Purpose
5/4/2013
Systematic Screening for Behavior Challenges: The Importance of Intervening Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., BCBA-D University of Kansas Wendy P. Oakes, Ph.D. Arizona State University
Purpose
In this workshop, participants will learn about comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (CI3T) models of prevention that blend RTI and PBIS models. Participants will learn about various systematic screening tools: description, logistics, strengths and limitations; and how to use data to inform secondary (Tier 2) and tertiary (Tier 3) supports.
1
5/4/2013
Agenda
Introduce a new three-tiered model of prevention: Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Models of Prevention Address the importance of systematic screening. Explore behavior screening tools Consider one system for using data to connect students to Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports Next Steps
CI3T Models Introduce a new three-tiered model of prevention: Comprehensive, Integrated, ThreeTiered Models of Prevention
2
5/4/2013
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
≈
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Curricula
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic
Social
Behavioral
Question: What is your experience with three-tiered models of prevention?
3
5/4/2013
Systematic Screening Address the importance of systematic screening.
Procedures for Monitoring Accurate Detection: Using Schoolwide Data Enables monitoring of the overall level of risk and progress in the school as a whole Allows teacher to identify students who may require additional supports in academic, behavioral, and social domains
Facilitates accurate decision making Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
4
5/4/2013
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
Indicators of Behavior
SAMPLE DATA: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE:
QUARTER 1 2005‐2006 TO QUARTER 1 2006‐2007
Rate (per instructional day)
These numbers represent the total numbers for the school as a whole divided by the number of schools days in a given quarter.
5
5/4/2013
Rate (per instructional day)
SAMPLE DATA: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: QUARTER 1 2005‐2006 TO QUARTER 1 2006‐2007
These numbers represent the total numbers for the school as a whole divided by the number of schools days in a given quarter.
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
HOW ARE THESE DATA
LIMITED?
6
5/4/2013
Considerations
Psychometrically Sound
Socially Valid
If social validity is lacking, even psychometrically strong tools are likely to remain unused by practitioners.
Question: How do you currently look for students for whom primary (Tier 1) efforts are insufficient?
7
5/4/2013
Behavior Screening Tools Explore behavior screening tools
What screening tools are available? A Review of Screening Tools
8
5/4/2013
Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
SSBD Screening Process
Pool of Regular Classroom Students TEACHER SCREENING on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavioral Dimensions 3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing Behavior Criteria
PASS GATE 1 TEACHER RATING on Critical Events Index and Combined Frequency Index Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI
PASS GATE 2 DIRECT OBSERVATION of Process Selected Pupils in Classroom and on Playground Exceed Normative Criteria on AET and PSB
PASS GATE 3 Pre-referral Intervention(s)
Child may be referred to Child Study Team
9
18
5/4/2013
Stage 1: Rank order students who most closely match the description of each behavior pattern.
Mutually Exclusive Lists
Stage 2: Externalizing - Teacher rating for
high intensity low frequency behavior
Critical Events Index completed for students ranked 1, 2, and 3 on Stage 1 for Externalizing So, 3 students per class 33 items mark as present or absence
10
5/4/2013
Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior 12 items – Adaptive 11 items – Maladaptive 5-point Likert-type scale 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
Stage 2: Internalizing -Teacher rating for high intensity low frequency behavior
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
And lower intensity, high frequency behaviors
Critical Events Index completed for students ranked 1, 2, and 3 on Stage 1 for Externalizing So, 3 students per class 33 items mark as presence for absence
11
5/4/2013
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
And lower intensity, high frequency behaviors
Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior 12 items – Adaptive 11 items – Maladaptive 5-point Likert-type scale 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently
SSBD Results – Winter 2007 through Winter 2009 Risk Status of Nominated Students 80 70
Internalizing
Externalizing
Externalizing
Number of Students
60 50 40 47
62
59
43
56 60
30
Exceeded Normative Criteria
20 10 0
Nominated But Did Not Exceed Criteria
17
13
6.18%
7
7
3.50%
3.18%
13 6
8.90%
6.50%
2.73%
Winter 2007 Winter 2008 Winter 2009 Winter 2007 Winter 2008 Winter 2009 (N=60) (N=69) (N=66) (N=60) (N=69) (N=66)
% computed based on total # students screened
Screening Time Point Source. Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 20120. Figure 2.2 WES Elementary Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) results comparing the percentage of students nominated and exceeding normative criteria for both externalizing and internalizing behavior disorders over a three year period.
