Gender and Ethnicity in the Early Adolescent Screening Process for Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders: A Summary of Two Studies

Ellie L Young, PhD Ellie L Young, PhD Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University

This research was funded in part by an OSEP Federal Grant (H324c030124)This research was funded in part by an OSEP Federal Grant (H324c030124)

Acknowledgements:

Ethnicity and ScreeningRyan Balagna, PhD

Gender and ScreeningHilda Sabbah, PhD

Benjamin J. Young, BSMichael J. Richardson, MS

Matthew Reiser, MSK. Richard Young, PhD

Objectives

Present the results of two, separate Present the results of two, separate research studies related to screening research studies related to screening for EBD in early secondary settingsfor EBD in early secondary settings

–– Latino studentsLatino students–– GenderGender

Discussion Questions

•• How can future research consider gender and How can future research consider gender and ethnicity in designing effective screening ethnicity in designing effective screening measures and processes?measures and processes?

•• How can practitioners use culturally sensitive How can practitioners use culturally sensitive screening measures and processes, given the screening measures and processes, given the emerging research that is available?emerging research that is available?

General OverviewGeneral Overview

These studies were part of a larger project that These studies were part of a larger project that addressed several research questions:addressed several research questions:

1.1. Can we identify early adolescent youth who Can we identify early adolescent youth who may be at risk for EBD?may be at risk for EBD?

2.2. Can we intervene in ways that result in longCan we intervene in ways that result in long--term positive change?term positive change?

Latino Students Identified as At Risk for Emotional or Behavioral Disorders:

Descriptions of their School Experience

A dissertation completed by A dissertation completed by Ryan Balagna Ryan Balagna

Supervised by Ellie L. YoungSupervised by Ellie L. Young

Background

•• Latino students are the fastest growing and largest ethnic Latino students are the fastest growing and largest ethnic minority in the U.S.minority in the U.S.–– 19.8% of the school population19.8% of the school population

•• Latino students tend to face poor educational outcomesLatino students tend to face poor educational outcomes

–– They have the highest drop out rate of any minority groupThey have the highest drop out rate of any minority group–– One in three Latino students do not complete high schoolOne in three Latino students do not complete high school–– Drop out rate is 4x higher than Caucasians and Drop out rate is 4x higher than Caucasians and –– 2x higher than African Americans2x higher than African Americans

Latinos in Special Education•• Disproportional overrepresentation in all disability Disproportional overrepresentation in all disability

groupsgroups

•• Disproportional overrepresentation in EBD categories Disproportional overrepresentation in EBD categories when the setting was predominantly Caucasianwhen the setting was predominantly Caucasian

•• May be due to lack of culturally sensitive measures May be due to lack of culturally sensitive measures and culturally responsive processes and practicesand culturally responsive processes and practices

•• May be a mismatch between Latino culture and the May be a mismatch between Latino culture and the mainstream educational environmentmainstream educational environment

Research Question

How do early adolescent Latino students identified as at

risk for emotional and behavioral disorders describe

their student-teacher relationships and school

experiences?

Method

SettingSetting–– MidMid--size suburban and rural school district in size suburban and rural school district in

the western U.S.the western U.S.–– 9% of students were Hispanic & 90% 9% of students were Hispanic & 90%

Caucasian in the school settingCaucasian in the school setting

ParticipantsParticipants–– 11 sixth grade (middle school) Latino students 11 sixth grade (middle school) Latino students

identified through a teacher nomination processidentified through a teacher nomination process•• modified Systematic Screening for Behavior modified Systematic Screening for Behavior

Disorders (SSBD)Disorders (SSBD)–– 8 males and 3 females8 males and 3 females–– All qualified for free/reduced school lunchAll qualified for free/reduced school lunch–– 8 8 ExternalizersExternalizers (and all males) 2 (and all males) 2 InternalizersInternalizers, and , and

1 1 internalizerinternalizer//externalizerexternalizer–– Average 6Average 6thth grade GPA was 2.5grade GPA was 2.5–– Average ODR for 6Average ODR for 6thth grade was 2grade was 2

•• Range 0Range 0--66

–– All parents of students were from Mexico, except All parents of students were from Mexico, except one set of parents from Central America one set of parents from Central America

–– Nine of the students came from two parent homesNine of the students came from two parent homes–– Spanish was the primary language for all of the Spanish was the primary language for all of the

parentsparents

Data CollectionData Collection

–– Approximately 60 minute, taped semiApproximately 60 minute, taped semi--structured individual interviews that structured individual interviews that focused on describing school experiencesfocused on describing school experiences

