post 60.8 14 62.2 12 60.1 14

Withdrawal Pre 58.9 10

-1.6 59.9 10

+1.6 61.0 11

-.9 Post 57.5 10 61.5 9 60.1 11

Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale

for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form: Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School

Problems and Behavioral Symptoms) <60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant

At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically

Significant


Table 7.

Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Positive Problems

High-Risk Students (N=205)

BASC-2 TR

Positive Skill

Collaborative

Proactive Solutions

N= 123

T Scores


N=59

T Scores

Control

N=29

T Scores

M SD M

Change M SD

M

Change M SD

M

Change

Adaptive

Skills

Pre 38.7 6 +1.6**

40.7 7 -.92

37.2 7 +.8

Post 40.5 6 39.8 6 38.0 6

Adapt-

ability

Pre 36.8 8 +1.8**

38.6 7 -2.0*

36.7 8 +.8

Post 38.9 7 36.6 7 37.5 8

Social

Skills

Pre 42.2 7 +1.2

44.5 7 -.2

39.3 8 +.9

Post 43.8 6 44.2 6 40.2 6

Leadership Pre 42.7 7

+1.6** 44.2 6

+.1 40.4 5

+.1 Post 44.4 6 44.3 7 41.4 6

Study Skills Pre 38.2 6

+1.3* 40.0 6

0 38.6 7

-.7 Post 39.6 7 40.0 6 37.9 7

Functional

Commun-

ication

Pre 40.1 8 +1.6*

39.5 8 +.6

39.2 8 +.9

Post 41.9 9 40.1 8 40.1 8

Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05

BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form:

Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School Problems and Behavioral Symptoms)

<60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive

Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically Significant


Table 8.

Frequency of students’ T-scores rated as more severe or less severe on BASC-2 Composite Scales


Changes in BASC-2

Composite Scale

Severity

Collaborative

Problem Solving

N=145

TAU CBT Skills

Group

N=61

Control

N=39

Group

differences

Sig.

Effect

Size

Cohen’s

d

N % N % N %

Improved

No positive change

on any Composite 92 63 45 74 53 79 1.2 .07

Improvement on 1

Composite Scale 54 37 16 26 8 21 .08 .22

Improvement on 2

or more Composite

Scales 34 23 10 16 5 13 <.01 .36

Worsened

No negative change

on any Composite

Scale 98 67 36 59 9 24 <.05 .36

Worsened on 1

Composite Scale 48 33 25 41 30 76 <.001 .24

Worsened on 2 or

more Composite

Scales 25 17 17 28 15 38 <.001 .36


Figure 1.

Group Comparisons: Percentage of students’ T-scores shifting in severity (Improving or

Worsening) on BASC-2 Composite Scales

N=245

Shift in Severity

Group Differences Significance (2-tailed): *** 0.001 level ** 0.01 level *0.05

37

23

-33

-17

26

16

-41

-28

21

13

-76

-38

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Less severe category

on at least 1

Composite Scale

Less severe category

on 2 or more

Composite Scales**

More severe category

on at least 1

Composite Scale***

More severe category

on 2 or more

Composite Scales***

Per

cen

tage

of

stu

den

ts

Collaborative Problem Solving TAU CBT Skills Group Control

A B C D


Table 9.

CPS Program correlations between changes in teacher efficacy and student social-behavior

BASC-2 COMPOSITE

Mean change

TEACHER EFFICACY

Measure

Mean Change

SBTES Executive

Functioning

Externalizing Problems Pearson Correlation -.314**

Sig. (2-tailed) .014

Behavioral Symptoms Pearson Correlation -.313**


Adaptive Skills Pearson Correlation +.261*


BASC-2

SCALE

Mean change

TEACHER

EFFICACY

Measure

Mean Change

SBTES

Communication

/ Emotional

Regulation

SBTES

Executive

functioning

SBTES full

scale

Hyperactivity

Pearson

Correlation -.258 -.318 -.263

Sig. (2-tailed) .044 .012 .041

Depression

Pearson

Correlation -.253 -.271 -.217

Sig. (2-tailed) .049 .035 .093

Attention

Problems

Pearson

Correlation -.269 -.234 -.224

Sig. (2-tailed) .036 .069 .082

Withdrawal

Pearson

Correlation -.293 -.323 -.255

Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .011 .048

Adaptability

Pearson

Correlation .244 .261 .177

Sig. (2-tailed) .058 .042 .173

Social Skills

Pearson


Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .037 .092

Study Skills

Pearson


Sig. (2-tailed) .045 .089 .086


Table 10.

