Transcript Universal Screening National PBIS Leadership Forum October 27, 2011 Maximizing Your Session Participation Work with your team Consider 4 questions: - What Implementation Phase? - What do.

Universal Screening
National PBIS Leadership Forum
October 27, 2011
Maximizing Your Session
Participation
Work with your team
Consider 4 questions:
- What Implementation Phase?
- What do I hope to learn?
- What did I learn?
- What will I do with what I learned?
Where are you in implementation
process?
Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005
Exploration & Adoption
• We think we know what we need so we are planning to move forward (evidencebased)
Installation
• Let’s make sure we’re ready to implement (capacity infrastructure)
Initial Implementation
• Let’s give it a try & evaluate (demonstration)
Full Implementation
• That worked, let’s do it for real (investment)
Sustainability & Continuous
Regeneration
• Let’s make it our way of doing business (institutionalized use)
Mental health and school-age children
• One out of ten children between the ages of 8-15, experiences an
emotional disorder that has a major impact on daily functioning
– ADHD and mood disorders (e.g., depression) are most commonlyoccurring disorders
% of Children and youth ages 815
Prevalence Estimates Grouped by Disorder
(N=3,042)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
13.1
11.3
8.6 7.8
2.1 1.7
ADHD (all
forms)
Source: Merikangas, 2010
Conduct
Disorder
3.7 2.9
0.7 0.4
Anxiety
Disorder
Disorder without impairment
Mood
Disorder
Any disorder
Disorder with severe impairment
Mental health and school-age children
• There’s a ‘window of opportunity’ when early intervention
can prevent the onset of major emotional problems
Great Smoky Mountains Study: Age Between First Symptom and Initial Diagnosis
Source: O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009
Mental health and school age children
• Students at-risk for internalizing disorders (e.g. children
demonstrating overly shy, anxious, ’down’ behaviors) typically
fly under the radar
– A Johns Hopkins University study found that average-performing
students with internalizing behaviors received support via special
education, or mental health services at lower rates than
underperforming students with externalizing (e.g., ‘acting out’)
behaviors
– Source: Bradshaw, Buckley, & Ialongo, 2008
Mental health and school age children
• Internalizers are underserved by special education and mental health systems
Service Usage Rates
85
% of Children Receiving Service
90
75
80
70
60
50
40
A 35%
gap!
65
Internalizers
40
Externalizers
30
20
10
0
Special Education
Source: Bradshaw, Buckley, & Ialongo, 2008
Mental Health
Universal Screening Defined
• “Universal screening is the systematic
assessment of all children within a given class,
grade, school building, or school district, on
academic and/or social-emotional indicators
that the school personnel and community
have agreed are important.”
• Source: Ikeda, Neessen, & Witt, 2009
Universal Screening Rationale
• Universal screening to identify students at-risk of
developing behavior problems offers several
advantages:
– Cost-efficient
• Less expensive than special education evaluations
– Proactive
• Identify students who can benefit from extra supports
– Reach students who typically “fly under the radar”
• Shy, withdrawn students can also experience poor outcomes:
academic failure, social ostracism, heightened risk of suicide
– Objective
• Help address disproportionality issues
Universal Screening Rationale
• President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education
(2001) and No Child Left Behind (2001) recommend academic
AND behavioral screening
• Greater likelihood of altering negative life trajectory
associated with early intervention (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion,
1992)
– Approximately one out of 10 school-age children and youth
are at-risk for developing externalizing (i.e., ‘acting out’) or
internalizing (i.e., markedly withdrawn or sad) behaviors
– Illinois Children’s Mental Health Act (2003) requires that
schools address the mental health needs of students
Origins of Illinois Universal Screening
Model
• The K-I (Kansas and Illinois) Center was
formed in 2006-07 school year
– Funded by federal grant with the overarching goal
of demonstrating how to establish a sustainable,
systematic approach to supporting students with
complex needs within the SWPBIS framework
Origins of Illinois Universal Screening
Model
• The objectives of the K-I Center were to demonstrate
how schools can:
– Provide early and effective intervention for behavior
• Especially for students at-risk of developing internalizing disorders
(e.g., anxiety and depression)
– Increase success for students identified with
emotional/behavioral disabilities
– Decrease reliance on reactive discipline (e.g., suspension,
expulsion) by enhancing capacity for data-based decisionmaking
