Get documents about "Universal Screening Using a Systematic Screener for Behavioral
Document Sample
Universal Screening: Using a
Systematic Screener for Behavioral
Supports
Dan Koonce
Technical Assistance Coordinator
Illinois PBIS Network
Paul Rose
Counselor, Cowherd Middle School
East Aurora School District 131
Session Objectives
Participants will:
• learn about the use of a universal screener for
problem behavior
• learn a framework for structuring behavior
support following the universal screener
• learn about the need to interpret primary and
secondary data to determine response to
secondary support
• learn about roadblocks of and strategies to
manage the universal screening process
Why conduct universal screening?
• Estimated 10% to 20% of school-age children experience
mental health concerns
• Alleviates “wait-to-fail” approach
• Schools provide the ideal environment for identifying and
addressing mental health-related issues
• Addresses limitations of solely relying on ODRs to identify
youth at-risk of developing behavior problems
• Successfully identify kids with internalizing behaviors
• Prevent negative educational and social outcomes
• Critical component of RTI approach
• Gap between students’ needs and support received
Screening is not new!
• Henry, M., & Rudder, J. (1963). An evaluation of a
process for screening school children with emotional
handicaps. Journal of School Psychology, 1, 28−32.
• However…universal screening for problem behavior…
– has not been placed in the context of a systems approach
(e.g., SW-PBS)
– has not been placed in an RtI context
– has not been linked to progress monitoring
– has not always been linked to intervention (e.g.,
classification, eligibility focus)
(Vannest & Burke, 2009)
What is an effective
screening program?
• Acceptable level of accuracy in identification,
cost effective, and acceptable to those who are
partners in identification/intervention process
• Accuracy refers to a reliable and valid
information to yield high rate of true positives
• Cost effective reflects the outcomes produced
doesn’t overwhelm the system
• Acceptable refers that the professionals will
adopt and use the process in the future
How do we screen?
• Using a multiple gating procedure
– Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders
(SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992)
• Teacher nominations
– Teachers know the needs of their students (risk
status)
• Ratings of students’ behavior
– Using standardized and normed-referenced scales
denoting dimensions of behavior
– Externalizing and Internalizing behaviors
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders
(SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992)
• Research in the 1980s on predictors
• Multiple gating procedures following mental
health model
• Externalizing and Internalizing dimensions
• Evidence for efficiency, effectiveness, & cost
benefits
• Exemplary, evidence-based practice
• US Office of Special Education, Council for Children
with Behavior Disorders, National Diffusion Network
Additional information
• The SSBD is NOT recommended as a diagnostic tool for eligibility
for special education services and WILL NOT replace the current
procedure(s) for identification for any other type of support.
• The need for confidentiality should be stressed. Teachers are asked
to keep information private by not referring to students by name, and all
data is safeguarded.
• Keeping all stakeholders (parents, teachers, administration, and
community) informed of the process every step of the way is the best
way to ensure buy-in and ultimately success.
Example letters
* Universal screening
* Consent for intervention
Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007)
Teachers Rank Order
Gate 1 then Select Top 3 Students
on Each Dimension
(Externalizing & Internalizing)
Pass Gate 1
Teachers Rate Top 3
Gate 2
Students in Each Dimension
(Externalizing & Internalizing)
on Critical Events, Adaptive
and/or Maladaptive Scales
Tier 2 or Tier 3
Pass Gate 2
Intervention
Gate 3
Classroom & Playground
Observations
Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral
Gating Procedures
• Gate 1 – Nomination based on Definitions
• Gate 2 – Score and Criteria for:
– Critical Events – (e.g., Steals, Tantrums, Assaults adults,
Damages property, Painful Shyness)
– Combined Frequency Index
• Adaptive Behavior – (e.g., Follows rules, Gains peer
attention positively, Expresses anger appropriately,
Positive socials with peers)
• Maladaptive Behavior – (e.g., Refuses to participate in
activities, Challenges teacher limits/rules,
Manipulates peers, pouts/sulks)
Rank Ordering
Critical Events
Universal Screening in Illinois:
Preparation Process
• District-level commitment
– Permissions for screening secured and cost/benefits
analyzed
• Secondary PBIS system in place
– Provides seamless transition from screening to
intervention(s)
• Logistics of preparation
• SSBD Coordinator trained and prepared
• Special briefing for building administration
• Overview for all staff (admin power point for overview)
• Schedule & organize ‘day of administration’
SSBD Coordinator Timeline
Time frame Action/Duties
SSBD Administration is on: __________________
One month prior to SSBD Participate in conversation to: 1. learn the purpose of the screening &
administration:__________________ intervention system at the demo sites, 2. increase overall knowledge and
fluency with the SSBD screener, 3. learn your role in the process.
