UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR: PENNSYLVANIA’S COLLABORATION WITH RESEARCHERS AND DISTRICT LEVEL...

UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR: PENNSYLVANIA’S

COLLABORATION WITH RESEARCHERS AND

DISTRICT LEVEL IMPLEMENTERS’

Tina Lawson PaTTANKathleen Lynne LaneUniversity of Kansas

Wendy P. OakesArizona State University

Define Pennsylvania’s PBIS StructureProvide a Rationale for Universal

Screening of BehaviorDefine the Partnership between PaPBIS,

School Districts, and the University Researchers

Define the Study Share Lessons Learned

AGENDA

PA PBIS…

PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS / LEAS

Inclusive of both cohorts, all 29 Intermediate Units (IUs) have staff participating in the PAPBS Network as facilitators,

consultants, etc.

PAPBS Network SWPBIS Sites – Cohort 1 (2007) & Cohort 2 (2009-present)

THE RATIONALE …

Lane & Oakes

PREVALENCE CONSIDERATIONS

ED … <1%

EBD … 12%

Lane & Oakes

STUDENT WITH EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS (EBD)

Internalizing Externalizing

Goal: Reduce HarmSpecialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk

Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk

Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings

Academic Behavioral Social

PBIS Framework

Validated Social Skills Program

Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)

Systematic Screening

Measure Authors Ordering InformationEarly Screening Project Walker, Severson, & Feil

(1995)Available for purchase from Sopris West

Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD)

Walker & Severson (1992)

Available for purchase from Cambium Learning/ Sopris West

Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS)

Drummond (1994) Free-Access

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

Goodman (1991) Free-Access online at http://www.sdqinfo.com/

BASC-2 Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS)

Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007)

Available for purchase from Pearson/ PsychCorp

Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide (SSiS – PSG)

Elliott & Gresham (2007) Available for purchase from Pearson/ PsychCorp

(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)

STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE

The SRSS is 7-item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. This tool is appealing to schools because it takes minimal teacher time and is of no cost.

Teachers evaluate each student on the following items

- Steal - Low Academic Achievement- Lie, Cheat, Sneak - Negative Attitude- Behavior Problem - Aggressive Behavior- Peer Rejection

Each item is rated on a Likert-type scale of 0-3 Never 0 Occasionally 1 Sometimes 2 Frequently 3

Student Risk is divided into 3 categories- Low 0 – 3- Moderate 4 – 8- High 9 – 21


(SRSS; DRUMMOND, 1994)


(SRSS; DRUMMOND, 1994)

STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IETEACHER NAME

0 = Never

Steal

Lie, Cheat, Sneak

Behavior Problem

Peer Rejection

Low Academic Achievement

Negative Attitude

Aggressive Behavior

Emotionally Flat

Shy; Withdrawn

Sad; Depressed

Anxious

Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior

Lonely

Self-Inflicts Pain

1 = Occasionally

2 = Sometimes

3 = Frequently

Use the above scale to rate each item for each

student.

Student Name

(Lane, Oakes, Harris, Menzies, Cox, & Lambert, 2012)

Original SRSS-IE 1412 items retained for use at the elementary level14 items under development in middle and high schools

(SSiS- PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)

SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM – PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE

SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM – PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE

(SSiS- PSG; ELLIOTT & GRESHAM, 2007)

4 items per studentPreschool Scale – 4-point Rubric Elementary Scale – 5-point Rubric

Behavioral areas assessed Prosocial Behavior Motivation to Learn Reading Skills (Early Reading Skills) Math Skills (Early Math Skills)

SSIS– PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE

Preschool ScaleAdequate Progress = 3 or 4 (green band) Moderate Risk = 2 (yellow band)Elevated Risk = 1 (red band)

Elementary ScaleAdequate Performance = 4 or 5 (green band)Moderate Difficulties = 2 or 3 (yellow band) Significant Difficulty = 1 (red band)

SSIS – PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDERISK CATEGORIES

PURPOSE

• Report the findings of a psychometric study exploring reliability of the SRSS-IE in secondary schools

• Report the convergent validity comparing scores two screening tools: the Student Risk Screening Scale – Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE) and the Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSiS-PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007).