– Install and support efficient teaming structures
Origins of Illinois Universal Screening
Model
• The RtI logic model (Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002) was
the philosophical base for implementation
– Use evidence-based instruction and interventions
– Emphasize prevention versus intervention
– Employ data-based decision-making process to determine
need for secondary/tertiary level interventions
– Engage in continuous progress-monitoring
– Implement universal screening (academic and behavior)
Illinois Universal Screening
Model
• Process reflects RTI logic:
– Use a research-validated screening instrument
– Administer evidence-based interventions with
integrity
– Progress monitor (e.g., DPR)
– Use data-based decision making to evaluate
student response to intervention
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports:
A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
Tier 2/
Secondary
ODRs,
Attendance,
Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Check-in/
Check-out
Social/Academic
Instructional Groups
Daily Progress
Report (DPR)
(Behavior and
Academic Goals)
Competing Behavior
Pathway, Functional
Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Tier 3/
Tertiary
Individualized CheckIn/Check-Out, Groups &
Mentoring (ex. CnC)
Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP)
Complex FBA/BIP
SIMEO Tools:
HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T
Wraparound
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised August 2009
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
Illinois Universal Screening Model
• The Illinois PBIS Network recommends a ‘multigate’ process for implementing universal
screening for behavior
– Efficient:
• Takes approximately one hour, maximum, per classroom to
complete process
• Less expensive and more timely than special education
referral process
– Fair:
• All students receive consideration for additional supports
(gate one)
• Reduces bias by using evidence-based instrument containing
consistent, criteria to identify students (gate two)
Illinois Universal Screening Model
Multiple Gating Procedure
(Adapted from Walker & Severson, 1992)
Gate 1
Teachers Rank Order
then Select Top 3 Students
on Each Dimension
(Externalizing & Internalizing)
Pass Gate 1
Gate 2
Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in
Each Dimension (Externalizing &
Internalizing) using either SSBD,
BASC-2/BESS, or other
evidence-based instrument
Pass Gate 2
Tier 2
Intervention
Examples of Externalizing Behaviors:
• Displaying aggression
toward objects or
persons
• Arguing
• Being out of seat
• Not complying with
teacher instructions
or directives
Source: Walker and Severson, 1992
Examples of Internalizing Behaviors:
• Not talking with other
children
• Being shy
• Timid and/or
unassertive
• Avoiding or
withdrawing from
social situations
• Not standing up for
one’s self
Source: Walker and Severson, 1992
Teacher ranking form: Externalizers
Teacher Rank Ordering for Universal Behavioral Screening: Externalizers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Property destruction (e.g., damaging books, desks, other school property)
Repeatedly quarrels with peers/adults
Coercion of others (e.g., bullying behaviors includes physical actions and verbal threats)
Regularly does not follow school/classroom rules
Consistent refusal to follow teacher’s directions
Frequently blurts out/speaks in class without permission
Often moves around the classroom/hallways without permission
Spreads rumors with the intention to harm others
Stealing
STEP ONE
Externalizers: Students
regularly displaying at least ONE
of the listed behaviors
STEP TWO
Externalizers: Top three
students regularly displaying
at least ONE of the
listed behaviors
ID #
Race/ethnicity
Teacher ranking form: Internalizers
Teacher Rank Ordering for Universal Behavioral Screening: Internalizers
•
•
•
•
•
Anxious, nervous (e.g., nailbiting, easily startled)
Introverted (e.g., often seen alone)
Rarely/doesn’t speaks to peers
Overly sensitive (e.g., cries easily, has difficulty standing up to others)
Bullied by other students
STEP ONE
Internalizers: Students
regularly displaying at least
ONE
of the listed behaviors
Adapted from Walker and Severson, 1992
STEP TWO
Internalizers: Top
three students
Regularly
displaying at least
ONE
Of the listed
behaviors
ID#
Race/ethnicity
Illinois Universal Screening
Model: Selected Instruments
• Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders
(Walker & Severson, 1992) for grades 1-6
– Validated by the Program Effectiveness Panel of the U.S. Department of
Education
– Six research studies confirm the SSBD’s ability to systematically screen
and identify students at-risk of developing behavior problems
– Universal screening with the SSBD is less costly and time-consuming than
traditional referral system (Walker & Severson, 1994)
– Inexpensive
• Manual= $ 131.49 (includes reproducible screening forms)
– Quick
