Transcript Document

UNIVERSAL SCREENING FOR
BEHAVIOR: PENNSYLVANIA’S
COLLABORATION WITH
RESEARCHERS AND DISTRICT
LEVEL IMPLEMENTERS’
Tina Lawson PaTTAN
Kathleen Lynne Lane
University of Kansas
Wendy P. Oakes
Arizona State University
AGENDA
Define Pennsylvania’s PBIS Structure
Provide a Rationale for Universal Screening of
Behavior
Define the Partnership between PaPBIS,
School Districts, and the University
Researchers
Define the Study
Share Lessons Learned
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 …
PREVALENCE CONSIDERATIONS
ED … <1%
EBD … 12%
Lane & Oakes
STUDENT WITH EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS (EBD)
Internalizing
Externalizing
Lane & Oakes
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention
(Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Goal: Reduce Harm
Specialized Individual Systems
for Students with High-Risk
Goal: Reverse Harm
Specialized Group Systems
for Students At-Risk
PBIS Framework
Goal: Prevent Harm
School/Classroom-Wide Systems for
All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic
Validated Social Skills
Program
Behavioral
Social
Measure
Early Screening Project
Authors
Walker, Severson, & Feil
(1995)
Ordering Information
Available for purchase from
Sopris West
Drummond (1994)
Cambium Learning/ Sopris
West
Free-Access
Systematic
Screening
Systematic Screening for Walker & Severson (1992) Available for purchase from
Behavior Disorders
(SSBD)
Student Risk Screening
Scale (SRSS)
Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ)
Goodman (1991)
BASC-2 Behavior and
Kamphaus & Reynolds
Emotional Screening
(2007)
System (BASC-2 BESS)
Social Skills Improvement Elliott & Gresham (2007)
System: Performance
Screening Guide (SSiS –
PSG)
Free-Access online at
http://www.sdqinfo.com/
Available for purchase from
Pearson/ PsychCorp
Available for purchase from
Pearson/ PsychCorp
STUDENT RISK
SCREENING
SCALE
(SRSS; Drummond,
1994)
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE
(SRSS; DRUMMOND, 1994)
 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 Liker t-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
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE
(SRSS; DRUMMOND, 1994)
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IE
TEACHER NAME
0 = Never
Student Name
Original SRSS-IE 14
12 items retained for use at the elementary level
14 items under development in middle and high schools
(Lane, Oakes, Harris, Menzies, Cox, & Lambert, 2012)
Self-Inflicts Pain
Lonely
Anxious
Sad; Depressed
Shy; Withdrawn
Emotionally Flat
Aggressive Behavior
Negative Attitude
Peer Rejection
Behavior Problem
Steal
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
SOCIAL SKILLS
IMPROVEMENT
SYSTEM –
PERFORMANCE
SCREENING
GUIDE
(SSiS- PSG; Elliott &
Gresham, 2007)
SOCIAL SKILLS IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM –
PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE
(SSiS- PSG; ELLIOTT & GRESHAM, 2007)
SSIS– PERFORMANCE SCREENING GUIDE
4 items per student
Preschool 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
RISK CATEGORIES
 Preschool Scale
Adequate Progress = 3 or 4 (green band)
Moderate Risk = 2 (yellow band)
Elevated Risk = 1 (red band)
 Elementary Scale
Adequate Performance = 4 or 5 (green band)
Moderate Difficulties = 2 or 3 (yellow band)
Significant Difficulty = 1 (red band)
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 …
NATURAL NEXT STEP
Network Schools
Tier 1 with high fidelity
Advanced tier systems in place
Network Facilitators
Eligible Districts were close to a
major airport
Kathleen and Wendy were
interested!!!