THE PARTNERSHIP JOURNEY …

Network SchoolsTier 1 with high fidelityAdvanced tier systems in place

Network Facilitators Eligible Districts were close to a major airport

Kathleen and Wendy were interested!!!

NATURAL NEXT STEP

THE STUDY …

METHODA Look in School

Secondary Schools

Variable/ Level Middle School High School Total

Student n = 974 n = 749 N = 1,723

Gender % (n)

Male 52.05 (507) 52.20 (391) 52.12 (898)

Female 47.95 (467) 47.80 (358) 47.88 (825)

Ethnicity % (n)

White 68.69 (669) 65.95 (494) 67.50 (1163)

Black 21.66 (211) 24.83 (186) 23.04 (397)

Hispanic 3.49 (34) 3.20 (24) 3.37 (58)

Asian 2.57 (25) 2.14 (16) 2.38 (41)

Native American 0.10 (1) 0.13 (1) 0.12 (2)

Other 0.10 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (1)

Mixed races 3.39 (33) 3.74 (28) 3.54 (61)

Table 1Student and Teacher Characteristics

Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.


Grade level % (n)

Fifth 23.92 (233) 0.00 (0) 13.52 (233)

Sixth 27.41 (267) 0.00 (0) 15.50 (267)

Seventh 23.72 (231) 0.00 (0) 13.41 (231)

Eighth 24.95 (243) 0.00 (0) 14.10 (243)

Ninth 0.00 (0) 32.44 (243) 14.10 (243)

Tenth 0.00 (0) 31.11 (233) 13.52 (233)

Eleventh 0.00 (0) 16.02 (120) 6.96 (120)

Twelfth 0.00 (0) 20.43 (153) 8.88 (153)

Special Education % (n) 23.61 (230) 18.56 (139) 21.42 (369)

Emotional Disturbance 1.64 (16) 2.27 (17) 1.92 (33)




Course Enrolled for Ratings

Physical education 0.00 (0) 7.48 (56) 3.25 (56)

Arts 0.00 (0) 4.14 (31) 1.80 (31)

Foreign language 0.00 (0) 7.48 (56) 3.25 (56)

English 40.25 (392) 22.96 (172) 32.73 (564)

Aide 0.00 (0) 0.80 (6) 0.35 (6)

Electives 0.51 (5) 5.87 (44) 2.84 (49)

Math 29.16 (284) 15.62 (117) 23.27 (401)

Science 15.09 (147) 15.75 (118) 15.38 (265)

Social Studies 14.99 (146) 19.89 (149) 17.12 (295)

Age M (SD) 12.15 (1.18) 16.00 (1.29) 13.82 (2.27)

Table 1 cont.Student and Teacher Characteristics




Teacher n = 52 n = 58 N = 110

Gender % (n)

Male 30.77 (16) 49.12 (28) 40.37 (44)

Female 69.23 (36) 50.88 (29) 59.63 (65)

Ethnicity % (n)

White 94.23 (49) 94.75 (54) 94.50 (103)

Black 5.77 (3) 0.00 (0) 2.75 (3)

Hispanic 0.00 (0) 1.75 (1) 0.92 (1)

Other 0.00 (0) 3.51 (2) 1.83 (2)

Primary role % (n)

General education 80.77 (42) 92.98 (53) 87.16 (95)

Special education 19.23 (10) 7.02 (4) 12.84 (14)



Certified in the area currently teaching % (n)

95.92 (47) 98.25 (56) 97.17 (103)

Highest degree earned % (n)

High school diploma 0.00 (0) 1.75 (1) 0.92 (1)

Associate’s degree 1.92 (1) 1.75 (1) 1.83 (2)

Bachelor’s degree 28.85 (15) 26.32 (15) 27.52 (30)

Master’s degree 69.23 (36) 70.18 (40) 69.72 (76)

Completed course in classroom management % (n)

Yes 92.31 (48) 82.14 (46) 87.04 (94)

No 7.69 (4) 17.86 (10) 12.96 (14)