• Entire screening process can be completed within 45 minutes to 1
hour per classroom
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
SSBD Administration
• Teachers complete Critical Events Index
checklist for top three internalizers and
externalizers
– Internalizers with four or more and externalizers
with five or more critical events immediately pass
gate two and are eligible for simple a secondary
intervention (i.e., CICO)
Sample of SSBD Critical Events Form
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
SSBD Administration
• Teachers complete the Combined Frequency
Index scale for internalizers and externalizers
who did not initially pass gate 2
– Students who subsequently pass gate 2 meet the
following criteria:
• Internalizers with Adaptive scores of ≤41 and
Maladaptive scores of ≥; Externalizers with Adapative
scores of ≤30 and Maladaptive scores of ≥35
Sample of SSBD CFI Form
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Selected Instruments
• Behavioral and Emotional Screening System
(BESS) (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007)
– Developed as a school-wide (Universal) screening tool
for children in grades Pre-K to 12
• Similar to annual vision/hearing screenings
– Identifies behavioral and emotional strengths and
weaknesses
• Externalizing behaviors (e.g., acting out)
• Internalizing behaviors (e.g., withdrawn)
• Adaptive skills (e.g., social and self-care skills)
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
BASC-2/BESS Administration
• Teachers complete scantron forms (‘bubble
sheets’) for each student in their class
– Or, for top three internalizers and externalizers if
using a multi-gate approach
• Takes approximately five minutes, or less per
student to complete ratings
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
BASC-2/BESS Sample
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
BASC-2/BESS Administration
• The BASC-2/BESS uses T-scores to
communicate results relative to the average
(mean=50)
• Identifiers and percentile ranks are provided
for ease of interpretation
• Normal risk level: T-score range 10-60
• Elevated risk level: T-score range 61-70
• Extremely Elevated risk level: T-score range ≥
71
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
BASC-2/BESS Administration
• Students who score within the Elevated, or
Extremely Elevated risk levels would be
considered as eligible for simple secondary
intervention (i.e. CICO)
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Implementation
• Recommended Implementation Process:
– Secure district-level (e.g., superintendent) commitment to universal
behavioral screening
– Build capacity for secondary practices (e.g., CICO, CnC, SAIGs)
– Provide building level overview
– Identify and train building level staff person to lead and manage universal
screening process and data
– Distribute informational letters to parents/guardians
– Conduct universal behavioral screening
– Secondary teams meet with universal behavior screening coordinator to
review results
– Contact parents to obtain permission for intervention
– Upon receipt of parent/guardian permission, quickly place students into
simple secondary-level intervention (e.g., CICO)
– Use data to progress monitor students’ response to intervention
– Share results with staff, families and students supported with simple
secondary-level intervention
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Implementation
• A note on recommended screening frequency
– Academic screening (e.g., Curriculum Based MeasuresCBMs-for reading difficulty) typically occurs during fall,
winter and spring benchmarking phases
– Screening twice annually (in fall and early winter) is
optimal for behavioral screening
• Screen transfer students
• Additional progress monitoring of students identified during fall
screening
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Implementation Summary
• The initial plan was to begin implementation in
three schools in the three federally-funded
demonstration districts in year I
– Expand implementation to include three additional schools
in each district in years two and three increasing to a total
of 27 schools in years three and four of the grant
– Simultaneously, the IL-PBIS Network implemented
universal screening in three additional Illinois school
districts
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Implementation Summary
• Ultimately, the number of schools implementing
universal screening was expanded to over sixty schools
• In the 2010-11 school year, 61 Illinois schools screened
approximately 28,000 students representing a diverse
demographic profile:
• White, 32%
• Black/African American, 20%
• Hispanic/Latino, 38%
Source: ISBE 2011 Fall Housing Report
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Universal Screening Results
Illinois PBIS Network Schools 2008-11
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
70
61
60
50
45
40
30
30
20
18
10
0