Collaborative Proactive Solutions Post-program teacher survey (N=72):

Post-CPS Questions

Likert scale from 0-10 with 0 = disagree completely and 10 = agree completely M SD

My student(s) developed a better understanding of their problems.

6.9 1.8

My student(s) developed problem solving skills.

6.7 1.8

I developed teaching skills that I will be able to use in the future with

challenging students.

8.5 1.2

I learned a lot about my student(s) that I didn’t know before.

7.9 1.6

I learned a lot about myself as a teacher that I didn’t know before.

7.4 1.8

The CPS Program was well-integrated into my school.

4.5 2.5

Participation in the CPS Program was worthwhile.

8.8 1.5

The psychologist who led CPS at my school was effective in teaching the

concepts and supporting my learning.

8.9 1.3

I would recommend the CPS Program to other teachers.

9.0 1.4


Table 10.

Collaborative Proactive Solutions Post-program Qualitative feedback (N=28):

The most valuable thing about participating in Collaborative Proactive Solutions was:

I learned that some things that my students struggle with I took for granted that they would just

know how to do: i.e. calming-down strategies

Having a regular meeting time with students who need extra attention and doing it in a positive

way with support from the psychologist

I learned to really look at the reasons my students had the challenging behavior as opposed to

focusing on the challenging behavior. It was very helpful to be able to identify their lagging

skills.

It really made me look at the way I handle problems and how it isn't always the most effective.

I realized that it is so much more important to focus on the lagging skills and how I can teach

those than focusing on the bad behavior. That has helped me to see behavior problems

differently.

[It is a ]Positive way to connect and deal with students who have problems in school.

The creation of a teacher student relationship where the students’ behavior was discussed more

objectively and not judged and where students have more of an opportunity to explain their

thoughts and feelings.

Using a technique that helps students take ownership for their own behavior.

The most valuable thing I got was an understanding of how to use the framework of this

program to better understand what triggered certain behaviors in my students. This helped me

deal with both the students in the program but also the rest of the students in my class.

Learning to communicate better with parents and students.


The most valuable thing was being aware of spending time listening to students and involving

them in creating solutions.

The Plan B Cheatsheet with conversation prompts [was the most useful]

The emphasis on the idea that problems cannot be solved by adults for students was vitally

important to my continuing education as a teacher. I think that this idea is pretty foundational

to good teaching, (students need to learn the skills to be successful in different environments),

but it was beneficial for me to practice working with students who are lacking some

fundamental social skills and to work on learning how to listen to them better myself.

I learned how to be more empathetic to my students. I learned how to come to a compromise

instead of making demands.

Being able to focus on select students and discrete skills they need help with.

Time with teachers and the psychologist to keep our goals in front of us.

Getting a chance to look at the situation in a completely new way.

Strategies and Skills

Having one-on-one time with my students

collaboratively working on solutions

using the language specific to the model; refraining from instituting my solution for a problem

The most valuable thing was recalling the preciousness of time spent listening to students.

I learned and practiced new approaches to communicate with challenging students to help

address & improve students' lacking skills in the classroom.

Clarity and explanation of what already seems to be true: what works, what doesn't. A frame

that sees what students are lacking in terms of skills rather as just bucking the system...


Talking to my peers about the progress [I was] making with my student and getting feedback

from them and the psychologist

[Acquiring] skills to talk to students when there are problems that need to be solved, and skills

to help me be aware of issues that are causing the problems in class.

How to talk to the students in a way that makes them more accountable for their actions

Space to think specifically about difficult student behaviors

I most valued having an opportunity to work independently with a student that was

experiencing behavioral difficulties in my classroom. The one-on-one time definitely helped us

to develop a relationship that benefited us in the classroom setting.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was made possible by a grant from the Oakland Unified School District Local

Education Agency (LEA).

Research support and approval was obtained through the Human Research Protection Program

Committee on Human Research at UCSF (IRB #: 12-09444; Reference #: 072222).