12
5/4/2013
Grade Level
Total Number of Students Students Screened Nominated
72
K
*5
66
1st
*9E/ 8I
2nd
60 *10
Students w/ Critical Need
Critical Critical Internalizing Externalizing
24
4 (5.56%)
1 (1.39%)
3 (4.17%)
24
1 (1.54%)
0 (0.00%)
1 (1.54%)
18
3 (5.00%)
2 (3.33%)
1 (1.67%)
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
SAMPLE DATA: SSBD WINTER 2009-2010 CRITICAL NEED COMPARISON BY GRADE LEVEL
* Students missing
Grade Level
3rd 4th 5th
Total Number of Students Students Screened Nominated
80 *6
78 *17
60 *17
Students w/ Critical Need
Critical Internalizing
Critical Externalizing
24
2 (2.50%)
1 (1.25%)
1 (1.25%)
24
3 (3.84%)
1 (1.28%)
2 (2.56%)
18
2 (3.34%)
1 (1.67%)
1 (1.67%)
* Students missing
13
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
SAMPLE DATA: SSBD WINTER 2009-2010 CRITICAL NEED COMPARISON BY GRADE LEVEL
5/4/2013
SSBD Data Over Time Comparing Fall 2007 to Winter 2007
6.23% (29)
n = 465
5.17% (24)
n = 464
3.65% (17)
n = 465
1.29% (6)
n = 464
Early Screening Project:
A Proven Child Find Process (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1994)
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
14
5/4/2013
Early Screening Project Procedures Teacher Ranking
Three Highest Ranked Children on Externalizing and Internalizing Behavioral Criteria
Pass Gate One Teacher Rating Exceed Normative Criteria
Pass Gate Two (Optional)
Stage Three
Stage Two
Stage One
Pool of Regular Classroom Preschoolers
Observation and Parent Questionnaire
Prereferral Interventions
Child may be referred to the Child Study Team (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil,1995, pp. 4)
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SSBD and ESP?
15
5/4/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale
Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994) •
• •
•
•
The SRSS is 7‐item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. Uses 4‐point Likert‐type scale: never = 0, occasionally = 1, sometimes = 2, frequently = 3 Teachers evaluate each student on the following items
• ‐ Steal ‐ Low Academic Achievement
• ‐ Lie, Cheat, Sneak ‐ Negative Attitude
• ‐ Behavior Problem ‐ Aggressive Behavior
• ‐ Peer Rejection
Student Risk is divided into 3 categories • Low 0 – 3 • Moderate 4 – 8 • High 9 ‐ 21
(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
16
5/4/2013
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE (DRUMMOND, 1994)
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IE CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT TEACHER NAME 0 = Never
Student Name
17
Self-Inflicts Pain
Lonely
Anxious
Sad; Depressed
Shy; Withdrawn
Emotionally Flat
Aggressive Behavior
Negative Attitude
Peer Rejection
Steal
Validation Study
Behavior Problem
Use the above scale to rate each item for each student.
Lie, Cheat, Sneak
3 = Frequently
Low Academic Achievement
2 = Sometimes
Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior
1= Occasionally
5/4/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale Middle School Fall 2004 - Fall 2011 100%
6.00%
3.00% 11.00%
3.00% 11.00%
2.34% 7.87%
0.63%
1.68%
1.34%
2.23%
6.29%
7.77%
6.11%
3.71%
17.00%
n = 20
80%
Percentage of Students
n = 12
n = 507 60%
High Moderate Low 40%
77.00%
86.00%
86.00%
89.79%
93.08%
90.55%
92.56%
94.06%
20%
N=534
N=502
N=454
N=470
N=477
N=476
N=524
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
N= 539
0%
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2011
Fall Screeners
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
HOW RELIABLE AND VALID IS
THE SRSS FOR USE AT THE
ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND
HIGH SCHOOL?
18
5/4/2013
Elementary Level Results: ROC Curves
Externalizing AUC 0.952
1.0
AUC = 0.952
Sensitivity
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 ‐ Specificity
Elementary Level Results: ROC Curves
Internalizing AUC .802
1.0
AUC = .802
0.8
Sensitivity
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 ‐ Specificity
19
1.0
5/4/2013
SAMPLE DATA: SRSS Middle School Study 1: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups
Variable
Risk Low (n = 422) M (SD)
Moderate (n = 51) M (SD)
High (n = 12) M (SD)
Significance Testing
ODR
1.50 (2.85)
5.02 (5.32)
8.42 (7.01)
L<M M, H M=H
Student Risk Screening Scale
SAMPLE DATA:
5/4/2013
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SRSS?