2007-08
Internalizers
2008-09
Externalizers
2009-10
Total
2010-11
Number of Schools Screening
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Universal Screening Results
School A
% of Students attaining CICO goal
(N=24 Students)
90%
88%
88%
86%
85%
84%
84%
84%
83%
82%
80%
80%
78%
76%
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Universal Screening Results
District B
(N=4 Schools; n=127 Students)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Pre-Screening
Students with ODRs
Post-Screening
Students without ODRs
Illinois Universal Screening Model:
Universal Screening Results
2010-11 Post-Universal Screening Average ODR Rates per 100
Students
61.8
Average Major ODRS per 100 Students Enrolled
60
45
Avg ODR Rate for 4 CUSD 300 Elem Schools
(n=2,864 students)
Avg ODR Rate for Students Identified via
Screening (n=127 students)
30
15
1.57
0
Contact Information
• Jennifer Rose, M.Ed., Tertiary Research &
Evaluation Coordinator-Illinois PBIS Network:
[email protected]
Leadership Team Action Planning Worksheets:
Steps
Self-Assessment: Accomplishments & Priorities
Leadership Team Action Planning Worksheet
Session Assignments & Notes: High Priorities
Team Member Note-Taking Worksheet
Action Planning: Enhancements & Improvements
Leadership Team Action Planning Worksheet
Systematic Screening within the
Context of Comprehensive,
Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T)
Models of Prevention
Prepared By: St. Louis City School
District
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
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
Academic
Behavioral
Social Skills
Improvement System
(SSiS) - Classwide
Intervention Program
Social
The Importance of Accurate
Decision Making
• It is important reliable, valid tools be
used within CI3T Models (Lane, Oakes,
& Menzies, 2010)
• Information from behavior and
academic screening tools can be used to
– Examine overall level of risk in schools
– Look for students for who primary
prevention efforts are insufficient and then
place them in Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Menzies, H. M. (2010). Systematic screenings to prevent the
development of learning and behavior problems: Considerations for practitioners, researchers,
and policy makers. Journal of Disabilities Policy Studies, 21, 160-172.
Behavior Screening Tools
• Serve as a screening practice for identifying students
who may require additional supports.
– Early Screening Project (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil,1994)
– Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide (SSiS;
Elliott & Gresham, 2007)
– BASC2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS; Kamphaus &
Reynolds, 2007)
– Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997)
– Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond,1994)
– Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson,
1992)
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (in press). Systematic screenings of
behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, N.Y.: Guilford
Press.
Measure
Early Screening Project
Authors
Walker, Severson, & Feil
(1994)
Ordering Information
Available for purchase from
Sopris West
Systematic Screening for Walker & Severson (1992) Available for purchase from
Behavior Disorders
Cambium Learning/ Sopris
West
Student Risk Screening
Drummond (1994)
Free
Scale
Strengths and Difficulties Goodman (1991)
Free online at
Questionnaire
http://www.sdqinfo.com/
Behavior and Emotional
Screening System
Kamphaus & Reynolds
(2007)
Available for purchase from
Pearson/ PsychCorp
Social Skills
Improvement System:
Performance Screening
Guide
Elliott & Gresham, (2007)
Available for purchase from
Pearson/ PsychCorp
What is the SRSS?
• The SRSS is 7-item mass screener used to identify
students who are at risk for antisocial behavior.
• Teachers evaluate each student on the following items
- Steal
-Low Academic Achievement
- Lie, Cheat, Sneak
-Negative Attitude
- Behavior Problems -Aggressive Behavior
- Peer Rejection
• Student Risk is divided into 3 categories
- Low
0–3
- Moderate
4–8
- High
9+
(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
Student Risk Screening Scale
(Drummond, 1994)
An Illustration
USING THE SRSS TO EXAMINE
BEHAVIORAL RISK: SNAP SHOTS IN
TIME
Behavior Screeners – SRSS School Time Point
n = 32
100
7.84
Percentages
21.57
80
n = 88
4.33
19.81
n = 288
n = 14
n = 64
n = 245
High
Moderate
Low
60
40
70.59
75.85
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
n= 408
n= 323
20
0
Students with unrated items:
Fall – 33
Spring – 118
Total students enrolled at time of screening:
Fall – 441
Spring – 441
SRSS Comparison by Grade Level Fall 2008
Grade
Level
Number of
Students in
Grade
Level
Low
(0-3)
Moderate
(4-8)
High
(9 +)
K
63
50
(79.37%)
10
(15.87%)
3
(4.76%)
57
(73.08%)
18
(23.08%)
3
(3.85%)
28
(51.85%)
18
(33.33%)
8
(14.81%)
*6
1st
Grade
78
*5
2nd
Grade
54
*6
Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened.