•• Conducted at homeConducted at home

–– Follow up interviews (15Follow up interviews (15--20 minutes) with 20 minutes) with participantsparticipants

–– Interviews conducted in English at the Interviews conducted in English at the preference of the adolescentpreference of the adolescent

Data AnalysisData Analysis•• Understanding the context of the interviewees is essentialUnderstanding the context of the interviewees is essential

–– Meaning interpretation approachMeaning interpretation approach

•• The primary researcher and another member of the research The primary researcher and another member of the research team reviewed all transcripts and independently and team reviewed all transcripts and independently and collaboratively developed the themescollaboratively developed the themes

•• Understanding researcher expectationsUnderstanding researcher expectations–– We expected some cultural mismatches between school We expected some cultural mismatches between school

and home environments and home environments –– We did not expect students to talk about difficult We did not expect students to talk about difficult

experiences with peers regarding negative ethnic experiences with peers regarding negative ethnic statementsstatements

Results

•• Major ThemesMajor Themes–– PeersPeers–– TeachersTeachers–– Orientation/AdjustmentOrientation/Adjustment–– Home LifeHome Life

Peers•• Other students made frequent, negative verbal statements Other students made frequent, negative verbal statements

about ethnicityabout ethnicity

–– “Mexicans are stupid and dumb.”“Mexicans are stupid and dumb.”–– “Go back to Mexico.”“Go back to Mexico.”–– “The call me and my friends ‘“The call me and my friends ‘beanersbeaners’ or like ‘wetbacks.’ ’ or like ‘wetbacks.’

Or they ask me where my green card is and stuff and Or they ask me where my green card is and stuff and they tell us to go back to our country.”they tell us to go back to our country.”

–– Participants perceived that these statements were Participants perceived that these statements were generally made out of the awareness of school personnelgenerally made out of the awareness of school personnel

•• Few effective responses from adultsFew effective responses from adults•• Latinos become angry and may defend themselves and report Latinos become angry and may defend themselves and report

getting in troublegetting in trouble

FriendsFriends–– Friends are a source of support, protection, and strengthFriends are a source of support, protection, and strength–– “I have White friends and [other White kids] don’t mess with me “I have White friends and [other White kids] don’t mess with me

because some of my older White friends stick up for me.”because some of my older White friends stick up for me.”–– “When I have trouble with my homework, they [friends] help “When I have trouble with my homework, they [friends] help

me.”me.”–– One student indicated that they only way she was able to do One student indicated that they only way she was able to do

math questions correctly on the board was because a friend math questions correctly on the board was because a friend sitting a few seats behind her consistently passed her a note sitting a few seats behind her consistently passed her a note with the correct answer without the teacher noticing.with the correct answer without the teacher noticing.

–– Talking to other students in class gets them in trouble but may Talking to other students in class gets them in trouble but may be perceived as a way to academically survive in the classroom be perceived as a way to academically survive in the classroom

•• The conversation may have been about completing academic tasksThe conversation may have been about completing academic tasks

–– Friends provide supportFriends provide support•• “If you get in trouble, then we’ll get in trouble.”“If you get in trouble, then we’ll get in trouble.”

Teachers•• Kindness and LeniencyKindness and Leniency

–– “If you tell her why your homework is late, then “If you tell her why your homework is late, then she understands. She’ll give you a couple of more she understands. She’ll give you a couple of more days to do it.”days to do it.”

–– “If you have a bad grade in her class, you just do a “If you have a bad grade in her class, you just do a little extra credit and boost it up a lot.”little extra credit and boost it up a lot.”

•• IndividualIndividual Attention & Personal InterestAttention & Personal Interest–– “They try to get to know everybody and they ask “They try to get to know everybody and they ask

you what you did over the weekend.” you what you did over the weekend.” –– Another student reported that teachers shared “life Another student reported that teachers shared “life

stories and experiences.” stories and experiences.” –– A favorite teacher would sit down next to the A favorite teacher would sit down next to the

participant during class and explain things to him participant during class and explain things to him

•• Active and Engaging TeachersActive and Engaging Teachers–– Energetic, upbeat, creative, and fun. Energetic, upbeat, creative, and fun. –– “The teacher, she invented games, but she does it “The teacher, she invented games, but she does it

with math so we can learn.”with math so we can learn.”–– “The teacher was fun. He played out the “The teacher was fun. He played out the

characters. He made it so funny and I like it.”characters. He made it so funny and I like it.”•• Negative Teacher AttributesNegative Teacher Attributes

–– Cranky, mean, pickyCranky, mean, picky–– “She had a hard time and she like brought her “She had a hard time and she like brought her

problems to school and then if you would say problems to school and then if you would say something, she would get mad and something, she would get mad and everything…[when] she was mad she wouldn’t everything…[when] she was mad she wouldn’t help us.”help us.”