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
21
5/4/2013
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) •
2 versions (elementary T4-10 and middle/high T11-17)
• • •
•
One page is completed on EACH student All versions of the SDQ ask about 25 attributes, both positive and negative These 25 items are divided between 5 scales:
•
Emotional Symptoms Conduct Problems Hyperactivity / Inattention Peer Relationship Problems Pro-social Behavior
•
Total Difficulties (sum of first 4 scales)
• • • •
www.SDQinfo.com
(GOODMAN, 1997)
More information can be found at: www.SDQinfo.com
22
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
STRENGTHS AND DIFFICULTIES QUESTIONNAIRE
5/4/2013
Percent of Students
SDQ: Screening Results by Domain
Elementary School Winter 2009
Subscale
11.90% 6.10%
13.30%
Percent of Students
14.00%
82.00%
72.70%
Time Point
23
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
SAMPLE DATA: SDQ OVER TIME FALL 2005 TO FALL 2006 PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
5/4/2013
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SDQ?
BACS2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scale
Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
24
5/4/2013
A brief, universal screening system for measuring behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses in children and adolescents.
BASCTM2 - BESS •Behavioral areas assessed include: •Internalizing problems •Externalizing problems •School problems •Adaptive skills
•Includes 3 forms that can be used individually or in combination: •Teacher- Preschool and Child/ Adolescent •Student self-report- Child/ Adolescent •Parent- Preschool and Child/ Adolescent (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
Source: Neithercott & Hanken (2008). Behavioral and Emotional Screening System: A Tier 1 Solution. Presented at the Kansas Association of School Psychologists/ Council for Exceptional Children Conference.
25
5/4/2013
BASC2 – Behavior and Emotional Screening Scale Spring 2012 Normal
Percent of Students
N = 24
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
N = 67
Elevated
Extremely Elevated
3.65 8.68
3.85 10.74
5.45 12.38
2.46 11.33
N = 533
85.42
Total N = 624
87.67
Sixth Subgroup n = 219
82.18
Seventh
86.21
Eighth
n = 202
n = 203
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the BESS?
26
5/4/2013
Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide
SSIS-PSG
•Four key areas are assessed: •Prosocial Behavior •Motivation to Learn •Reading Skills •Math Skills •Three levels: •Preschool •Elementary •Secondary
A comprehensive, multi-tiered program for improving social behavior. Focuses on keystone classroom behaviors and skills.
(Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
27
5/4/2013
PSG: Performancee Areas Prosocial Behavior Motivation to Learn
Four pages with performance descriptors for each area: 1. Reading Skills 2. Math Skills 3. Motivation to Learn 4. Prosocial behavior
(Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Pearson)
PSG: Actions Students Scoring a 1 in any area & Suggested Action
Students Scoring a 2 or 3 in any area & Suggested Action
(Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Pearson)
28
5/4/2013
Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide Spring 2012 – Total School Adequate progress
45.60
80%
6.34
7.14
N = 22
N = 54
90%
Significant Difficulties
4.49
11.04
100%
Percent of Students
Moderate Difficulties
N = 31
N = 35
47.55
38.24
36.73
70%
N = 223
N = 233
N = 180
N = 187
60%
N = 212
N = 235
N = 275
N = 271
50% 40% 30% 20%
43.35
47.96
55.42
56.12
10% 0%
Reading Skills
n = 489
Math Skills
Prosocial Behavior
n = 490 n = 490 Subscales
Motivation to Learn
n = 489
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SSiS-PSG?
29
5/4/2013
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
HOW DO WE CHOOSE THE
BEST SCREENING TOOL FOR
OUR SCHOOL?
Measure
Authors
Ordering Information
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD)
Walker & Severson Available for purchase from (1992) Cambium Learning/ Sopris West
Early Screening Project (ESP)
Walker, Severson, & Feil (1995)
Available for purchase from Applied Behavior Science Press
Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS)
Drummond (1994)
Free Access
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
Goodman (1997)
Free online at http://www.sdqinfo.com/
BASCTM2Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BASCTM2-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
30
5/4/2013
Question: Which screening tool(s) are you considering?
An New Tool to Help You Decide …
31
5/4/2013
LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
FOR SCREENING
Questions …
Questions to Consider
When to do them? Who should prepare them? Who should administer them? Who completes them? Who should score them? When and how should the results be shared?
32
5/4/2013
Question: What are some of your logistical concerns?
Using Screening Data to Support Students Secondary Interventions
33
5/4/2013
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
≈
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Curricula
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic
Social
Behavioral
34
5/4/2013
Secondary Intervention Grid
Project WRITE
Description
Teaching narrative and opinion essay writing strategies using the SelfRegulated Strategies Development approach to help students plan and write essays and stories
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Behavior: SRSS – at risk (9 – 21) and/or SSBD – exceed normative criteria Internalizing or Externalizing Academic: TOWL 3- score below the 25th percentile
Weekly writing probes scored on number of functional strategy elementshaving each piece of WWW, What=2, How=2 or TREE in the writing
Completion of intervention curriculum.