Variable/ LevelMiddle School

High School Total

Professional development in academic screening % (n)

Yes 21.15 (11) 30.36 (17) 25.93 (28)

No 78.85 (41) 69.64 (39) 74.07 (80)

Professional development in behavior screening % (n)

Yes 30.77 (16) 32.14 (18) 31.48 (34)

No 69.23 (36) 67.86 (38) 68.52 (74)

Years teaching experience M (SD) 11.06 (8.93) 11.96 (8.29) 11.53 (8.57)

Years teaching experience current school M (SD)

9.38 (9.19) 11.18 (8.96) 10.33 (9.07)

Age M (SD) 33.86 (9.35) 37.79 (10.82) 35.93 (10.29)



Variable School

MS HS

Attendance ratea / Graduation Rate a 93%80%

Classroom teachers (FTE)b 81.75 91.57

Enrollmentb 996 1,106

Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb

56.02% 45.39%

Grades servedb 5 - 8 9 - 12

Localeb Suburb: Large Suburb: Large

NCLB statusac Corrective Action II School Improvement II

Student/teacher ratiob 12.18 12.08

Title 1 eligibleb Yes No

Table 2 School Characteristics 2010-2011

Consenting Meetings

Completed two measures for one class periodSRSS-IE (10-15 min)

SSIS-PSG (30 min)

Social Validity

Data entry and reliability by research assistants

PROCEDURESSTUDY 1: MIDDLE SCHOOL & HIGH

SCHOOL

METHODA Look in Elementary

Schools

Variable/ Level School A School B School C

Total

Student n=626 n=492 n=562 N=1,680

Gender % (n)

Male 52.88 (331) 49.39 (243) 52.49 (295) 51.73 (869)

Female 47.12 (295) 50.61 (249) 47.51 (267) 48.27 (811)

Ethnicity % (n)

White 79.07 (495) 54.27 (269) 76.87 (432) 71.07 (1194)

Black 9.42 (59) 30.28 (149) 5.16 (29) 14.11 (237)

Hispanic 3.67 (23) 5.69 (28) 5.87 (33) 5.00 (84)

Asian 5.75 (36) 3.05 (15) 9.07 (51) 6.07 (102)

Native American 0.16 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (1)

Mixed races 1.92 (12) 6.71 (33) 3.02 (17) 3.69 (62)



Total

Grade level% (n)

Kindergarten 25 13.10 (82) 13.21 (65) 14.77 (83) 13.69 (230)

First 26 14.54 (91) 17.28 (85) 12.10 (68) 14.52 (244)

Second 27 15.81 (99) 13.21 (65) 14.06 (79) 14.46 (243)

Third 28 12.14 (76) 17.07 (84) 14.77 (83) 14.46 (243)

Fourth 29 13.58 (85) 13.82 (68) 13.07 (77) 13.69 (230)

Fifth 15 17.73 (111) 11.99 (59) 16.73 (94) 15.71 (264)

Sixth 16 13.10 (82) 13.41 (66) 13.88 (78) 13.45 (226)

Special education services % (n)

9.11 (57) 8.74 (43) 6.23 (35) 8.04 (135)

Emotional Disturbance % (n)

0.00 (0) 2.44 (12) 0.00 (0) 0.71 (12)

Age M (SD) 8.19 (2.02) 7.97 (1.99) 8.15 (2.05) 8.11 (2.02)



Total

Teacher n = 35 n = 24 n= 29 N = 88

Gender % (n)

Male 12.12 (4) 21.74 (5) 7.14 (2) 13.10 (11)

Female 87.88 (29) 78.26 (18) 92.86 (26) 86.90 (73)

Ethnicity % (n)

White 79.07 (29) 69.57 (16) 85.19 (23) 81.93 (68)

Black 0.00 (0) 8.70 (2) 11.11 (3) 6.02 (5)

Hispanic 0.00 (0) 4.35 (1) 0.00 (0) 1.20 (1)

Asian 9.09 (3) 13.04 (3) 3.70 (1) 8.43 (7)

