Systematic Screenings for Behavior Screening …...2013/06/07 · 5/2/2013 Systematic Screenings...
Transcript of Systematic Screenings for Behavior Screening …...2013/06/07 · 5/2/2013 Systematic Screenings...
5/2/2013
Systematic Screenings for Behavior Screening Tools:
Data Based Decisions… One Step Further
Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., BCBA-D University of Kansas Wendy Oakes, Ph.D.
Arizona State University
Agenda Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention
Behavior Screening tools In CI3T Models
Data-informed Decision Making
1
5/2/2013
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At‐Risk
Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral Social
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3)
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
≈
≈
≈
PBIS Framework
Validated Curricula
Lane & Oakes
Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
CI3T Training Series Project SUPPORT & INCLUDE
Lane & Oakes
1:Two‐Hour
Support Session
2: Full Day
Training Trainers
3: Two‐Hour
Support Session
4: Full Day
Training Trainers
5: Two‐Hour
Support Session
6: Full Day
Training Trainers
Primary Primary
Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Sessions
Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Prevention Series
Primary Prevention Series
12/7/11 1/9/12 1/23/12 2/21/12 3/22/12 4/19/12
2/6/12 3/5/12
11/7/11 1/12/12 6/7/12
1/17/12 1/30/12 3/1/12 4/16/12
2
are available?
Lane & Oakes
5/2/2013
Essential Components of Primary Prevention Efforts
Systematic Screening Academic Behavior
Treatment Integrity
Social Validity
Lane & Oakes State of Tennessee DOE Technical Assistance Grant IRB # 090935
What screening tools
See Lane, Menzies, Oakes, and Kalberg (2012)
3
5/2/2013
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 Problems - Aggressive Behavior - Peer Rejection
Student Risk is divided into 3 categories Low 0 – 3 Moderate 4 – 8 High 9 - 21 (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
4
Lane & Oakes
5/2/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994)
SRSS Scoring 7 - Items are totaled for one score Score is compared to categories for risk
status
Oakes & Lane, 2012
At Risk Total Score = 9 - 21
Some Risk Total Score = 4 - 8
Low Risk Total Score = 0 - 3
5
5/2/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale Middle School Fall 2004 - Fall 2011
n = 12
n = 20
n = 507
Per
cent
age
of S
tude
nts
N=534 N=502 N=454 N=476N=477N=470 N=524 N= 539
Fall Screeners Lane & Oakes
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<H
In-School Suspensions
0.08 (0.38)
0.35 (1.04)
1.71 (2.26)
L<M<H
GPA 3.35 (0.52)
2.63 (0.65)
2.32 (0.59)
L>M, H M=H
Course Failures Lane & Oakes
0.68 (1.50)
2.78 (3.46)
4.17 (3.49)
L<M, H M=H
(Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007)
6
5/2/2013
Elementary Level Externalizing AUC 0.952 Results: ROC Curves
1.0
AUC = 0.952
0.8
Sens
itivi
ty
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 - Specificity
Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Casey, A. M., Lambert, W., Wehby, J. H., Weisenbach, J. L., & Phillips, A., (2009). A comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders: How do they compare? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 93-105.
Elementary Level Internalizing AUC .802
Results: ROC Curves 1.0
AUC = .802
0.8
0.6
Sens
itivi
ty
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1 - Specificity
7
student.
5/2/2013
STUDENT RISK SCREENING SCALE-IE CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT
TEACHER NAME
0 = Never
Ste
al
Lie
, C
he
at,
Sn
ea
k
Beh
avio
r P
rob
lem
Pe
er
Re
jec
tio
n
Lo
w A
cad
emic
Ac
hie
vem
ent
Ne
ga
tive
Att
itu
de
Ag
gre
ssiv
e B
ehav
ior
Em
oti
on
ally
Fla
t
Sh
y; W
ith
dra
wn
Sad
; D
epre
sse
d
An
xio
us
Ob
sess
ive-
Co
mp
uls
ive
Be
hav
ior
Lo
nel
y
Se
lf-I
nfl
icts
Pa
in
1= Occasionally
2 = Sometimes
3 = Frequently
Use the above scale to rate each item for each
Student Name
Validation Study
(Lane & Oakes, 2012)
Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, & SRSS-IE12 with the SSBD
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Harris, P. J., Menzies, H. M., Cox, M. L., & Lambert, W. (2012) Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors at the elementary level. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 99‐122.