Experimental Treatment SRSD for Writing n = 24 n = 23 61 Second Graders
Academic: -TOWL (≤25% and 10-50 words) Behavioral: -SSRS (moderate, 4-8; or high, 9+) -SSBD (“TREE” in or 1+ Critical Event)
Exit Criteria
Phase 2 (Nov 07 – Feb 08): Intervention
Phase 1 (Fall 07): Screening & Assessment
2nd Grade Students
Data to Monitor Progress:
49 Participants
Support
35
Control Regular School Practices n = 25 n = 21
5/4/2013
Intervention Self‐Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996)
Behavioral Component 3 days a week; 30‐min sessions delivered 1:1 by a
research assistant
Fidelity collected more than 33% of sessions Lane, K. L., Harris, K., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Morphy, P., Hebert, M., House, E., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Self‐regulated strategy development at tier‐2 for second‐ grade students with writing and behavioral difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 322 – 353.
Illustration #3: Conflict Resolution and Social Skills at Tier 2 for Middle School Students
Kalberg, J. R., Lane, K. L., & Lambert, W. (2012). The utility of conflict resolution and social skills interventions with middle school students at risk for antisocial behavior: A methodological illustration. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 23‐38. doi: 10.1177/0741932510362514
36
5/4/2013
Secondary Intervention Grid Support
Study Skills
Description
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress:
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 strategies Use of graphic organizers Organization Goal setting Test taking strategies Writing process (planning/ drafting/ editing)
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: GPA Course Grades (9‐weeks) SRSS ODRs 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)
Scheduling: 50 min class (30 min instruction; 20 min applied practice) 56 Lessons
(Table 4.7; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012)
Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict Resolution Class
37
Exit Criteria 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.
5/4/2013
Phase 1 (Summer 05): Screening & Assessment
7th grade students
8th grade students
Academic: Low GPA (≤2.7) or 1+ D/F list Behavior: Mod & High Risk SRSS or 1+ ODR
25 rising graders
7th
49 rising 8th graders
Phase 2 (Aug‐Oct 05): Intervention
Study Skills n = 25
Random Assignment N = 74
Rural MS
(8 7th; 17 8th)
Conflict Resolution n = 24 (8 7th; 16 8th)
Focus n = 25 (9 7th; 16 8th)
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
≈
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Curricula
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic
Social
Behavioral
38
5/4/2013
Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid
Support Description
School-wide Data: Entry Criteria
Tier 2b Work with child in small Reading groups during intervention Interventions time 5 x a week, progress monitored once a week (Reading Specialist) Individual Work with counselor counseling individually specific needs (Counselor)
Progress monitoring on Fall below 25th percentile Tier 2a has been insufficient in AIMSweb addressing reading needs.
Office referrals for peer related difficulties or 1 or more failing grades, or 10 or more absences or teacher/parent referral. Functional Individualized interventions SRSS High Risk 4-21; assessment- developed by the behavior Office referrals 3 or more in based specialist and PBIS team. one quarter; Anyone recommended for interventions (Behavior retention Specialist)
Check-In/ Check-Out
Student checks in and out (morning and afternoon) with counselor or other staff member
Students who do not improve with expected progress following secondary intervention (CICO) Focus on completing assignments (Incomplete assignments resulting in failing grades.
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria Above 25th percentile, return to Tier 2a
Grades, absentee rates, and All passing grades, improved attendance referral numbers rates, 1 or fewer office referrals. Data will be collected on bothFunction based the target behavior and the interventions will be replacement behavior on an faded as the target ongoing basis. Weekly behaviors decrease. teacher report on academic When target behaviors status. Office discipline decrease and behavioral referrals collected weekly. objectives are met. Signature of participation, Daily goals met 90% of meeting daily goal—data the time and assignments looked at every 30 days turned in
39
5/4/2013
Wrap Up
Introduce Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention Address the Importance of Systematic Screening within CI3T Models Illustrations: 1. Tier 2 Writing Instruction (2nd) 2. Tier 2 Conflict Resolution and Social Skills (7th – 8th)
Concluding Thoughts
Recommendation #1: Build Stakeholders’ Expertise Recommendation #2: Develop the Structures to Sustain and Improve Practices Recommendation #3: Conduct Screenings in a Responsible Fashion Recommendation #4: Consider Legal Implications- know your state laws
40
5/4/2013
Wrap up and preview
Today’s Review Examined CI3T models of prevention Examined the use of Systematic Behavior Screening Tools. Introduced a systematic approach to using school‐wide data to identify and students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Supports
Questions? Kathleen Lane [email protected] Wendy Oakes [email protected]
41
Systematic Screening for Behavior Challenges: The Importance of Intervening Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., BCBA-D University of Kansas Wendy P. Oakes, Ph.D. Arizona State University
Purpose
In this workshop, participants will learn about comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (CI3T) models of prevention that blend RTI and PBIS models. Participants will learn about various systematic screening tools: description, logistics, strengths and limitations; and how to use data to inform secondary (Tier 2) and tertiary (Tier 3) supports.