Two weeks prior to SSBD Decide to score the protocols independently or recruit and review SSBD
administration:_________________ scoring protocol with 2 or more members of the secondary team. Set a
date within one week of the SSBD administration to complete scoring.
Three weeks prior to SSBD Initiate conversation with principal regarding cost and procedure for
administration:_________________ distributing parental/community notification letter.
Two week prior to SSBD Distribute parental/ community notification letter prepared by IL-PBIS
administration:_________________ Network.
One week prior to SSBD Distribute memo provided by IL-PBIS Network reminding teachers of
administration:_________________ upcoming screening. Attach Externalizing & Internalizing Behavior
Disorder Ranking Forms to memo.
2-5 days prior to SSBD Reserve meeting room for screening process with all teachers grades 1-6
administration:_________________ and organize materials (LCD projector, screen, cord, table for equipment,
three large folders to collect SSBD protocols)
2-5 days prior to SSBD Make color-coded copies of screening protocols
administration:_________________ (e.g., green for internalizers, blue for externalizers).
Universal Screening in Illinois
• 6 school districts
– 18 schools 07-08SY; 36 schools 08-09SY
• Spent 1st year focused on creating Secondary & Tertiary
Level Systems
– Specifically Check-in/Check-out
• Emphasis on building “system capacity”
– Identify youth early (Universal screening)
– Support youth with effective interventions
– Progress-monitor
– Individual youth response to interventions
– Interventions themselves
– Exit/transition youth off of interventions
What does universal screening
lead to?
Social-
Tier 2 Academic
Interventions Instructional
Group (SAIG)
considered
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
ODRs, Attendance, Tier 2/Secondary Small Group
Interventions
Tardies, Grades, (CICO, SAIG, etc)
DIBELS, etc.
Group Interventions with
Individualized Focus
Daily Progress Report (DPR) (CnC, etc)
(Behavior and Academic Goals)
Tier 3/
Simple Individual Interventions
Competing Behavior Pathway, Tertiary (Brief FBA/BIP, Schedule/
Curriculum Changes, etc)
Functional Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Multiple-Domain FBA/BIP
SIMEO Tools: HSC-T,
SD-T, EI-T Wraparound
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised Sept., 2008
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Data-Based Decision-Making
• Student outcome data is used:
– To identify youth in need of support and to
identify appropriate intervention
– For on-going progress-monitoring of response to
intervention
– To exit or transition youth off of interventions
• Intervention integrity or process data is used:
– To monitor the effectiveness of the intervention
itself
– To make decisions regarding the continuum/menu
of interventions/supports
Please list below how your school defines “responding” at each of the six levels:
1. Responding to CICO:
2. Responding to Social/Academic instructional groups:
3. Responding to Simple Tier 2 with Individualized Features (i.e. CNC):
4. Responding to Brief Function-Based Interventions:
5. Responding to Complex Function-based Interventions:
6. Responding to Wraparound Plans:
Cowherd Middle School
Demographics
(enrollment = 924)
White Black Hispanic Asian/ Native Multi-
Pacific American racial/
Islander Ethnic
State 54.0 19.2 19.9 3.9 0.2 1.9
District 5.6 9.1 82.6 0.6 0.2 2.7
School 5.1 13.5 79.7 0.3 0.0 1.1
Low- Limited Chronic Mobility Attendance Rate
Income English Truancy Rate
Rate Proficient Rate
Rate
State 41.1 7.5 2.5 14.9 93.3
District 63.0 34.7 7.7 25.0 92.5
School 75.6 25.1 2.9 13.3 93.8
Illinois District Report Card (Illinois State Board of Education, 2008)
Organizing Your Screening Data
Creating a centralized, school wide system
for tracking student progress (excel chart on shared drive).