Native American 0.00 (0) 4.35 (1) 0.00 (0) 1.20 (1)

Declined to report 3.03 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 1.20 (1)

Primary role % (n)

General education 90.91 (30) 100.00 (23) 100.00 (28) 96.43 (81)

Special education 9.09 (3) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 3.57 (3)

Table 1 cont. Student and Teacher Characteristics



Total

Certified in the area currently teaching % (n)

100.00 (32) 100.00 (23) 100.00 (28)100.00

(83)

Highest degree earned % (n)

Bachelor’s degree 15.63 (5) 8.70 (2) 28.57 (8) 18.07 (15)

Master’s degree 81.25 (26) 91.30 (21) 71.43 (20) 80.72 (67)

Master’s degree + 30 3.13 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 1.20 (1)

Completed course in classroom management % (n)

Yes 93.94 (31) 95.65 (22) 96.43 (27) 95.24 (80)

No 6.06 (2) 4.35 (1) 3.57 (1) 4.76 (4)

Professional development in academic screening % (n)

Yes 69.70 (23) 43.48 (10) 51.85 (14) 56.63 (47)

No 30.30 (10) 56.52 (13) 48.15 (13) 43.37 (36)


Total

Professional development in behavior screening % (n)

Yes 59.38 (19) 43.48 (10) 29.63 (8) 45.12 (37)

No 40.63 (13) 56.52 (13) 70.37 (19) 54.88 (45)

Years teaching experience M (SD)

14.67 (9.01) 11.13 (7.65) 14.00 (8.91) 13.48 (8.65)

Years teaching experience current school M (SD)

10.75 (7.68) 8.95 (77.51) 11.57 (8.57) 10.57 (7.96)

Age M (SD) 38.83 (12.19) 35.35 (10.43) 38.41 (10.65) 37.69 (11.16)



Variable School

School An = 626

School Bn = 492

School Cn = 562

Attendance ratea 97% 96% 97%

Classroom teachers (FTE)b 43.55 35.40 37.25

Enrollmentb 621 447 540

Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb

82 (13.20%) 106 (21.54%) 40 (7.41%)

Grades servedb K-6 K-6 K-6

Localeb Suburb: Large Suburb: Large Suburb: Large

NCLB statusac Made AYP Made AYP Made AYP

Student/teacher ratiob 14.26 12.60 14.50

Title 1 eligibleb No Yes No

Table 2 School Characteristics 2012-2013

RESULTSStudy 2: Elementary

Schools

Table 3Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, and SRSS-IE12 with the SSiS-PSG

SSiS-PSG Scale M (SD) Correlation

Time

Fall M (SD)

Spring M (SD)

SRSS- E7

1.72 (2.74)

1.79 (3.03)

r

SRSS- I5

0.95 (1.81)

0.67 (1.71)

r

SRSS-IE12

2.67 (3.87)

2.46 (4.12)

r

Reading Skills Fall 3.77 (1.05) -0.60 -0.37 -0.60

Spring 4.01 (1.06) -0.54 -0.27 -0.51Math Skills

Fall 3.88 (1.00) -0.54 -0.37 -0.56Spring 4.06 (1.01) -0.53 -0.32 -0.52

Motivation to Learn Fall 3.92 (1.03) -0.66 -0.40 -0.66

Spring 4.20 (0.95) -0.63 -0.36 -0.61Prosocial Behavior

Fall 3.95 (0.96) -0.63 -0.42 -0.64

Spring 4.19 (0.92) -0.69 -0.41 -0.67

Table 4Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSiS-PSG

Measure Subscale N Correlation P value

SRSS-IE

SRSS-E7 1646 0.71 < .0001

SRSS-I5 1646 0.56 < .0001

SRSS- I12 1646 0.67 < .0001

SSiS-PSG

Reading Skills 1626 0.67 < .0001

Math Skills 1626 0.64 < .0001

Motivation to Learn 1626 0.60 < .0001

Prosocial Behavior 1626 0.59 < .0001

Social Validity – ES Teacher in Fall

The greater differences appear to be related to:• SRSS-IE (a free-access screening tool) rated more favorably• Monetary resources (Cohen’s d = 1.40) as the primary concern• Easy to prepare (Cohen’s d = .73),

SSiS-PSG to be better able to • cover the critical elements of behavior that concern teachers (Item 5;

Cohen’s d = -.40), • offer teachers important information to support students (Item 6; Cohen’s d

= -.46), and • offer the school as a whole important information (Item 7; Cohen’s d =

-.46).