THE STUDY …
METHOD
A Look in School
Secondary Schools
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
n = 974
n = 749
N = 1,723
Male
52.05 (507)
52.20 (391)
52.12 (898)
Female
47.95 (467)
47.80 (358)
47.88 (825)
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)
Student
Gender % (n)
Ethnicity % (n)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
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)
Grade level % (n)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
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)
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)
12.15 (1.18)
16.00 (1.29)
13.82 (2.27)
Course Enrolled for Ratings
English
Age M (SD)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
n = 52
n = 58
N = 110
Male
30.77 (16)
49.12 (28)
40.37 (44)
Female
69.23 (36)
50.88 (29)
59.63 (65)
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)
General education
80.77 (42)
92.98 (53)
87.16 (95)
Special education
19.23 (10)
7.02 (4)
12.84 (14)
Teacher
Gender % (n)
Ethnicity % (n)
Primary role % (n)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
95.92 (47)
98.25 (56)
97.17 (103)
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)
Yes
92.31 (48)
82.14 (46)
87.04 (94)
No
7.69 (4)
17.86 (10)
12.96 (14)
Certified in the area currently
teaching % (n)
Highest degree earned % (n)
Completed course in classroom
management % (n)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Middle
School
High School
Total
Yes
21.15 (11)
30.36 (17)
25.93 (28)
No
78.85 (41)
69.64 (39)
74.07 (80)
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/ Level
Professional development in academic
screening % (n)
Professional development in behavior
screening % (n)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 2
School Characteristics 2010-2011
Variable
School
MS
HS
80%
Attendance
ratea /
Graduation
Classroom teachers (FTE)b
Enrollmentb
Free or reduced-price lunch
eligibleb
Grades servedb
Localeb
NCLB statusac
Student/teacher ratiob
Title 1 eligibleb
Rate a
93%
81.75
91.57
996
1,106
56.02%
45.39%
5-8
9 - 12
Suburb: Large
Suburb: Large
Corrective Action II
School Improvement II
12.18
12.08
Yes
No
PROCEDURES
STUDY 1: MIDDLE SCHOOL & HIGH SCHOOL
Consenting Meetings
Completed two measures for one class period
 SRSS-IE (10-15 min)
 SSIS-PSG (30 min)
Social Validity
Data entry and reliability by research
assistants
METHOD
A Look in Elementary
Schools
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
n=626
n=492
n=562
N=1,680
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)
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)
Student
Gender % (n)
Ethnicity % (n)
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
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)
8.19 (2.02)
7.97 (1.99)
8.15 (2.05)
8.11 (2.02)
Grade level% (n)
Age M (SD)
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
n = 35
n = 24
n= 29
N = 88
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)
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)
90.91 (30)
9.09 (3)
100.00 (23)
0.00 (0)
100.00 (28)
0.00 (0)
96.43 (81)
3.57 (3)
Teacher
Gender % (n)
Ethnicity % (n)
Primary role % (n)
General education
Special education
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
100.00 (32)
100.00 (23)
100.00 (28)
100.00
(83)
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)
3.13 (1)
0.00 (0)
0.00 (0)
1.20 (1)
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)
Yes
No
69.70 (23)
30.30 (10)
43.48 (10)
56.52 (13)
51.85 (14)
48.15 (13)
56.63 (47)
43.37 (36)
Certified in the area currently
teaching % (n)
Highest degree earned % (n)
Master’s degree + 30
Completed course in classroom
management % (n)
Professional development in
academic screening % (n)
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
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)
Professional development in
behavior screening % (n)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.
Table 2
School Characteristics 2012-2013
Variable
School
School A
n = 626
School B
n = 492
School C
n = 562
Attendance ratea
97%
96%
97%
Classroom teachers (FTE)b
43.55
35.40
37.25
621
447
540
82 (13.20%)
106 (21.54%)
40 (7.41%)
K-6
K-6
K-6
Suburb: Large
Suburb: Large
Suburb: Large
Made AYP
Made AYP
Made AYP
14.26
12.60
14.50
No
Yes
No
Enrollmentb
Free or reduced-price lunch
eligibleb
Grades servedb
Localeb
NCLB statusac
Student/teacher ratiob
Title 1 eligibleb
RESULTS
Study 2: Elementary Schools
Table 3
Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, and SRSS-IE12 with the SSiS-PSG
SSiS-PSG Scale
M
(SD)
Time
Correlation
SRSS- E7 SRSS- I5 SRSS-IE12
1.72 (2.74) 0.95 (1.81) 2.67 (3.87)
1.79 (3.03) 0.67 (1.71) 2.46 (4.12)
r
r
r
Fall M (SD)
Spring M (SD)
Reading Skills
Fall
Spring
3.77
4.01
(1.05)
(1.06)
-0.60
-0.54
-0.37
-0.27
-0.60
-0.51
Fall
Spring
Motivation to Learn
Fall
Spring
Prosocial Behavior
Fall
3.88
4.06
(1.00)
(1.01)
-0.54
-0.53
-0.37
-0.32
-0.56
-0.52
3.92
4.20
(1.03)
(0.95)
-0.66
-0.63
-0.40
-0.36
-0.66
-0.61
3.95
(0.96)
-0.63
-0.42
-0.64
Math Skills
Table 4
Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSiS-PSG
Measure
Subscale
N
Correlation
P value
SRSS-E7
1646
0.71
< .0001
SRSS-I5
1646
0.56
< .0001
SRSS- I12
1646
0.67
< .0001
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
SRSS-IE
SSiS-PSG
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
…
DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE
 Administrative leadership both district and building level is
critical
 Convenience is KEY!