Note. SSBD refers to the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker & Severson, 1992). SRSS-IE5 refers to the version with 5 times retained. SRSS-IE12 refers to the original 7 items from the SRSS developed by Drummond (1994) combined with the new five items constituting the SRSS-IE5. The SRSS-E7 refers to the original 7 items constituting the SRSS.
8
5/2/2013
SSiS – PSG (Elliott & Gresham, 2007)
• 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.
(Copyright NCS Pearson, 2007)
9
5/2/2013
PSG Actions
Students Scoring a 1 in any area
& Suggested Action
Students Scoring a 2 or 3 in any
area & Suggested
Action
Examining your screening data …
… implications for primary prevention efforts … implications for teachers … implications for student-based interventions
See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
10
5/2/2013
Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide Spring 2012 – Total School
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
43.35 47.96 56.12 55.42
45.60 47.55 36.73 38.24
11.04 4.49 7.14 6.34
Perc
ent o
f Stu
dent
s
Adequate progress Moderate Difficulties Significant Difficulties
N = 54
N = 223
N = 212
N = 22
N = 233
N = 235
N = 35
N = 180
N = 275
N = 31
N = 187
N = 271
Reading Skills Math Skills Prosocial Motivation to Behavior Learn n = 489 n = 490 n = 490 n = 489
Subscales
Student Risk Screening Scale Middle School Fall 2004 - Fall 2011
n = 12
n = 20
n = 507
Per
cent
age
of S
tude
nts
N=534 N=502 N=454 N=476N=477N=470 N=524 N= 539
Fall Screeners Lane & Oakes
11
5/2/2013
Examining your screening data …
… implications for primary prevention efforts … implications for teachers … implications for student-based interventions
See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
Teacher-Level Considerations
1. Instructional Considerations 2. General Classroom Management 3. Low-intensity Strategies
12
5/2/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale
Comprehensive, Integrative, Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Support
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring
- -Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assessment
13
5/2/2013
Consideration #1: Essential Components of Classroom Management Classroom Climate Physical Room Arrangement Routines and Procedures Managing Paper Work
Lane & Oakes
Consideration # 2 Instructional Considerations How motivating is my classroom? Control – Challenge – Curiosity –
Contextualization Am I using a variety of instructional
strategies? How am I differentiating instruction? Content – Process – Product
Lane & Oakes
14
5/2/2013
Consideration #3 Low-Intensity Strategies Active Supervision Proximity Pacing Appropriate use of Praise Opportunities to Respond Instructive Feedback Incorporating Choice
Lane & Oakes
Self-Assessment How am I doing with … basic classroom managementstrategies? Instructional considerations? Low-intensity strategies?