–– “She was so strict that we couldn’t talk in class.”“She was so strict that we couldn’t talk in class.”

Orientation and Adjustment Issues•• Desiring breaksDesiring breaks

–– No recessNo recess–– Longer lunchLonger lunch–– “[Elementary school] was better. We had one teacher, “[Elementary school] was better. We had one teacher,

recess, less homework, and more projects.”recess, less homework, and more projects.”

•• Increased responsibilityIncreased responsibility–– Difficulty organizing assignments and course materialsDifficulty organizing assignments and course materials–– More homework and increased difficulty of workMore homework and increased difficulty of work–– “I used to have like one teacher and now we have like seven “I used to have like one teacher and now we have like seven

teachers and I can’t keep up . . . [in elementary school] we teachers and I can’t keep up . . . [in elementary school] we had cubbies and we could put our stuff in there and then I had cubbies and we could put our stuff in there and then I didn’t lose stuff. And now we have lockers and my locker is a didn’t lose stuff. And now we have lockers and my locker is a mess.”mess.”

•• Adjusting to the Larger School CommunityAdjusting to the Larger School Community–– “School was better [in elementary school]. We had one “School was better [in elementary school]. We had one

teacher, recess, less homework, and more projects.”teacher, recess, less homework, and more projects.”–– “Kids didn’t actually say racist stuff in elementary school.”“Kids didn’t actually say racist stuff in elementary school.”–– “[There were people] who wanted to fight me.”“[There were people] who wanted to fight me.”

•• Difficulty Asserting NeedsDifficulty Asserting Needs–– Students seemed to want teachers to understand their Students seemed to want teachers to understand their

needs and to work towards helping them feel comfortable needs and to work towards helping them feel comfortable and successful in schooland successful in school

•• Students expected teachers to reach out in warmth and Students expected teachers to reach out in warmth and helpfulnesshelpfulness

–– Students did not identify and express their needs through Students did not identify and express their needs through appropriate assertivenessappropriate assertiveness

–– Students appeared to choose to act out or skip classStudents appeared to choose to act out or skip class

Home Life

•• VideogamesVideogames–– Videogames played a large part in the lives of the Videogames played a large part in the lives of the

participantsparticipants•• They wanted to play video games at schoolThey wanted to play video games at school

•• HomeworkHomework•• Participants used peers, siblings, extended family, Participants used peers, siblings, extended family,

neighbors to help with homework completionneighbors to help with homework completion•• Not common for parents to help because of language Not common for parents to help because of language

issuesissues•• “Some kids sit next to me [in class] and show me how to “Some kids sit next to me [in class] and show me how to

do the homework.”do the homework.”

•• Researcher Perspective about Parental Researcher Perspective about Parental Availability and ResponseAvailability and Response–– Difficult for interviewer to contact parents to Difficult for interviewer to contact parents to

schedule times to meet with studentschedule times to meet with student•• Difficult to reach parents by phoneDifficult to reach parents by phone•• Limited time available to meet with parents in the homeLimited time available to meet with parents in the home•• Parents were gracious hosts and expressed appreciation Parents were gracious hosts and expressed appreciation

to the researcher for his interest in their familyto the researcher for his interest in their family

•• Parents as AdvocatesParents as Advocates–– Students infrequently reported that their parents Students infrequently reported that their parents

played an active role in their education.played an active role in their education.–– Two parents had taken a proactive approach by Two parents had taken a proactive approach by

problem solving with teachers, which resolved the problem solving with teachers, which resolved the problems.problems.

Limitations•• Interviewer lensesInterviewer lenses•• SSBD with Latino studentsSSBD with Latino students•• Most of the major themes and concerns Most of the major themes and concerns

are not distinct to Latino studentsare not distinct to Latino students–– Students prefer active and engaging Students prefer active and engaging

teachersteachers–– Peers provide support during this Peers provide support during this

developmental perioddevelopmental period

Discussion

•• How can future research consider ethnicity in designing How can future research consider ethnicity in designing effective screening measures and processes?effective screening measures and processes?

•• How can practitioners use culturally sensitive screening How can practitioners use culturally sensitive screening measures and processes, given the emerging research that is measures and processes, given the emerging research that is available?available?