* Students missing
SRSS Comparison by Grade Level Fall 2008
Grade
Level
3rd
Grade
Number of
Students in
Grade
Level
Low
(0-3)
Moderate
(4-8)
High
(9 +)
73
52
(71.23%)
17
(23.29%)
4
(5.48%)
44
(67.69%)
13
(20.00%)
8
(12.31%)
57
(76.00%)
12
(16.00%)
6
(8.00%)
*7
4th Grade
65
*5
5th
Grade
75
*4
Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened.
* Students missing
SRSS Comparison by Grade Level Spring 2009
Grade
Level
3rd
Grade
Number of
Students in
Grade
Level
Low
(0-3)
Moderate
(4-8)
High
(9 +)
69
50
(72.46%)
17
(24.64%)
2
(2.90%)
24
(61.54%)
10
(25.64%)
5
(12.82%)
39
(81.25%)
8
(16.67%)
1
(2.08%)
*11
4th
Grade
39
*31
5th
Grade
48
*31
Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened.
* Students missing
How reliable and valid is the SRSS for use
in our community?
ANALYZING THE RELIABILITY OF THE
SRSS ACROSS THREE SCHOOLS IN OUR
DISTRICT
OAKES, W. P. WILDER, K., LANE, K. L., POWERS, L., YOKOYAMA, L., O’HARE, M. E., JENKINS, A. B. (2010). PSYCHOMETRIC
PROPERTIES OF THE STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE: AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR USE IN DIVERSE URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
ASSESSMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION, 35, 231-239.
What Did We Learn?
• The SRSS is an internally consistent measure with
estimates of .82 and .81 at Fall and Spring
administrations.
The SRSS is a reliable tool, predicting
• Test-retest stability was statistically significant over time
outcomes
… higher
risk was
(r = important
.86) between
Fall and Spring
administrations.
associated with higher rates of ODRs and
lowervalidity
oral reading
atthat
yearstudents
end. with
• Predictive
analysesfluency
indicated
higher levels of risk as measured by the SRSS at the
onset of the school year were more likely to have higher
rates of ODRs (r = .38, p < .0001) and lower proficiency
in oral reading fluency as measured by DIBELS (r = -.28,
p < .0001) at year end.
How can we look at multiple sources of
data to learn more about our students?
ANALYZING DATA IN TANDEM
THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE FROM WILDER, K. (2010) UNPUBLISHED
MASTERS’ THESIS.
Where are special education students
placing along this continuum of risk?
A DESCRIPTIVE LOOK AT GENERAL AND
SPECIAL EDUCATION POPULATIONS?
How can information from behavioral and
academic screening tools be used to support
students?
USING DATA TO CONNECT STUDENTS
WITH TIER 2 AND 3 SUPPORTS
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
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
Academic
Behavioral
Social Skills
Improvement System
(SSiS) - Classwide
Intervention Program
Social
A Systematic Approach to Designing a Secondary
Intervention Plan
• Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule
• Step 2: Identify your secondary supports
– Existing and new interventions
• Step 3: Determine entry criteria
– Nomination, academic failure, etc.
• Step 4: Identify outcome measures
– Pre and post tests, CBM, etc.
• Step 5: Identify exit criteria
– Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success, etc.
• Step 6: Consider additional needs
Procedures for Monitoring: Assessment
Schedule
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
School Demographics
*Student Demographics
Student Outcome Academic Measures
Report Card (MS/HS)
*GPA
*Course Failures
Student Outcome Behavior Measures
*SRSS - Screener
X
X
X
Discipline *ODR
X
X
*Attendance (Tardies/
Unexcused Absences)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Referrals
SPED and S-TEAM
Program Measures
For Consented Teachers Only
*Social Validity (PIRS)
*SET/Treatment Integrity
(TI) Interval
*TI -Observations
X
X
X
X
X
X
A Systematic Approach to Designing a Secondary
Intervention Plan
• Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule
• Step 2: Identify your secondary supports
– Existing and new interventions
• Step 3: Determine entry criteria
– Nomination, academic failure, etc.
• Step 4: Identify outcome measures
– Pre and post tests, CBM, etc.
• Step 5: Identify exit criteria
– Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success, etc.
• Step 6: Consider additional needs
Secondary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
School-wide
Data:
Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor
Progress
Exit Criteria
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid: Middle School
Support
Description
Check,
This program involves
Connect,
checking in with a
and Expect mentor at the
beginning and end of
the day to receive a
performance goal for
the day.
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.