References

Angkustsiri, K., Leckliter, I., Tartaglia, N., Beaton, E., Enriquez J., Simon, T. (2012). An

Examination of the Relationship of Anxiety and Intelligence to Adaptive Functioning in

Children with Chromosome 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome. Journal of Developmental

Behavioral Pediatrics, 33, 713–720.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide For Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales in Self-Efficacy Beliefs of

Adolescents, eds. T. Urdan and F. Pajares. Information Age Publishing, 307–337, ISBN-

10: 1593113668

Barrett, P. (1998). Evaluation of cognitive-behavioral group treatments for childhood anxiety

disorders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 459-468.

Bernard, M. (2006a). It’s time we teach social-emotional, competence as well as we teach

academic competence. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 103–119.

Bernard, M. (2006b). Strengthening the social and emotional foundations of young people with

achievement and behaviour problems: A guide for working with parents and teachers (3rd

Ed.). Oakleigh, Victoria: Australian Scholarships Group.

Bradshaw, C.P., Buckley, J., and Ialongo, N. (2008a). School-based service utilization among

urban children with early-onset educational and mental health problems: the squeaky

wheel phenomenon. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 169-186.

Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., and Leaf, P.J. (2008b). The impact of

school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational

health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Tim%20Urdan&ie=UTF8&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2?_encoding=UTF8&field-author=Frank%20Pajares&ie=UTF8&search-alias=books&sort=relevancerank


Brownell, M.T. and Pajares, F. M. (1996). The influence of teachers’ efficacy beliefs on

perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems: a path

analysis.” Florida Education Research Council, Inc. Research Bulletin, 27, 11-20.

Erchul, W. P., and Martens, B. K. (2002). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases

of practice (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Caplan, G. and Caplan, R.B. (1993). Theory and practice of mental health consultation. New

York: Basic Books.

Caplan, G. and Caplan, R.B. (1999). Mental Health Consultation and Collaboration. Long

Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.

Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J., Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J., Olin, S., and

Romanelli, L. H., (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based

preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental

Health Promotion: Training and Practice, Research and Policy, 1(3), 6-28.

Earhart, J., Jimerson, S., Eklund, K., and Hart, S. (2009). Examining relationships between

measures of positive behaviors and negative functioning for elementary school children.

The California School Psychologist, 14, 97-104.

Erchul, W. P., and Martens, B. K. (2002). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases

of practice (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Egyed, C. and Short, R. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, experience and decision to refer a

disruptive student. School Psychology International, 27(3), 462-474.

Franklin, C., Moore, K., and Hopson, L. (2008). Effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy

in a school setting. Children and Schools, 30, 15-26.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/New+York

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/New+York


Gerrity, D. and DeLucia-Waack J. (2010). Effectiveness of Groups in the School. Journal for

Specialists in Group Work, 32(1), 97-106.

Ghafoori, B., and Tracz, S. (2001). Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Reducing

Classroom Disruptive Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. National Dissemintation Center for

Children with Disabilities, retrieved from ERIC ED, 457182, accessed 11/24/13.

Gioia, G., Isquith, P.K., Guy, S.C., and Kenworthy, L.; Reviewed by Baron, I.S. (2000). Test

review: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3),

235–238.

Greene, R.W. (2004). Effectiveness of Collaborative Problem Solving in affectively dysregulated

children with oppositional-defiant disorder: initial findings. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1157–1164.

Greene, R. (2008). Lost at school: why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through

the cracks and how we can help them. New York: Scribner.

Greene, R. (2011). Collaborative Proactive Solutions can transform school discipline. Phi Delta

Kappan, 93(2), 25-28.

Greene, R. (2016). Lost and Found. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Henson, R. K. (2002) From Adolescent Angst to Adulthood: Substantive Implications and

Measurement Dilemmas in the Development of Teacher Efficacy Research. Educational

Psychologist. 37(3), 137-150.

Kamphaus, R., Reynolds, C., Hatcher, N. (1999). Treatment planning and evaluation with the

BASC: The Behavior Assessment System for Children. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.).The use of

psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Kamphaus, R. W., and Reynolds, C. R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening

System (BESS) manual. Circle Pines, MN: Pearson.