Gender Differences and Similarities in a Screening Process

for Emotional and Behavioral Risk in Secondary Schools

Ellie L Young, PhDEllie L Young, PhDHilda Sabbah, PhDHilda Sabbah, PhD

Michael J. Richardson, B.SMichael J. Richardson, B.SBenjamin J. Young, B.S.Benjamin J. Young, B.S.K. Richard Young, PhDK. Richard Young, PhD

This portion of the presentation was presented at the PBS Chicago 2008 ConferenceThis portion of the presentation was presented at the PBS Chicago 2008 Conference

Screening in Secondary Schools

•• Few validated processes for screening during Few validated processes for screening during this transitional developmental phasethis transitional developmental phase

•• Preliminary evidence for using the Systematic Preliminary evidence for using the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) in Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) in early secondary settingsearly secondary settings–– See Caldarella, et al. (2008)See Caldarella, et al. (2008)

Research Question

For early middle and junior high school For early middle and junior high school students, what are the gender students, what are the gender differences and similarities in a teacher differences and similarities in a teacher nomination and multinomination and multi--gated screening gated screening process for students at risk for process for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders?emotional and behavioral disorders?

METHOD

Setting & ParticipantsFive schools Five schools three middle schools and two junior high schools in suburban and rural areasthree middle schools and two junior high schools in suburban and rural areas

–– 15,932 students in 6th through 9th grade15,932 students in 6th through 9th grade–– 51.8% students were male51.8% students were male–– 91.1% Caucasian, 6.5% Hispanic91.1% Caucasian, 6.5% Hispanic–– 27.7% students at these schools qualified for free or reduced lunch27.7% students at these schools qualified for free or reduced lunch

Three year duration of screening 1065 nominationsThree year duration of screening 1065 nominations

–– 77.4% students were male77.4% students were male–– 89% Caucasian, 8.1% Hispanic89% Caucasian, 8.1% Hispanic–– 40.9% nominated students qualified for free or reduced lunch40.9% nominated students qualified for free or reduced lunch

Instrument

The The Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) by Walker and Severson, 1992by Walker and Severson, 1992

Developed for use in elementary schoolsDeveloped for use in elementary schools

Preliminary evidence for use in junior high and middle Preliminary evidence for use in junior high and middle schools (Caldarella, et al., 2008)schools (Caldarella, et al., 2008)

RESULTS

Significantly more males than females nominated by teachers

•• From a sample of 15,932 nominated over a three From a sample of 15,932 nominated over a three year periodyear period–– 796 (5%) males nominated796 (5%) males nominated–– 269 (2%) females nominated269 (2%) females nominated

•• The average ratio (across the three years) of males The average ratio (across the three years) of males to females nominated was approximately to females nominated was approximately –– 5:1 for externalizing behaviors 5:1 for externalizing behaviors –– 2:1 for internalizing behaviors2:1 for internalizing behaviors–– 3:1 for total male and female students nominated3:1 for total male and female students nominated

Reliability Analyses•• Chronbach’sChronbach’s Alpha Alpha calculated for each of the SSBD Stage Two scales: calculated for each of the SSBD Stage Two scales:

–– Internalizing and Externalizing Critical Events Internalizing and Externalizing Critical Events SubscalesSubscales–– Adaptive Scale and the Maladaptive ScaleAdaptive Scale and the Maladaptive Scale

•• The The Internalizing Critical Events Internalizing Critical Events Subscale Subscale consisted of only five consisted of only five items; items; reliability reliability coefficients for this scale were consistently lower than for the coefficients for this scale were consistently lower than for the other scales (other scales (alphasalphas = .44 = .44 -- .62).62)

•• Reliability Reliability coefficients on the Adaptive and Maladaptive scores were coefficients on the Adaptive and Maladaptive scores were comparable for males and females, as determined by Fisher’s zcomparable for males and females, as determined by Fisher’s z--teststests

Males Females

Alpha N Alpha N

CE Internalizing

Year 1 .62 213 .61 63

Year 2 .60 241 .44 75

Year 3 .54 340 .53 131

CE Externalizing

Year 1 .78 213 .87 63

Year 2 .75 241 .79 75

Year 3 .70 340 .78 131

Males FemalesAlpha N Alpha N

Adaptive

Year 1 .84 199 .80 62

Year 2 .88 238 .83 75

Year 3 .84 322 .86 120

Maladaptive

Year 1 .90 199 .92 62

Year 2 .91 240 .92 75

Year 3 .89 328 .91 126

Stage Two Means (St. dev.)