Schoolwide
Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to
Monitor
Progress
Exit Criteria
Behavior: SRSS
Daily BEP
Moderate or High Progress
Risk on screening Reports
Academic:
overall GPA <
2.5 or 2 or more
course failures at
any report card
Students who have
met there goal
consistently for 3
weeks will move to
the self-monitoring
phase.
Behavior: SRSS mod to high risk
Academic: 2 or
more missing
assignments with
in a grading
period
Successful
Completion of
behavior contract
Work
completion,
or other
behavior
addressed in
contract
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
≈
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
Academic
Behavioral
Social Skills
Improvement System
(SSiS) - Classwide
Intervention Program
Social
Tertiary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
School-wide
Data:
Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor
Progress
Exit Criteria
Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
Functional
Assessment
-Based
Intervention
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
target (problem)
category on the Student Risk
behavior and (b)
Screening Scale (SRSS), or
replacement
scored in the clinical range on
(desirable)
one following Strengths and
behavior
Difficulties (SDQ) subscales:
identified by the
Emotional Symptoms,
team on an onConduct Problems,
going basis.
Hyperactivity, or Prosocial
Weekly teacher
Behavior,
report on
earned more than 5 office
academic status
discipline referrals (ODR) for ODR data collected
major events during a
weekly
grading period
or Academic
identified at highest risk for
school failure: recommended
for retention; or scored far
below basic on state-wide or
district-wide assessments
State of Tennessee DOE Technical Assistance
Grant IRB # 090935
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.
We offer ongoing professional
development to school-site teams to
learn how to design, implement, and
evaluate functional assessment-based
interventions using a systematic
model developed by Umbreit and
colleagues.
Overview of FABIs
Functional Assessment
Interviews (Teacher, Parent, Student)
Rating Scales (SSiS, Parent and Teacher)
Records Review
A-B-C Data Collection
Intervention Development - A-R-E
Function Matrix
Function-based Decision Model
Testing the Intervention
Data Collection Across all phases of the
design
Treatment Integrity
Social Validity
Function Matrix and Decision Model
• Umbreit and colleagues (2007) developed
two tools , the Function Matrix and the
Function-Based Intervention Decision Model
• The Function Matrix was developed to
provide a structure for organizing and
analyzing functional assessment data.
• The Function-Based Intervention Decision
Model was developed to help design the
actual intervention.
Function Matrix
Harry’s Function Matrix
Positive Reinforcement
(Access something)
(Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007)
Negative Reinforcement
(Avoid something)
Attention
ABC 1.1, ABC 1.2, ABC 1.19, ABC
2.1(peer), ABC 2.2, ABC 2.3, ABC 2.4,
ABC 2.7, ABC 2.8, ABC 2.10, S.I. # 4
(wants peer att.)
Tangibles/
activities
ABC 2.9, S.I. #4 (wants more fun
activity)
Sensory
ABC 1.1, ABC 1.5, ABC 1.6, ABE
1.18, ABC 1.19, ABC 2.1, ABC 2.2,
ABC 3.1-3.4
ABC 1.2, ABC 1.3, ABC 1.4, ABC 1.6,
ABC 1.7, ABC 1.8, ABC 1.9, ABC
1.10, ABC 1.11, ABC 1.12, ABC 1.13,
ABC 1.14-1.19, ABC 2.1, ABC 2.2,
ABC 2.4, ABC 2.5, ABC 2.6, ABC
2.7, ABC 2.9, Avoiding work when
not structured. T.I. #4, T.I. #9, S.I.
#2 & #3
Function-Based Intervention Decision
Model
• Key Questions
– Can the student perform the replacement
behavior?
• Have you seen the student perform the
replacement behavior?
– Do antecedent conditions reflect effective
practice?
• They may be effective for the majority of students
in the class, but not necessarily the target student.
Function-Based Intervention Decision Model
Conduct FBA
Select Replacement Behavior
Can the student perform
the replacement
behavior?
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practices?
Method 1: Teach
the replacement
behavior
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practice?
Method 1 & 2: Teach the Method 2: Improve
replacement behavior
the environment
and Improve the
Environment
Method 3: Adjust
the contingencies
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based
intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Function-Based Intervention Decision Model
Conduct FBA
Select Replacement Behavior
NO
YES
Can the student perform
the replacement
behavior?
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practices?
Method
Method 1:
1: Teach
Teach
the
the replacement
replacement
behavior
behavior
Yes
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practice?
