Universal Screening Using a Systematic Screener for Behavioral by kbr18539

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 29

									   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.

								
To top