 Faculty appreciated the ability to share perspectives through
social validity survey
 Faculty appreciated immediate feedback through electronic
format
 Participants needed frequent reminders of the conceptual
purpose of Universal Screening
 Consent
 Follow up with plans for sustainability
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
4–8
9 – 21
low risk
moderate risk (yellow)
high risk (red)
• Items 8-12 (The SRSS-IE internalizing items)*preliminary cut
scores for elementary only
0–1
2–3
4 – 15
low risk
moderate (yellow)
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
•
Sample … Winter
SRSS-E7 Results – All Students
100%
4.20%
% of Students Screens
18.49%
80%
N = 15
N = 66
N = 276
60%
40%
77.31%
20%
0%
School W14
School W15
School W16
School W17
Screening Time Point
Low Risk (0-3)
Moderate (4-8)
High (9-21)
49
Sample … Winter
SRSS-I5 Results – All Students
N = 27
% of Students Screens
100%
7.56%
13.45%
80%
N = 48
N = 282
60%
40%
78.99%
20%
0%
School W14
School W15
School W16
School W17
Screening Time Point
Low Risk (0-1)
Moderate (2-3)
High (4-15)
50
Pennsylvania Now…
•
•
•
•
•
Established PA Process
Finalized PA materials
Trained all facilitators
Awarded 6 mini grants
Lessons Learned
DATA-BASED DECISIONS LEAD TO
INTERVENTIONS…
Schoolwide Positive Behavior
Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
-Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
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?
Schoolwide Positive Behavior
Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
-Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment
Low-Intensity Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Active Supervision
Proximity
Pacing
Appropriate use of Praise
Opportunities to Respond
Instructive Feedback
Incorporating Choice
Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data
Small group Reading Instruction with SelfMonitoring
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
Small group
Reading
instruction
with SelfMonitoring
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.
Schoolwide Data:
Entry Criteria
Students who:
Behavior:
Fall SRSS
at moderate (4 -8) or
high (9 – 21) risk
Academic:
Fall AIMSweb
LNF at the strategic or
intensive level
Data to
Monitor
Progress:
AIMSweb
reading PSF and
NWF progress
monitoring
probes (weekly).
Daily selfmonitoring
checklists
Exit Criteria
Meet AIMSweb
reading benchmark
at next screening
time point.
Low Risk on SRSS
at next screening
time point.
Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data
Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict
Resolution Class
Sample 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)
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.
Schoolwide Positive Behavior
Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
-Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
Schoolwide
Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to
Monitor
Progress
Exit Criteria
Sample Secondary
Intervention
GridSuccessful
Behavior: SRSS Work
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.
Selfmonitoring
Students will monitor
and record their
academic production
(completion/ accuracy)
and on-task behavior
each day.
mod to high risk
Academic: 2 or
more missing
assignments with
in a grading period
completion,
or other
behavior
addressed in
contract
Completion of
behavior contract
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
Schoolwide Positive Behavior
Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
-Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment
Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid
Support
Functional
AssessmentBased
Intervention
Description
Individualized
interventions
developed by
the behavior
specialist and
PBS team
School-wide Data:
Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor
Progress
Students who:
Data will be collected
Behavior
on both the (a)
scored in the high risk category
target (problem)
on the Student Risk Screening
behavior and (b)
Scale (SRSS), or
replacement
scored in the clinical range on
(desirable)
one following Strengths and
behavior identified
Difficulties (SDQ) subscales:
by the team on an
Emotional Symptoms, Conduct
on-going basis.
Problems, Hyperactivity, or
Weekly teacher report
Prosocial Behavior,
on academic status
earned more than 5 office
ODR data collected
discipline referrals (ODR) for
weekly
major events during a grading
period
or Academic
identified at highest risk for
school failure: recommended for
retention; or scored far below
basic on state-wide or districtwide assessments
Exit Criteria
The functionbased 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