Method 1 & 2: Teach the Method 2: Improve
replacement behavior
the environment
and Improve the
Environment
Method 3: Adjust
the contingencies
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based
intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Function-Based Intervention Decision Model
Conduct FBA
Select Replacement Behavior
Can the student perform
the replacement
behavior?
NO
YES
YES
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practices?
NO
Method 1: Teach
the replacement
behavior
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practice?
YES
NO
Method 1 & 2: Teach the Method 2: Improve
replacement behavior
the environment
and Improve the
Environment
Method 3: Adjust
the contingencies
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based
intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Function-Based Intervention Decision Model
Conduct FBA
Select Replacement Behavior
NO
YES
Can the student perform
the replacement
behavior?
YES
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practices?
NO
Method 1: Teach
the replacement
behavior
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practice?
YES
NO
Method 1 & 2: Teach the Method 2: Improve
replacement behavior
the environment
and Improve the
Environment
Method 3: Adjust
the contingencies
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based
intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Function-Based Intervention Decision Model
Conduct FBA
Select Replacement Behavior
Can the student perform
the replacement
behavior?
NO
YES
YES
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practices?
NO
Method 1: Teach
the replacement
behavior
Do antecedent
conditions represent
effective practice?
YES
NO
Method 1 & 2: Teach the Method 2: Improve
replacement behavior
the environment
and Improve the
Environment
Method 3: Adjust
the contingencies
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based
intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Intervention Components
A
•Adjust the Antecedents
R
•Rates of Reinforcement
E
•Extinction Procedures
Harry’s Treatment Integrity Form
Component
Intervention Procedures
Antecedent Adjustments
A1 Provide sensory items to have at his desk.
A2 Have bellwork on the table when the class
enters.
A3 Use the Check In/Check Out system to do
with Ms Hart every day.
Reinforcement Contingencies
R1 Provide “Break” card every class, which
student has the choice to use or to turn in at
the end of the day for PBIS tickets. This break
card must be contingent upon completing the
work assigned. The “Break” card allows for a
three-minute walk around the lockers for a
drink of water.
R2 If student gets back on task after the break
within 3 minutes, the student keeps the break
card for the weekly preferred activity.
R3 Weekly preferred activity: Have the option of
eating with the teacher on Fridays with a
friend and playing checkers in exchange for
earning a break card 5 days.
R4 Provide PBIS tickets to student when meeting
class expectations, as well as students in the
entire classroom.
R5 Be specific in praising student.
Extinction
E1 Provide one gestural prompt (every 5 min as
needed) to self-monitoring sheet to remind
student of rules and expectations. Do not use
verbal responses.
Rating Scale
1=Never; 2= Some of the time; 3= Always
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Harry’s Antecedent Adjustments
Antecedent Adjustments
A1
A2
Provide sensory items to have at his desk.
Have bellwork on the table when the class enters.
Use the Check In/Check Out system to do with Ms Hart every day.
A3
Monday
0= no
1= yes
Harry’s Reinforcement Contingencies
Reinforcement Contingencies
R1
Provide “Break” card every class, which student has the choice to use
or to turn in at the end of the day for PBIS tickets. This break card must
be contingent upon completing the work assigned. The “Break” card
allows for a three-minute walk around the lockers for a drink of water.
R2
If student gets back on task after the break within 3 minutes, the
student keeps the break card for the weekly preferred activity.
Weekly preferred activity: Have the option of eating with the teacher
on Fridays with a friend and playing checkers in exchange for earning a
break card 5 days.
Provide PBIS tickets to student when meeting class expectations, as
well as students in the entire classroom.
Be specific in praising student.
R3
R4
R5
Monday
0= no
1= yes
Harry’s Extinction Components
Extinction Components
E1
Provide one gestural prompt (every 5 min as needed) to selfmonitoring sheet to remind student of rules and expectations. Do
not use verbal responses.