1
5/4/2013
Agenda
Introduce a new three-tiered model of prevention: Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Models of Prevention Address the importance of systematic screening. Explore behavior screening tools Consider one system for using data to connect students to Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports Next Steps
CI3T Models Introduce a new three-tiered model of prevention: Comprehensive, Integrated, ThreeTiered Models of Prevention
2
5/4/2013
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
≈
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Curricula
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic
Social
Behavioral
Question: What is your experience with three-tiered models of prevention?
3
5/4/2013
Systematic Screening Address the importance of systematic screening.
Procedures for Monitoring Accurate Detection: Using Schoolwide Data Enables monitoring of the overall level of risk and progress in the school as a whole Allows teacher to identify students who may require additional supports in academic, behavioral, and social domains
Facilitates accurate decision making Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
4
5/4/2013
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
Indicators of Behavior
SAMPLE DATA: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE:
QUARTER 1 2005‐2006 TO QUARTER 1 2006‐2007
Rate (per instructional day)
These numbers represent the total numbers for the school as a whole divided by the number of schools days in a given quarter.
5
5/4/2013
Rate (per instructional day)
SAMPLE DATA: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: QUARTER 1 2005‐2006 TO QUARTER 1 2006‐2007
These numbers represent the total numbers for the school as a whole divided by the number of schools days in a given quarter.
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
HOW ARE THESE DATA
LIMITED?
6
5/4/2013
Considerations
Psychometrically Sound
Socially Valid
If social validity is lacking, even psychometrically strong tools are likely to remain unused by practitioners.
Question: How do you currently look for students for whom primary (Tier 1) efforts are insufficient?
7
5/4/2013
Behavior Screening Tools Explore behavior screening tools
What screening tools are available? A Review of Screening Tools
8
5/4/2013
Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
SSBD Screening Process
Pool of Regular Classroom Students TEACHER SCREENING on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavioral Dimensions 3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing Behavior Criteria
PASS GATE 1 TEACHER RATING on Critical Events Index and Combined Frequency Index Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI
PASS GATE 2 DIRECT OBSERVATION of Process Selected Pupils in Classroom and on Playground Exceed Normative Criteria on AET and PSB
PASS GATE 3 Pre-referral Intervention(s)
Child may be referred to Child Study Team
9
18
5/4/2013
Stage 1: Rank order students who most closely match the description of each behavior pattern.
Mutually Exclusive Lists
Stage 2: Externalizing - Teacher rating for
high intensity low frequency behavior
Critical Events Index completed for students ranked 1, 2, and 3 on Stage 1 for Externalizing So, 3 students per class 33 items mark as present or absence
10
5/4/2013
Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior 12 items – Adaptive 11 items – Maladaptive 5-point Likert-type scale 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
Stage 2: Internalizing -Teacher rating for high intensity low frequency behavior
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
And lower intensity, high frequency behaviors
Critical Events Index completed for students ranked 1, 2, and 3 on Stage 1 for Externalizing So, 3 students per class 33 items mark as presence for absence
11
5/4/2013
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
And lower intensity, high frequency behaviors
Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior 12 items – Adaptive 11 items – Maladaptive 5-point Likert-type scale 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently
SSBD Results – Winter 2007 through Winter 2009 Risk Status of Nominated Students 80 70
Internalizing
Externalizing
Externalizing
Number of Students
60 50 40 47
62
59
43
56 60
30
Exceeded Normative Criteria
20 10 0
Nominated But Did Not Exceed Criteria
17
13
6.18%
7
7
3.50%
3.18%
13 6
8.90%
6.50%
2.73%
Winter 2007 Winter 2008 Winter 2009 Winter 2007 Winter 2008 Winter 2009 (N=60) (N=69) (N=66) (N=60) (N=69) (N=66)
% computed based on total # students screened
Screening Time Point Source. Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 20120. Figure 2.2 WES Elementary Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) results comparing the percentage of students nominated and exceeding normative criteria for both externalizing and internalizing behavior disorders over a three year period.
