Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This article provides a review of current practices and tools used in the proactive screening of behaviorally at-risk students within the context of schooling. While there are many obstacles to the early detection of vulnerable students, some recent developments have helped make educators more receptive to early identification and prevention approaches. In addition to describing current best practices, this article reviews promising innovations in screening and early identification that the authors believe are worth considering and whose structural characteristics, required accommodations, and critical features may make them more acceptable to educational users. Implications for the training of school psychologists in the screening and early identification of high-risk students are reviewed and recommendations offered for future research.

Section snippets

The status of schools' routine practice(s) in behavioral screening

Historically, schools have viewed their primary mission as accomplishing the academic development of all students. The social–behavioral development of students, in contrast, is commonly regarded as a secondary mandate, and many educators have questioned this goal as a legitimate priority for schools. Lloyd, Kauffman, Landrum, and Roe (1991), in a revealing study, investigated the frequency, timing, and reasons for referral to special education by regular teachers in several school districts in

Recommended tools for use in behavioral screening and assessment

In the fall of 2004, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded four national Behavior Research Centers (BRCs) to conduct scientific research on promising intervention approaches for use with moderately to severely involved students having school related behavior problems. The four centers form a consortium that is coordinated by the National Behavior Research Coordination Center (NBRCC), located at Stanford Research Institute and directed by Mary Wagner, Ph.D. of the Stanford

Current best practices in screening and identification

The instruments profiled in Table 1 provide professional consumers with a number of acceptable methods for accomplishing screening for behaviorally at-risk students. They also illustrate three approaches to behavioral screening that differ in their procedures, that have proved effective, and that are, in our view, substantial improvements over the spontaneous referral by regular teachers of students with behavior problems. These approaches involve (1) multiple gating procedures, (2) teacher

Emerging innovations in behavioral screening and early detection of at-risk students

In the past decade, some innovations in the screening and profiling of students have emerged that show considerable promise. They are (1) the systematic recording and analysis of archival school records resulting from disciplinary infractions commonly referred to as office discipline referrals (ODRs), (2) screening on the basis of Response to Intervention (RTI) where certain students fail to respond adequately to an appropriate intervention implemented with good treatment fidelity, and (3)

Considerations in next generation approaches for screening of at-risk students

Screening is typically linked to the concept of preventing problems or developing early intervention strategies to prevent long-term negative outcomes (Levine, Perkins, & Perkins, 2005). Typically prevention programs and procedures focus on reducing the incidence of disorders by targeting risk and protective factors. Risk factors are selected to be modified and protective factors are targeted to be strengthened; however, invoking risk and protective factors in the assessment process is quite

Staff training and implementation fidelity considerations in behavioral screening

An important consideration in implementation of any screening program is the fidelity with which the screening process is implemented and the knowledge or skills that professionals bring to this task. As with intervention programs, screening can be conceptualized as an initiative in which there are procedures that need to be implemented with integrity. Fidelity in this regard is similar to that for treatment integrity and depends upon such factors as the availability of manualized materials,

Research agenda for screening

Our field is faced with a dilemma of sorts regarding investing in systematic, universal screening procedures applied to the general school population. It is generally regarded (but as yet unproven) that such procedures will more accurately identify students in regular classrooms who have serious mental health needs as reflected in their emotional–behavioral functioning. However, given the current realities of the financial and accountability pressures impinging on school systems, educators do

Conclusions

In sum, it seems apparent that a broad spectrum of mental health professionals and some educators, especially within higher education settings, regard systematic, universal screening as a preferred practice that would connect more vulnerable students to needed services, supports, and placements much earlier in their school careers. Burns and Hoagwood (2002) argue that upwards of 20% of the school age student population is in need of treatment for their emotional and behavioral problems.

References (73)

  • J.D. Coie et al.

    The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program

    American Psychologist

    (1993)
  • J.D. Cone

    Psychometric considerations and multiple models of behavioral assessment

  • L.J. Cronbach

    Beyond two disciplines of scientific psychology

    American Psychologist

    (1975)
  • M.K. Demaray et al.

    Social Skills Assessment: A Comparative Evaluation of Six Published Rating Scales

    School Psychology Review

    (1995)
  • M. Del'Homme et al.

    Prereferral intervention and students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders

    Education and Treatment of Children

    (1996)
  • T. Drummond

    The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS)

    (1993)
  • S.N. Elliot et al.

    Behavior rating scales: Issues of use and development

    School Psychology Review

    (1993)
  • S.N. Elliot et al.

    Assessment and evaluation of students' behavior and intervention outcomes: The utility of rating scale methods

  • M.H. Epstein et al.

    Convergent Validity of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale with Primary Grade-Level Students

    Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

    (2002)
  • M.H. Epstein et al.

    Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS): A strength-based approach to assessment — Examiner's manual

    (1998)
  • S.M. Eyberg et al.

    Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg, Student Behavior Inventory: Professional manual

    (1999)
  • S.M. Eyberg et al.

    Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory

    Journal of Clinical Child Psychology

    (1978)
  • E.G. Feil et al.

    Early screening and intervention to prevent the development of aggressive, destructive behavior patterns among at-risk children

  • Fennerty, D., Lambert, C., Majsterek, D. (2000). Behavior Rating Scales: An Analysis. Eric Document...
  • M.M. Gerber et al.

    Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process

    Educational Psychologist

    (1984)
  • F.M. Gresham

    Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities

  • F.M. Gresham

    Methodological issues in evaluating cognitive–behavioral treatments for students with behavioral disorders

    Behavioral Disorders

    (2005)
  • F.M. Gresham

    Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed

    Education and Treatment of Children

    (2005)
  • F.M. Gresham

    Response to intervention

  • F.M. Gresham et al.

    The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)

    (1990)
  • F.M. Gresham et al.

    “Behavioral earthquakes”: Low frequency, salient behavioral events that differentiate students at-risk for behavioral disorders

    Behavioral Disorders

    (1996)
  • T. Glover et al.

    Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments

    Journal of School Psychology

    (2007)
  • S. Hayes et al.

    The treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach to evaluating assessment quality

    American Psychologist

    (1987)
  • R. Hersh et al.

    Great expectations: Making schools effective for all students

    Policy Studies Review

    (1983)
  • R.H. Horner et al.

    School-wide positive behavior support

  • L. Irvin et al.

    Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions

    Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

    (2004)

    • Cited by (176)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 2006 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.