Ext
Last ID or Other Other Other Crit Ada Malad Pass Pass Consen
Name First Name Number Int Team SPED Serv1 Serv2 Serv3 Event pt apt gt1? g2? t
Romero Jonathan 140576 Ext Jimoh Yes SH 6 36 38 Yes Auto Yes
SW
Garcia Gavdencio 149393 Int Cerutti Yes consult ESL III 4 21 18 No N/A
Caldera Samuel 151017 Ext Jimoh No SH 6 34 32 Yes Auto Yes
Arzate Jose 152624 Ext Jimoh No SH 9 31 34 Yes Auto Yes
Muschl
Brogie Reno 140048 Int er No 5 Yes Auto No
Stewart Isaiah 150010 Ext Jimoh Yes SW CIS 6 30 33 Yes Auto Yes
Johnson Tasia 150166 Ext Jimoh Yes SW 5 27 40 Yes Auto Yes
Simmons Kenny 141043 Ext Cerutti Yes SW CIS FBA 16 Yes Auto Yes
Rodrigue
z Miguel 130420 Ext Cerutti No 12 Yes Auto No
Muschl
White Darius 151007 Ext er No AMSA 12 Yes Auto N/A
Daniels Keyanna 153554 Int Cerutti No 7 Yes Auto Yes
Example of CICO tracking on SWIS
Demographics of Students
Identified
• 325 6th Grade students screened (147 girls/178 boys)
(35% of school population)
• 3 teams of 7 teachers included in screening process (23% of staff)
• 71 students identified (22% of entire 6th grade)
• 35 externalizers (49% of students identified)
• 36 internalizers (51% of students identified)
• 47 boys (66% of students identified)
• 24 girls (34% of students identified)
• 12 Special Education students (17% of students identified)
System Considerations
• Staff commitment
• Maintaining stakeholders involvement using
data
• Well-defined decision rules
• Follows the continuum of interventions with
the PBIS system
• Providing rapid teacher support for low-level
behavior problems (“another tool in the bag”)
“Lessons Learned”
• What things worked vs. need more tweaking?
– There were some conflicts with existing services –
duplication and overlap.
– Some permission slips/consent for interventions
were not returned (need for extended outreach to
certain families).
– Some new teachers were not adequately trained
(PBIS) and made aware of the screening and the
interventions to be used.
Systems Change
Assessing the Fidelity of Screening
Reviewing
the pre-post screening data
on Excel chart
Resources
Henry, M., & Rudder, J. (1963). An evaluation of a process for
screening school children with emotional handicaps. Journal
of School Psychology, 1, 28−32.
Walker, H.M., & Severson, H.H. (1992). Systematic screening for
behavior disorders. Longmont, CO. Sopris West.
Walker, H. W., Severson, H., Stiller, B., Williams, G., Haring, N.,
Shinn, M., & Todis, B. (1988). Systematic screening of pupils in
the elementary age range at risk for behavior disorders:
Development and trial testing of a multiple gating model.
Remedial and Special Education, 9, 8-20.
Weist, Mark D. et al (2007). Mental Health Screening in Schools,
Journal of School Health, 77, 53-58.
Related docs