Boys CE Adapt MalBoys CE Adapt MalYear 1 (n=213)Year 1 (n=213) 4.48 (2.73)4.48 (2.73) 33.31 (8.35)33.31 (8.35) 27.03 (10.36)27.03 (10.36)

Year 2 (n=241)Year 2 (n=241) 4.29 (2.75)4.29 (2.75) 33.39 (9.18)33.39 (9.18) 27.56 (10.87)27.56 (10.87)

Year 3 (n=340)Year 3 (n=340) 4.44 (2.86)4.44 (2.86) 32.09 (8.10) 32.09 (8.10) 27.75 (10.12)27.75 (10.12)

GirlsGirlsYear 1 (n=63)Year 1 (n=63) 4.27 (3.42)4.27 (3.42) 37.00 (8.17)37.00 (8.17) 23.08 (10.83)23.08 (10.83)

Year 2 (n=75)Year 2 (n=75) 3.48 (2.72)3.48 (2.72) 38.52 (8.58)38.52 (8.58) 22.64 (10.99)22.64 (10.99)

Year 3 (n=131)Year 3 (n=131) 3.94 (2.75)3.94 (2.75) 37.46 (9.34)37.46 (9.34) 23.54 (10.56)23.54 (10.56)

MANOVA• A MANOVA was conducted for each year to examine

gender, reduced lunch, and the internalizing/externalizing dimension at SSBD Stage One as independent variables, and the three SSBD Stage Two scales as dependent variables.

– Multivariate Tests:• There were no significant multivariate interactions except between

gender and the internalizing/externalizing dimension for year three (p < .05).

• Significant main effects were found for all three independent variables in the first year (Gender & Reduced Lunch, p < .05; Internalizing/Externalizing, p < .001).

• Main effects for Gender and Internalizing/Externalizing remained significant in subsequent years (p < .01)

• No significant main effects for reduced lunch were found in year two or three

Univariate Tests• The gender by internalizing/externalizing interaction

was significant only for the Maladaptive scale in the third year (p < .01).

• The internalizing/externalizing dimension yielded the largest F value across years and for all three dependent variables (p < .01).

• Gender yielded statistically significant F values for the Adaptive scores across all three years (p < .01).

• Reduced lunch yielded a significant F value for the Critical Events scale during the first year (p < .05).

Univariate AnalysisCritical Events

FAdaptive

FMaladaptive

FYear 1GenderReduced LunchInt./Ext.

.025.66*19.74***

7.36**.1025.05***

2.34.01189.95***

Year 2GenderReduced LunchInt./Ext.

1.80.079.17**

7.10**.9423.53***

.161.30160.36***

Year 3GenderReduced LunchInt./Ext.

.61

.9411.09**

18.78***5.03*49.02***

.55

.01375.26***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

ANOVA conducted with post hoc Tukey’s tests

•• Statistically Statistically significant differences between significant differences between externalizing males and internalizing females externalizing males and internalizing females across across the three years and for the three years and for Critical Events, Adaptive, and Critical Events, Adaptive, and Maladaptive scores (Maladaptive scores (p p < .05)< .05)

•• Statistically Statistically significant differences between significant differences between externalizing females and internalizing malesexternalizing females and internalizing males, , primarily on the Maladaptive scores (primarily on the Maladaptive scores (pp < .001< .001))

Mean Differences between Students Nominated with Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors

Ext. Female -Ext. Male

Ext. Female -Int. Male

Int. Female -Ext. Male

Int. Female -Int. Male

Critical Events

Year 1 1.03 2.03* -1.78* -.78Year 2 -.12 .73 -1.56** -.71Year 3 .21 .78 -1.26** -.69

AdaptiveYear 1 1.12 -2.77 8.32*** 4.44*Year 2 2.67 -2.62 9.06*** 3.78Year 3 2.44 -1.98 9.92*** 5.49***

Maladaptive

Year 1 .02 13.87*** -16.94*** -3.09Year 2 1.62 15.59*** -15.35*** -1.38Year 3 1.98 14.81*** -16.8*** -3.26*

* P <.05, **P<.01, ***P<.001

Internalizing and Externalizing Differences and Similarities

•• Statistically significant differences between Statistically significant differences between internalizing females and externalizing females, and internalizing females and externalizing females, and internalizing males and externalizing males (internalizing males and externalizing males (p p < .< .05) 05)