Total social validity scores suggest a low-magnitude favorable rating for the SRSS-IE as whole relative to the SSiS-PSG. However, time, ease, and cost were the key factors; not utility.

THE LESSONS LEARNED …

Administrative leadership both district and building level is critical

Convenience is KEY!Faculty appreciated the ability to share perspectives

through social validity surveyFaculty appreciated immediate feedback through

electronic formatParticipants needed frequent reminders of the

conceptual purpose of Universal ScreeningConsentFollow up with plans for sustainability

DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE

SUBSEQUENT INQUIRY …

SRSS-IE: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5 Cut Scores

• Enter ‘practice’ data into that one sheet so that the total scores and conditional formatting are tested.

• Items 1-7 (The SRSS externalizing scale)0 – 3 low risk

4 – 8 moderate risk (yellow)

9 – 21 high risk (red)

• Items 8-12 (The SRSS-IE internalizing items)*preliminary cut scores for elementary only

0 – 1 low risk

2 – 3 moderate (yellow)

4 – 15 high (red)

Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Swogger, E. D., Schatschneider, C., Menzies, H., M., & Sanchez, J. (in press). Student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Preliminary cut scores to support data-informed decision making. Behavioral Disorders

•

SRSS-E7 Results – All Students

School W14 School W15 School W16 School W170%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0.773109243697479

0.184873949579832

0.0420168067226891

Low Risk (0-3) Moderate (4-8) High (9-21)

Screening Time Point

% o

f Stu

dent

s Sc

reen

s

N = 15

N = 66

N = 276

Sample … Winter

49

SRSS-I5 Results – All StudentsSample … Winter

School W14 School W15 School W16 School W170%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0.789915966386555

0.134453781512605

0.0756302521008403

Low Risk (0-1) Moderate (2-3) High (4-15)

Screening Time Point

% o

f Stu

dent

s Sc

reen

s

N = 27

N = 48

N = 282

50

Pennsylvania Now…

• Established PA Process• Finalized PA materials• Trained all facilitators • Awarded 6 mini grants • Lessons Learned

DATA-BASED DECISIONS LEAD TO INTERVENTIONS…

Multi-tiered System of SupportBasic Classroom Management

Effective Instruction

Assess, Design, Implement, andEvaluate

Basic Classroom ManagementEffective Instruction

Low Intensity Strategies

Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring

- -Functional Assessment-Based

Interventions

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support


Higher Intensity Strategies

Assessment

Essential Components of Classroom Management

• Classroom Climate• Physical Room Arrangement• Routines and Procedures• Managing Paper Work

Instructional Considerations

• How motivating is my classroom?– Control – Challenge – Curiosity – Contextualization

• Am I using a variety of instructional strategies?

• How am I differentiating instruction?








Interventions




Assessment

Low-Intensity Strategies

• Active Supervision• Proximity• Pacing• Appropriate use of Praise• Opportunities to Respond• Instructive Feedback• Incorporating Choice

Small group Reading Instruction with Self-Monitoring

Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data

Sample Secondary Intervention GridSupport Description Schoolwide Data:

Entry CriteriaData to Monitor Progress:

Exit Criteria

Small group Reading instruction with Self-Monitoring

Small group reading instruction (30 min, 3 days per week). Students monitored their participation in the reading instructional tasks. Students used checklists of reading lesson components each day to complete and compare to teachers’ rating.K – 1.

Students who:Behavior:Fall SRSSat moderate (4 -8) or high (9 – 21) risk Academic:Fall AIMSweb LNF at the strategic or intensive level

AIMSweb reading PSF and NWF progress monitoring probes (weekly).

Daily self-monitoring checklists

Meet AIMSweb reading benchmark at next screening time point.Low Risk on SRSS at next screening time point.

Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict Resolution Class

Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data

Sample Secondary Intervention GridSupport Description Schoolwide Data:

Entry CriteriaData to Monitor

Progress:Exit Criteria

Study Skills

Content:Study skills curriculum of skills and strategies used to gain and demonstrate knowledge.Goals:Gain knowledge from a text, class discussions, and teacher-led instruction.Demonstrate knowledge on formal and informal assessments (test, quizzes, homework, presentations, and projects)Topics Include:Note-taking strategiesUse of graphic organizersOrganizationGoal settingTest taking strategiesWriting process (planning/ drafting/ editing)

Scheduling:50 min class (30 min instruction; 20 min applied practice)56 Lessons

Academic: (1) Grade Point Average (GPA) ≤ 2.7;OR(2) 1 or more Course Failures in a quarter (D or F/E) AND(3) Not participating in Read 180 reading intervention AND Behavior:(1) Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) score in the Moderate (4 – 8) or High (9 – 21) Risk; OR(2) 1 or more office discipline referral (ODR) within a four month time period

Schoolwide Data:GPACourse Grades (9-weeks)SRSSODRs Proximal Measures:(1) Criterion Referenced Assessment – Acquiring Knowledge, Demonstrating Knowledge, and Conflict Resolution (Lane, 2003)(2) Knowledge of Study Skills (KSS)(3) Knowledge of Conflict Resolution Skills (KCRS)Distal Measures:(1) Study Habits Inventory (SHI; Jones & Slate, 1990)(2) ConflictTalk (Kimsey & Fuller, 2003)

Academic: (for the quarter)(1) Grade Point Average (GPA) > 2.7; OR(2) No Course Failures (D or F/E) AND Behavior:(1) SRSS screening low risk (0 – 3)OR(2) No ODRs within the quarter Students would participate in this class for one semester. If exit criteria are not meet further interventions would be considered for the following semester.

(Table 4.7; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012)








Interventions




Assessment

Sample Secondary Intervention Grid

Support

Description Schoolwide Data: Entry

Criteria

Data to Monitor Progress

Exit Criteria

Behavior Contract

A written agreement between two parties used to specify the contingent relationship between the completion of a behavior and access to or delivery of a specific reward. Contract may involve administrator, teacher, parent, and student.

Behavior: SRSS - mod to high riskAcademic: 2 or more missing assignments with in a grading period

Work completion, or other behavior addressed in contract

Successful Completion of behavior contract

Self-monitoring

Students will monitor and record their academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on-task behavior each day.

Students who score in the abnormal range for H and CP on the SDQ; course failure or at risk on CBM

Work completion and accuracy in the academic area of concern; passing grades

Passing grade on the report card in the academic area of concern

Sample Secondary Intervention Grid

Multi-tiered System of Support






Interventions




Assessment

Sample Tertiary Intervention GridSupport Description School-wide Data:

Entry CriteriaData to Monitor

Progress Exit Criteria

Functional Assessment-Based Intervention

Individualized interventions developed by the behavior specialist and PBS team

Students who:Behaviorscored in the high risk category on the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS), or scored in the clinical range on one following Strengths and Difficulties (SDQ) subscales: Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, or Prosocial Behavior, earned more than 5 office discipline referrals (ODR) for major events during a grading period or Academicidentified at highest risk for school failure: recommended for retention; or scored far below basic on state-wide or district-wide assessments

Data will be collected on both the (a) target (problem) behavior and (b) replacement (desirable) behavior identified by the team on an on-going basis.

Weekly teacher report on academic status

ODR data collected weekly

The function-based intervention will be faded once a functional relation is demonstrated using a validated single case methodology design (e.g., withdrawal design) and the behavioral objectives specified in the plan are met.

MTSS: CI3T II Professional Learning 66

Thank you!

UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR: PENNSYLVANIA’S COLLABORATION WITH RESEARCHERS AND DISTRICT LEVEL...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR: PENNSYLVANIA’S COLLABORATION WITH RESEARCHERS AND DISTRICT LEVEL...