Jemma Robertson Kalberg

Student Risk Screening Scale: Initial Evidence for Score Reliability and Validity at the High School Level

This article presents findings from a study of the reliability and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale for use with high school students (N = 674). Results revealed high internal consistency, test—retest stability, interrater reliability, and convergent validity with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire . Predictive validity was established across two academic years, with students at low risk for antisocial behavior differentiated on behavioral (office discipline referrals [ODR]) and academic variables (grade point average [GPA]) from students with moderate and high levels of risk. However, neither ODR nor GPA variables could differentiate between students with moderate-risk or high-risk status. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.

An Examination of the Evidence Base for Function-Based Interventions for Students with Emotional and/or Behavioral Disorders Attending Middle and High Schools

The authors field-tested the core quality indicators and standards for evidence-based practices for single-case design studies developed by Horner and colleagues (2005) by applying them to the literature exploring functional assessment-based interventions conducted with secondary-age students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). First, we evaluated this knowledge base by applying the indicators to determine if the studies identified (n = 12) were of acceptable methodological quality. Second, we analyzed studies meeting the recommended quality indicators to determine whether function-based interventions with students with EBD might be considered an evidence-based practice. Results reveal that only 1 study addressed all proposed quality indicators, suggesting that function-based interventions are not yet an evidence-based practice for this population per these indicators and standards. Limitations and recommendations are posed.

Systematic Screening at the Middle School Level Score Reliability and Validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale

This article presents findings of two studies, one conducted with middle school students (n = 500) in a rural setting and a second conducted with middle school students ( n = 528) in an urban setting, of the reliability and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994). Results revealed high internal consistency, test—retest stability, and convergent validity with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). In addition, short-term predictive validity was established; namely, students with risk statuses of low (n = 422), moderate (n = 51), and high (n = 12) according to the SRSS could best be differentiated by behavioral variables (e.g., ODR, in-school suspensions). Although academic variables could differentiate between students with moderate or high risks and students without (low) risk, these variables did not differentiate between students in the moderate-risk group and students in the high-risk group as did the behavioral variables. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.

Score Reliability and Validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale: A Psychometrically Sound, Feasible Tool for Use in Urban Middle Schools

In this article, the authors examine the psychometric properties of the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) for use in urban middle schools. Results of Studies 1 and 2 suggest strong internal consistency and test—retest stability. Study 1 supports the predictive validity of the SRSS, with students at low risk being able to be differentiated from moderate- to high-risk status on behavioral and academic measures. Study 2 also supports predictive validity up to 2 years following initial SRSS status, with students in the low-risk group having significantly fewer out-of-school suspensions, fewer unexcused absences, and higher grade point averages than students in the moderate- and high-risk groups. In addition, results of Study 1 support the feasibility of the SRSS, with increased use over time serving as a behavioral marker for social validity. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

A Comparison of Systematic Screening Tools for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: A Replication

In this article, the authors examine the psychometric properties of the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS), including evaluating the concurrent validity of the SRSS to predict results from the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) when used to detect school children with externalizing or internalizing behavior concerns at three assessment points during one academic year. Results suggest strong internal consistency and test—retest stability. Analyses of receiver operating characteristics curves also suggest that the SRSS is more accurate for detecting externalizing than internalizing behaviors. The authors conclude by offering recommendations to school site teams and researchers interested in conducing systematic screenings at the elementary level. Limitations and future directions are offered.

Using Systematic Screening Data to Assess Risk and Identify Students for Targeted Supports: Illustrations Across the K–12 Continuum

In this article the authors provide practitioners and researchers with three illustrations of how to use systematic screening tools within the context of three-tiered models of support to (a) measure the overall level of risk present in a school over time and (b) identify students who may require more targeted supports in the form of secondary and tertiary prevention efforts. Specifically, the authors explore data-driven approaches to interpreting systematic screening data collected as part of regular school practices at the high, middle, and elementary school levels. In each illustration they describe the student population, the procedures used by each school to construct the three-tiered model, the primary prevention plan developed, the systematic screening tool incorporated into regular school practices, and the data analysis plan. Furthermore, the authors offer findings of treatment outcome studies that demonstrate how student risk shifts over time following program implementation. They also include hypothetical and actual illustrations of how to use data from a variety of screening tools to identify students for secondary and tertiary prevention efforts.

Teaching Elementary School Educators to Design, Implement, and Evaluate Functional Assessment-Based Interventions: Successes and Challenges

In this article, the authors present the findings of an intensive training series designed to train school-site teams in functional assessment procedures. They examined the extent to which participation in an intensive training series that included on-site follow-up was sufficient to provide participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to design, implement, and evaluate a function-based intervention. The resulting interventions included the core components necessary (e.g., social validity, treatment integrity, and generalization and maintenance) to draw accurate conclusions about intervention outcome. The results of the study indicate that two teams were able to decrease problem behaviors and increase the use of functionally equivalent replacement behaviors. The authors discuss several limitations regarding the present study and provide thoughts on future efforts in this area.

The Utility of Conflict Resolution and Study Skills Interventions With Middle School Students at Risk for Antisocial Behavior: A Methodological Illustration

This article provides a methodological illustration of how to conduct randomized controls trials (RCT) for secondary levels of prevention within the context of three-tiered models of support. First, the authors demonstrate one method of using school-wide data to identify middle school students (N = 45) who were struggling in academic and behavioral domains. Second, the authors describe the procedures for conducting an RCT to compare two interventions (study skills [n = 34] and conflict resolution [n = 31]) relative to a business-as-usual condition (study skills [n = 34]). Third, the authors conclude by offering recommendations for conducting scientifically rigorous—yet feasible—investigations within three-tiered models of prevention that adhere to the core quality indicators recommended by Gersten, Fuchs, Compton, Coyne, Greenwood, and Innocenti.

Systematic Screening for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders at the High School Level A Formidable and Necessary Task

The authors examined the utility of a modified version of the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders for use at the high school level to address issues of comorbidity. Results suggested that the modified version was able to discriminate among students with varying degrees of risk in terms of academic performance as measured by GPA. In terms of convergent validity, teachers were able to differentiate between the social skills of students rated with typical behaviors and those at risk for externalizing or comorbid behaviors in terms of cooperation, self-control, school adjustment, and empathy skills. Furthermore, teachers were better able to discriminate externalizing behaviors relative to internalizing behaviors. Overall, solely relying on teacher nominations may be sufficient for discriminating between the presence versus absence of risk. However, it may not be sufficient to discriminate among the presence of different types of risk, particularly internalizing behaviors. Limitations and educational implications are discussed.

Using systematic screening procedures to identify students who are nonresponsive to primary prevention efforts: integrating academic and behavioral measures

Many school systems are adopting three-tiered models of prevention (e.g., Response to Intervention and Positive Behavior Support) to support an increasingly diverse student population (Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). A central feature of these models is that data are monitored to determine responsiveness. We offer this paper as a guide for researchers and practitioners in using multiple sources of data to support students with reading and behavioral challenges. Specifically, we provide an illustration of how one elementary school used an academic screener (Curriculum-Based Measurement; CBM) in combination with behavior screeners (Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders [Walker & Severson, 1992] and the Student Risk Screening Scale [Drummond, 1994]) to identify students who were non-responsive to the primary prevention efforts. We provide information on the methodology that includes participants, training procedures, a description of the primary plan, and assessment schedule. Then we offer two illustrations of how the CBM and behavior screening data could be analyzed to identify students for targeted supports and directions for future applications.