•• The within gender differences were found across the The within gender differences were found across the three years on Maladaptive scores and Adaptive three years on Maladaptive scores and Adaptive scoresscores

DISCUSSION

Nomination Process

•• The The most striking finding appears to be the most striking finding appears to be the disproportionate number of disproportionate number of males in the nomination males in the nomination pool pool

–– Teachers nominated almost three times as many male students as Teachers nominated almost three times as many male students as female students across the internalizing and externalizing domainsfemale students across the internalizing and externalizing domains

–– SurprisinglySurprisingly, males were more likely than females to be nominated , males were more likely than females to be nominated as as internalizersinternalizers, which contradicts the traditional view of males as , which contradicts the traditional view of males as externalizersexternalizers and females as and females as internalizersinternalizers

•• Findings Findings may indicate that this educational setting may indicate that this educational setting facilitated display of atfacilitated display of at--risk behaviors more frequently risk behaviors more frequently in males than in femalesin males than in females

Psychometric Characteristics

•• The SSBD Stage Two scores appeared The SSBD Stage Two scores appeared comparatively reliable for both genders, comparatively reliable for both genders, implying preliminary, but limited, support for implying preliminary, but limited, support for an important psychometric strength of the an important psychometric strength of the SSBD when used with adolescentsSSBD when used with adolescents

•• Female students received higher scores on Female students received higher scores on the Adaptive Scale at Stage Twothe Adaptive Scale at Stage Two

Demographic Influences

•• The only demographic factor that seemed to influence The only demographic factor that seemed to influence teacher nomination teacher nomination was was poverty, as measured by free poverty, as measured by free or or reduced lunch status, although this did not vary by genderreduced lunch status, although this did not vary by gender

–– This This finding may imply that students who experience poverty, as finding may imply that students who experience poverty, as measured by free/reduced lunch status, may have additional measured by free/reduced lunch status, may have additional stressors or factors that increase the likelihood stressors or factors that increase the likelihood that teachers that teachers will will view their behaviors as problematic. view their behaviors as problematic.

•• Hispanic students were Hispanic students were not more likely than others to be not more likely than others to be nominated by teachersnominated by teachers

–– The The number of Hispanic students nominated and in the larger number of Hispanic students nominated and in the larger school population was relatively smallschool population was relatively small

–– The relative homogeneity of the population may have limited the The relative homogeneity of the population may have limited the ability to detect differences in nomination due to ethnicity ability to detect differences in nomination due to ethnicity

Hypotheses about Results

•• The atThe at--risk behaviors among females risk behaviors among females may not have been captured in this may not have been captured in this screening processscreening process

•• Educational settings may elicit Educational settings may elicit maladaptive behaviors in malesmaladaptive behaviors in males

•• Females’ adaptive behaviors may mask Females’ adaptive behaviors may mask some of their atsome of their at--risk behaviorsrisk behaviors

Limitations

•• Homogeneity of population and limited geographical Homogeneity of population and limited geographical area area

•• The SSBD process was specifically developed for The SSBD process was specifically developed for use in elementary use in elementary populationspopulations–– Some items developmentally inappropriateSome items developmentally inappropriate–– Validity evidence for using this adapted form of Validity evidence for using this adapted form of

this measure in secondary schools is still limitedthis measure in secondary schools is still limited

Discussion Questions

•• How can future research consider gender and How can future research consider gender and ethnicity in designing effective screening ethnicity in designing effective screening measures and processes?measures and processes?

•• How can practitioners use culturally sensitive How can practitioners use culturally sensitive screening measures and processes, given the screening measures and processes, given the emerging research that is available?emerging research that is available?

..

•• Caldarella, P., Young, E. L., Richardson, M. J., Young, B. J., Caldarella, P., Young, E. L., Richardson, M. J., Young, B. J., & Young, K. R. (2008). Validation of the Systematic & Young, K. R. (2008). Validation of the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders in Middle and Junior high Screening for Behavior Disorders in Middle and Junior high SchoolSchool. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, . Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 105105--117117..

•• WalkerWalker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic , H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (2nd ed.). Longmont, CO: Screening for Behavior Disorders (2nd ed.). Longmont, CO: SoprisSopris WestWest

References

Ellie L. Young, PhD, NCSP ellie_young@byu.edu

340-P MCKBBrigham Young UniversityProvo, UT 84602

801 422-1593

Add Authors and Email Addresses

http://education.byu.edu/pbsi/

236 S 700 EProvo, UT 84606(801) 377-0560Fax (801) 377-0597byu.pbsi@gmail.com