12
5/4/2013
Grade Level
Total Number of Students Students Screened Nominated
72
K
*5
66
1st
*9E/ 8I
2nd
60 *10
Students w/ Critical Need
Critical Critical Internalizing Externalizing
24
4 (5.56%)
1 (1.39%)
3 (4.17%)
24
1 (1.54%)
0 (0.00%)
1 (1.54%)
18
3 (5.00%)
2 (3.33%)
1 (1.67%)
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
SAMPLE DATA: SSBD WINTER 2009-2010 CRITICAL NEED COMPARISON BY GRADE LEVEL
* Students missing
Grade Level
3rd 4th 5th
Total Number of Students Students Screened Nominated
80 *6
78 *17
60 *17
Students w/ Critical Need
Critical Internalizing
Critical Externalizing
24
2 (2.50%)
1 (1.25%)
1 (1.25%)
24
3 (3.84%)
1 (1.28%)
2 (2.56%)
18
2 (3.34%)
1 (1.67%)
1 (1.67%)
* Students missing
13
SYSTEMATIC SCREENING FOR BEHAVIOR DISORDERS
SAMPLE DATA: SSBD WINTER 2009-2010 CRITICAL NEED COMPARISON BY GRADE LEVEL
5/4/2013
SSBD Data Over Time Comparing Fall 2007 to Winter 2007
6.23% (29)
n = 465
5.17% (24)
n = 464
3.65% (17)
n = 465
1.29% (6)
n = 464
Early Screening Project:
A Proven Child Find Process (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil, 1994)
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
14
5/4/2013
Early Screening Project Procedures Teacher Ranking
Three Highest Ranked Children on Externalizing and Internalizing Behavioral Criteria
Pass Gate One Teacher Rating Exceed Normative Criteria
Pass Gate Two (Optional)
Stage Three
Stage Two
Stage One
Pool of Regular Classroom Preschoolers
Observation and Parent Questionnaire
Prereferral Interventions
Child may be referred to the Child Study Team (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil,1995, pp. 4)
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SSBD and ESP?
15
5/4/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale
Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994) •
• •
•
•
The SRSS is 7‐item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. Uses 4‐point Likert‐type scale: never = 0, occasionally = 1, sometimes = 2, frequently = 3 Teachers evaluate each student on the following items
• ‐ Steal ‐ Low Academic Achievement
• ‐ Lie, Cheat, Sneak ‐ Negative Attitude
• ‐ Behavior Problem ‐ Aggressive Behavior
• ‐ Peer Rejection
Student Risk is divided into 3 categories • Low 0 – 3 • Moderate 4 – 8 • High 9 ‐ 21
(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
16
5/4/2013
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE (DRUMMOND, 1994)
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IE CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT TEACHER NAME 0 = Never
Student Name
17
Self-Inflicts Pain
Lonely
Anxious
Sad; Depressed
Shy; Withdrawn
Emotionally Flat
Aggressive Behavior
Negative Attitude
Peer Rejection
Steal
Validation Study
Behavior Problem
Use the above scale to rate each item for each student.
Lie, Cheat, Sneak
3 = Frequently
Low Academic Achievement
2 = Sometimes
Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior
1= Occasionally
5/4/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale Middle School Fall 2004 - Fall 2011 100%
6.00%
3.00% 11.00%
3.00% 11.00%
2.34% 7.87%
0.63%
1.68%
1.34%
2.23%
6.29%
7.77%
6.11%
3.71%
17.00%
n = 20
80%
Percentage of Students
n = 12
n = 507 60%
High Moderate Low 40%
77.00%
86.00%
86.00%
89.79%
93.08%
90.55%
92.56%
94.06%
20%
N=534
N=502
N=454
N=470
N=477
N=476
N=524
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
N= 539
0%
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2011
Fall Screeners
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
HOW RELIABLE AND VALID IS
THE SRSS FOR USE AT THE
ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND
HIGH SCHOOL?
18
5/4/2013
Elementary Level Results: ROC Curves
Externalizing AUC 0.952
1.0
AUC = 0.952
Sensitivity
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 ‐ Specificity
Elementary Level Results: ROC Curves
Internalizing AUC .802
1.0
AUC = .802
0.8
Sensitivity
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 ‐ Specificity
19
1.0
5/4/2013
SAMPLE DATA: SRSS Middle School Study 1: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups
Variable
Risk Low (n = 422) M (SD)
Moderate (n = 51) M (SD)
High (n = 12) M (SD)
Significance Testing
ODR
1.50 (2.85)
5.02 (5.32)
8.42 (7.01)
L<M M, H M=H
Student Risk Screening Scale
SAMPLE DATA:
5/4/2013
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SRSS?