15
5/2/2013
Consider a book study … Build school site capacity
Active Supervision
Behavior Specific Praise
Increased OTRs
Choice
Examining your screening data …
… implications for primary prevention efforts … implications for teachers … implications for student-based interventions
See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
16
5/2/2013
Sample School District Student Risk Screening Scale Fall 2012
100% n = 17
80%
70%
82.52
13.64
3.84
n=1397
High Risk 60%
84.53
12.28 3.19
n=530
Moderate50%
81.80
12.60
5.60
n=409
Risk
n = 28
80.92
16.08
3.00
n=458
n = 65 n = 20
90% n = 231 n = 77 n = 91n = 63
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
Low Risk 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 2012 Fall MES OES RES
N = 627 N = 500 N = 566 Total School
Sample School District Student Risk Screening Scale Comparing Fall 2012 to Winter 2013
n = 65 n = 63100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
82.52
13.64 3.84
n = 1397
n = 231
High Risk50% 84.80
11.44 3.75
n = 1423
n = 192
Perc
enta
ge o
f Stu
dent
s
Moderate Risk40% Low Risk
30%
20%
10%
0% 2012 Fall Total 2013 Winter Total
N = 1693 N = 1678 School
17
5/2/2013
Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk
Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral Social
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3)
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
≈
≈
≈
PBIS Framework
Validated Curricula
Comprehensive, Integrative, Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Support
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring
- -Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assessment
18
5/2/2013
A Step-by-Step Process
Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule Step 2: Identify your secondary supports Existing and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteria Nomination, academic failure, behavior screening
scores, attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measures Pre and post tests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA
etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteria Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success,
reduction of truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
Procedures for Monitoring: Assessment Schedule
Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
School Demographics
Student Demographics X X X X X X X X X X
Student Outcome Academic Measures
Benchmarking - AIMSweb X X X
Report Card Course Failures
X X X X
Student Outcome Behavior Measures
Screener - SRSS X X X
Discipline: ODR X X X X
Attendance (Tardies/ Unexcused Absences)
X X X
Referrals
SPED and Support-TEAM X X X
Program Measures
Social Validity (PIRS) X X X
Schoolwide Evaluation Tool X
CI3T Treatment Integrity X
19
5/2/2013
Student Risk Screening Scale with academic and behavioral data
Student Risk Screening Scale with academic and behavioral data
20
5/2/2013
After reviewing your assessment schedule Make a master list of all “extra” supports Create an intervention grid Select additional supports with sufficient
evidence to support their use Enlist needed professional development
to assist with implementation
41
A Step-By-Step Process Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule Step 2: Identify your secondary supports Existing and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteria Nomination, academic failure, behavior screening
scores, attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measures Pre and post tests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteria Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success,
reduction of truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
21
5/2/2013
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria
Behavior A written agreement
Contract 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.
Self Students will monitor Monitoring and record their
academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on‐task behavior each day.
A Step-By-Step Process Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule Step 2: Identify your secondary supports Existing and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteria Nomination, academic failure, behavior screening
scores, attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measures Pre and post tests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteria Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success,
reduction of truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
22
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
5/2/2013
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria
Behavior A written agreement Behavior: SRSS ‐Contract between two parties used mod to high risk
to specify the contingent Academic: 2 or relationship between the completion of a behavior and access to or delivery
more missing assignments with
of a specific reward. in a grading period Contract may involve administrator, teacher, parent, and student.
Self‐ Students will monitor Students who score monitoring and record their
academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on‐task behavior each day.
in the abnormal range for H and CP on the SDQ; course failure or at risk on CBM
A Step-By-Step Process Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule Step 2: Identify your secondary supports Existing and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteria Nomination, academic failure, behavior screening
scores, attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measures Pre and post tests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteria Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success,
reduction of truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
23
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
5/2/2013
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria
Behavior A written agreement Behavior: SRSS ‐ Work Contract between two parties used mod to high risk completion,
to specify the contingent AND or other relationship between the completion of a behavior and access to or delivery
Academic: 2 or more missing
behavior addressed in
of a specific reward. assignments with contract Contract may involve in a grading period administrator, teacher, parent, and student.
Self‐ Students will monitor Students who score Work monitoring and record their in the abnormal completion
academic production range for H and CP and accuracy (completion/ accuracy) on the SDQ; course in the and on‐task behavior failure or at risk on academic area each day. CBM of concern;
passing grades
A Step-By-Step Process Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule Step 2: Identify your secondary supports Existing and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteria Nomination, academic failure, behavior screening
scores, attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measures Pre and post tests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteria Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success,
reduction of truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
24
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
5/2/2013
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support Description Schoolwide Data: Entry
Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria
Behavior A written agreement Behavior: SRSS ‐ Work Successful Contract between two parties used mod to high risk completion, Completion of
to specify the contingent Academic: 2 or or other behavior contract relationship between the completion of a behavior and access to or delivery
more missing assignments with
behavior addressed in
of a specific reward. in a grading period contract Contract may involve administrator, teacher, parent, and student.