Monday
0= no
1= yes
Treatment Integrity for Harry
Phase
Component
Teacher Completed
M (SD)
Intervention (B1)
Intervention (B1)
Liaison
Completed
M (SD)
Antecedent
92.59 (6.42)
83.33 (27.88)
Reinforcement
73.33 (17.64)
36.11 (6.80)
Extinction
55.56 (19.25)
40.00 (14.91)
Total
77.78 (14.81)
55.00 (14.43)
Antecedent
(-)
100 (0.00)
Reinforcement
(-)
33.33 (0.00)
Extinction
(-)
66.67 (0.00)
Total
(-)
58.33 (33.33)
Harry’s Graph
Baseline 1
Intervention 1
Baseline 2
Intervention 2
100
90
Percentage of AET
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4/27 4/28 4/29 4/30 5/5
5/10 5/13 5/14 5/17 5/18 5/19 5/20
Date of Session
5/21
5/24 5/25
5/26 5/27 5/28
As you think about conducting behavior
screenings, there are a number of…
LOGISTICAL QUESTIONS
Questions to Consider Before Instituting Behavior
Screenings as Part of Regular School Practices?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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?
What are our district policies regarding
systematic screenings?
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Menzies, H. M. (2010). Systematic screenings to prevent the
development of learning and behavior problems: Considerations for practitioners, researchers,
and policy makers. Journal of Disabilities Policy Studies, 21, 160-172.
Thank you for you time …
QUESTIONS?
APPENDIX
Universal screening readiness
checklist
Universal screening readiness checklist
• Build a foundation
 Secure district and building-level administrative support for universal
screening
 Establish universal screening committee consisting of district and
building-level administrators, student support personnel, teachers,
family and community representatives and assign roles
• Clarify goals
 Identify purpose of universal screening (e.g., mental health, social skills
assessment)
 Determine desired outcomes
Universal screening readiness checklist
• Identify resources and logistics
 Identify resources for supporting students identified via screening (inschool and community-based)
 Create a timeline for executing screening process including frequency
of screening (e.g., once, or multiple times per year?)
 Develop budget for materials, staff, etc.
 Create administration materials (e.g., power point to share process
with staff, parents and community members, consent forms, teacher
checklists)
 Schedule dates for screening(s) and meetings to share school-wide
results
Universal screening readiness checklist
• Select an evidence-based screening
instrument
Use The Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, or resources from other
professional organization resources (e.g., National
Association for School Psychologists; NASP), as
guidelines for selecting an appropriate screener
Universal screening readiness checklist
• Data
Develop data collection and progress monitoring
system
Determine systematic process for using results to
inform interventions
Plan for sharing screening and progress
monitoring results with staff and families
References
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on
Measurement in Education . (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC:
Authors.
• Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M.W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective
practice. New York: Guilford Press
• Deno, S.L. (2005). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A
problem-solving approach (pp.10-40). New York: Guilford Press
• Dowdy, E. , Furlong, M., Eklund, K., Saeki, E., & Ritchey, K. (2010). Screening for mental health and wellness:
Current school-based pracitices and emerging possibilities. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J.Yoon (Eds.), Handbook of
Youth Prevention Science. New York: Routledge.
• Dowdy, E., Ritchey, K., & Kamphaus, R.W. (2010). School-based screening: A Population-based approach to
inform and monitor children’s mental health needs. School Mental Health, 2, 166-176. doi:
10.1007/s12310-010-9036-3.
• Glover, T.A., & Albers, C.A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating Instruments for universal screening
assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117-135. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005
• Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337-1345.
• Gresham, F. M. & Elliott, S.N.(2008). Social Skills Improvement System. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
• Ikeda, M.J., Neesen, E., & Witt, J.C. (2009). Best Practices in Universal Screening. In A. Thomas & J.Grimes
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp.103-114). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
• Kamphaus, R.W., & Reynolds, C.R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System. Minneapolis,
MN: Pearson.
References
• Kamphaus, R.W., DiStefano, C., Dowdy, E., Eklund, K., & Dunn, A.R. (2010). Determining the presence of a
problem: Comparing two approaches for detecting youth behavioral risk. School Psychology Review, 39(3),
395-407.
• Lane, K.L., Kalberg, J.R., & Menzies, H.M. (2009). Developing Schoolwide Programs to Prevent and Manage
Problem Behaviors. A Step-by-Step Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
• Lane, K.L., Little, M.A., Casey, A.M., Lambert, W., Wehby, W., Weisenbach, J.L., & Phillips, A. (2009). A
Comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 17(2), 93-105.
• Walker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports:
Identifying and supporting students at-risk for failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Supports, 7(4), 194-204.
Retrieved from http://flagship.luc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di
rect=true&db=aph&AN=18658082&site=ehost-live
• Walker, H.M., & Severson, H.H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.