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
21
5/4/2013
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) •
2 versions (elementary T4-10 and middle/high T11-17)
• • •
•
One page is completed on EACH student All versions of the SDQ ask about 25 attributes, both positive and negative These 25 items are divided between 5 scales:
•
Emotional Symptoms Conduct Problems Hyperactivity / Inattention Peer Relationship Problems Pro-social Behavior
•
Total Difficulties (sum of first 4 scales)
• • • •
www.SDQinfo.com
(GOODMAN, 1997)
More information can be found at: www.SDQinfo.com
22
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
STRENGTHS AND DIFFICULTIES QUESTIONNAIRE
5/4/2013
Percent of Students
SDQ: Screening Results by Domain
Elementary School Winter 2009
Subscale
11.90% 6.10%
13.30%
Percent of Students
14.00%
82.00%
72.70%
Time Point
23
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
SAMPLE DATA: SDQ OVER TIME FALL 2005 TO FALL 2006 PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
5/4/2013
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SDQ?
BACS2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scale
Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
24
5/4/2013
A brief, universal screening system for measuring behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses in children and adolescents.
BASCTM2 - BESS •Behavioral areas assessed include: •Internalizing problems •Externalizing problems •School problems •Adaptive skills
•Includes 3 forms that can be used individually or in combination: •Teacher- Preschool and Child/ Adolescent •Student self-report- Child/ Adolescent •Parent- Preschool and Child/ Adolescent (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
Source: Neithercott & Hanken (2008). Behavioral and Emotional Screening System: A Tier 1 Solution. Presented at the Kansas Association of School Psychologists/ Council for Exceptional Children Conference.
25
5/4/2013
BASC2 – Behavior and Emotional Screening Scale Spring 2012 Normal
Percent of Students
N = 24
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
N = 67
Elevated
Extremely Elevated
3.65 8.68
3.85 10.74
5.45 12.38
2.46 11.33
N = 533
85.42
Total N = 624
87.67
Sixth Subgroup n = 219
82.18
Seventh
86.21
Eighth
n = 202
n = 203
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the BESS?
26
5/4/2013
Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide
SSIS-PSG
•Four key areas are assessed: •Prosocial Behavior •Motivation to Learn •Reading Skills •Math Skills •Three levels: •Preschool •Elementary •Secondary
A comprehensive, multi-tiered program for improving social behavior. Focuses on keystone classroom behaviors and skills.
(Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
27
5/4/2013
PSG: Performancee Areas Prosocial Behavior Motivation to Learn
Four pages with performance descriptors for each area: 1. Reading Skills 2. Math Skills 3. Motivation to Learn 4. Prosocial behavior
(Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Pearson)
PSG: Actions Students Scoring a 1 in any area & Suggested Action
Students Scoring a 2 or 3 in any area & Suggested Action
(Elliott & Gresham, 2007; Pearson)
28
5/4/2013
Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide Spring 2012 – Total School Adequate progress
45.60
80%
6.34
7.14
N = 22
N = 54
90%
Significant Difficulties
4.49
11.04
100%
Percent of Students
Moderate Difficulties
N = 31
N = 35
47.55
38.24
36.73
70%
N = 223
N = 233
N = 180
N = 187
60%
N = 212
N = 235
N = 275
N = 271
50% 40% 30% 20%
43.35
47.96
55.42
56.12
10% 0%
Reading Skills
n = 489
Math Skills
Prosocial Behavior
n = 490 n = 490 Subscales
Motivation to Learn
n = 489
Question: What do you think about the feasibility and usefulness of the SSiS-PSG?
29
5/4/2013
Building your CI3T Model of Prevention
HOW DO WE CHOOSE THE
BEST SCREENING TOOL FOR
OUR SCHOOL?
Measure
Authors
Ordering Information
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD)
Walker & Severson Available for purchase from (1992) Cambium Learning/ Sopris West
Early Screening Project (ESP)
Walker, Severson, & Feil (1995)
Available for purchase from Applied Behavior Science Press
Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS)
Drummond (1994)
Free Access
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
Goodman (1997)
Free online at http://www.sdqinfo.com/
BASCTM2Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BASCTM2-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
30
5/4/2013
Question: Which screening tool(s) are you considering?
An New Tool to Help You Decide …
31
5/4/2013
LOGISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
FOR SCREENING
Questions …
Questions to Consider
When to do them? Who should prepare them? Who should administer them? Who completes them? Who should score them? When and how should the results be shared?
32
5/4/2013
Question: What are some of your logistical concerns?
Using Screening Data to Support Students Secondary Interventions
33
5/4/2013
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
≈
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Curricula
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic
Social
Behavioral
34
5/4/2013
Secondary Intervention Grid
Project WRITE
Description
Teaching narrative and opinion essay writing strategies using the SelfRegulated Strategies Development approach to help students plan and write essays and stories
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Behavior: SRSS – at risk (9 – 21) and/or SSBD – exceed normative criteria Internalizing or Externalizing Academic: TOWL 3- score below the 25th percentile
Weekly writing probes scored on number of functional strategy elementshaving each piece of WWW, What=2, How=2 or TREE in the writing
Completion of intervention curriculum.
