Universal Screening Using a Systematic Screener for Behavioral
Shared by: kbr18539
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.