Self‐ Students will monitor Students who score Work Passing grade on the monitoring and record their in the abnormal completion report card in the
academic production range for H and CP and accuracy academic area of (completion/ accuracy) on the SDQ; course in the concern and on‐task behavior failure or at risk on academic area each day. CBM of concern;
passing grades
A Step-By-Step Process Step 1: Construct your assessment schedule Step 2: Identify your secondary supports Existing and new interventions
Step 3: Determine entry criteria Nomination, academic failure, behavior screening
scores, attendance data etc.
Step 4: Identify outcome measures Pre and post tests, CBM, office discipline data, GPA etc.
Step 5: Identify exit criteria Reduction of discipline contacts, academic success,
reduction of truancies and absences etc.
Step 6: Consider additional needs
25
5/2/2013
An illustration Support Description Schoolwide Data:
Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress:
Exit Criteria
Small group Small group Students who: AIMSweb Meet AIMSweb Reading reading Behavior: reading PSF and reading benchmark instruction instruction (30 Fall SRSS NWF progress at next screening with Self- min, 3 days per at moderate (4 -8) or monitoring time point. Monitoring 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.
high (9 – 21) risk Academic: Fall AIMSweb LNF at the strategic or intensive level
probes (weekly).
Daily self-monitoring checklists
Low Risk on SRSS at next screening time point.
Small group Reading Instruction with Self-Monitoring
Lane, K.L., & Oakes, W. P. (2012). Identifying Students for Secondary and Tertiary Prevention Efforts: How do we determine which students have Tier 2 and Tier 3 needs? In preparation.
26
5/2/2013
Altmann, S. A. (2010). Project support and include: the additive benefits of self-monitoring on students’ reading acquisition. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University.
Treatment integrity Social validity Monitor student progress
Altmann, S. A. (2010). Project support and include: the additive benefits of self-monitoring on students’ reading acquisition. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University.
27
5/2/2013
Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High‐Risk
Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group System for Students At-Risk
Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom‐Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Academic Behavioral Social
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three‐Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3)
Secondary Prevention (Tier 2)
Primary Prevention (Tier 1)
≈
≈
≈
PBIS Framework
Validated Curricula
Comprehensive, Integrative, Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Support
Assess, Design, Implement, and Evaluate
Basic Classroom Management Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts Self-Monitoring
- -Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assessment
28
5/2/2013
Tertiary Intervention Grid Support Description School-wide Data:
Entry Criteria Data to Monitor
Progress Exit Criteria
Functional Individualized Students who: Data will be The function-Assessment- interventions Behavior collected on based Based developed Scored in the high risk both the (a) intervention Intervention by the
behavior specialist and school leadsership team
category on the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS), or scored in the clinical range on one following Strengths and Difficulties (SDQ) subscales: Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, or Prosocial Behavior, or earned more than 5 office discipline referrals (ODR) for major events during a grading period ; and/or Academic identified at highest risk for school failure: recommended for retention; or scored far below basic on state-wide or district-wide assessments
target (problem) behavior and (b) replacement (desirable) behavior identified by the team on an on-going basis. Weekly teacher report on academic status ODR data collected weekly
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.
29
5/2/2013
Andrew’s Intervention Outcomes
Baseline MaintenanceWithdrawal Reintroduction Intervention
Figure 1. The symbols used above represent the following: ● liaison collected data; □ teacher collected data; ▲ generalization data collected in Andrew’s Criminal Justice Class; ♦ generalization data collected in Andrew’s English class
What other additional needs to we have in our building?
30
5/2/2013
Before Thinking About Tier 2 for Students … … implications for primary … implications for teachers … implications for student-based interventions
Lane & Oakes See Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, and Crnobori (2011)
Recommendations to Consider
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
(Lane & Oakes, 2012)
31