Experimental Treatment SRSD for Writing n = 24 n = 23 61 Second Graders
Academic: -TOWL (≤25% and 10-50 words) Behavioral: -SSRS (moderate, 4-8; or high, 9+) -SSBD (“TREE” in or 1+ Critical Event)
Exit Criteria
Phase 2 (Nov 07 – Feb 08): Intervention
Phase 1 (Fall 07): Screening & Assessment
2nd Grade Students
Data to Monitor Progress:
49 Participants
Support
35
Control Regular School Practices n = 25 n = 21
5/4/2013
Intervention Self‐Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996)
Behavioral Component 3 days a week; 30‐min sessions delivered 1:1 by a
research assistant
Fidelity collected more than 33% of sessions Lane, K. L., Harris, K., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Morphy, P., Hebert, M., House, E., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Self‐regulated strategy development at tier‐2 for second‐ grade students with writing and behavioral difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 322 – 353.
Illustration #3: Conflict Resolution and Social Skills at Tier 2 for Middle School Students
Kalberg, J. R., Lane, K. L., & Lambert, W. (2012). The utility of conflict resolution and social skills interventions with middle school students at risk for antisocial behavior: A methodological illustration. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 23‐38. doi: 10.1177/0741932510362514
36
5/4/2013
Secondary Intervention Grid Support
Study Skills
Description
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress:
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 strategies Use of graphic organizers Organization Goal setting Test taking strategies Writing process (planning/ drafting/ editing)
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: GPA Course Grades (9‐weeks) SRSS ODRs 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)
Scheduling: 50 min class (30 min instruction; 20 min applied practice) 56 Lessons
(Table 4.7; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012)
Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict Resolution Class
37
Exit Criteria 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.
5/4/2013
Phase 1 (Summer 05): Screening & Assessment
7th grade students
8th grade students
Academic: Low GPA (≤2.7) or 1+ D/F list Behavior: Mod & High Risk SRSS or 1+ ODR
25 rising graders
7th
49 rising 8th graders
Phase 2 (Aug‐Oct 05): Intervention
Study Skills n = 25
Random Assignment N = 74
Rural MS
(8 7th; 17 8th)
Conflict Resolution n = 24 (8 7th; 16 8th)
Focus n = 25 (9 7th; 16 8th)
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
≈
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Curricula
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Academic
Social
Behavioral
38
5/4/2013
Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid
Support Description
School-wide Data: Entry Criteria
Tier 2b Work with child in small Reading groups during intervention Interventions time 5 x a week, progress monitored once a week (Reading Specialist) Individual Work with counselor counseling individually specific needs (Counselor)
Progress monitoring on Fall below 25th percentile Tier 2a has been insufficient in AIMSweb addressing reading needs.
Office referrals for peer related difficulties or 1 or more failing grades, or 10 or more absences or teacher/parent referral. Functional Individualized interventions SRSS High Risk 4-21; assessment- developed by the behavior Office referrals 3 or more in based specialist and PBIS team. one quarter; Anyone recommended for interventions (Behavior retention Specialist)
Check-In/ Check-Out
Student checks in and out (morning and afternoon) with counselor or other staff member
Students who do not improve with expected progress following secondary intervention (CICO) Focus on completing assignments (Incomplete assignments resulting in failing grades.
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria Above 25th percentile, return to Tier 2a
Grades, absentee rates, and All passing grades, improved attendance referral numbers rates, 1 or fewer office referrals. Data will be collected on bothFunction based the target behavior and the interventions will be replacement behavior on an faded as the target ongoing basis. Weekly behaviors decrease. teacher report on academic When target behaviors status. Office discipline decrease and behavioral referrals collected weekly. objectives are met. Signature of participation, Daily goals met 90% of meeting daily goal—data the time and assignments looked at every 30 days turned in
39
5/4/2013
Wrap Up
Introduce Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention Address the Importance of Systematic Screening within CI3T Models Illustrations: 1. Tier 2 Writing Instruction (2nd) 2. Tier 2 Conflict Resolution and Social Skills (7th – 8th)
Concluding Thoughts
Recommendation #1: Build Stakeholders’ Expertise Recommendation #2: Develop the Structures to Sustain and Improve Practices Recommendation #3: Conduct Screenings in a Responsible Fashion Recommendation #4: Consider Legal Implications- know your state laws
40
5/4/2013
Wrap up and preview
Today’s Review Examined CI3T models of prevention Examined the use of Systematic Behavior Screening Tools. Introduced a systematic approach to using school‐wide data to identify and students for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Supports
Questions? Kathleen Lane [email protected] Wendy Oakes [email protected]
41