Kosmos, K. (2011). Overview of Special Education, SPED Programs and RTI. Internal

document, Psychological Services Department, Programs for Exceptional Children,

Oakland Unified School District.

Macklem, G. (2011). Evidence-based school mental health services: Affect education, emotion

regulation and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. New York: Springer.

Maniadaki, K., Sonuga-Barke, E., and Kakouros, E. (2006). Adults’ self-efficacy beliefs and

referral attitudes for boys and girls with AD/HD. European Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 15(3), 132-140.

Meijer, C. and Foster, S. (1988) The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of

Special Education, 22, 378-385.

Meyers, M. (1995). A consultation model for school psychological services. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation, 6(1), 59-71.

Miller, L., Martinez, Y., Shumka, E., and Baker, H. (2014). Multiple informant agreement of

child, parent, and teacher ratings of child anxiety within community samples. Canadian

Journal of Psychiatry, 59(1), 34–39.

Nugent, K., Kline, E., Thompson, E., Reeves, G., and Schiffman, J. (2013). Assessing psychotic-

like symptoms using the BASC-2: adolescent, parent and teacher agreement. Early

Intervention Psychiatry, 7(4), 431-6.

Ozer, E. M., and Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-

efficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-486.

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Meyers%2C+Joel)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Miller%20LD%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Martinez%20YJ%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Shumka%20E%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Baker%20H%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Nugent%20KL%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23343348

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kline%20E%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23343348

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Thompson%20E%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23343348

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Reeves%20G%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23343348

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Schiffman%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23343348

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23343348



Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Hershfeldt, P. A., Leaf, P. J. (2010). A multilevel exploration of the

influence of teacher efficacy and burnout on response to student problem behavior and

school-based service use. School Psychology Quarterly. 25(1), 13-27.

Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., and Mitchell, M. (2011). Examining the validity of office discipline

referrals as an indicator of student behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 48(6),

541-555.

Podell, D. and Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.

Journal of Educational Research. 86, 247-253.

Rajendran K., O'Neill S., Halperin J.M. (2013). Inattention symptoms predict level of depression

in early childhood, 125(1), 154-61.

Soodak L.C. and Podell, D.M. (1993) Teacher Efficacy and Student Problem as Factors in

Special Education Referral. Journal of Special Education. 27(1), 66-81.

Soodak L.C. and Podell, D.M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-

faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401-411.

Tejeda-Delgado, M., (2009). Teacher efficacy, tolerance, gender, and years of experience and

special education referrals. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 112-119.

Thaler N., Mayfield J., Reynolds C., Hadland C., Allen D. (2012). Teacher-reported behavioral

disturbances in children with traumatic brain injury: an examination of the BASC-2.

Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1(1), 30-7.

Tschannen-Moran, M., and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Rajendran%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23391681

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=O'Neill%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23391681

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Halperin%20JM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23391681


https://vpn.ucsf.edu/science/journal/,DanaInfo=www.sciencedirect.com+0742051X

https://vpn.ucsf.edu/,DanaInfo=www.sciencedirect.com+science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1%20-s2.0-S0742051X00X0008X&_cid=271838&_pubType=JL&view=c&_aut%20h=y&_acct=C000228598&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&am%20p;md5=2e87ea1ba52a7b0de978009f5139662e

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Thaler%20NS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Mayfield%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Reynolds%20CR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hadland%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Allen%20DN%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23428275


Tschannen-Moran, M. and McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of Self-Efficacy: Four Professional

Development Formats and Their Relationship to Self-Efficacy and Implementation of a

New Teaching Strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228-248.

Urban Strategies Council. (2012). A deeper look at African American males in the Oakland

Unified School District. Oakland Unified School District., retrieved from

http://www.thrivingstudents.org/47/urban-strategies-council-deeper-look-african-

american-males-ousd-report, accessed 9/2/14.

http://www.thrivingstudents.org/47/urban-strategies-council-deeper-look-african-american-males-ousd-report

http://www.thrivingstudents.org/47/urban-strategies-council-deeper-look-african-american-males-ousd-report

Date post:	23-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

School Psychology Consultation, Teacher Efficacy, and Student … · 2017-02-05 · SCHOOL...

Documents