Social/Emotional Screening within a School-wide Multi-Tiered

System of Support

Tim Lewis, Ph.D. & Barbara Mitchell, Ph.D.University of Missouri

www.pbismissouri.org

OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Intervention & Supports

www.pbis.org

This session will overview…

• Purpose of screening

• Pre-requisites to effectively screen • Environmental Supports

• System Gaps

• Screening Methods

• Common Screening Tools

Acknowledgement

Missouri School-wide Positive

Behavior Support

Tier I and Tier II Workbooks

Maynard, D., & Rector, D. (October, 2017). Systematic screening: Coaching school teams to use the data. Presentation at the OSEP Center on

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Chicago, IL.

Turn & Talk

Is your school/district currently screening? If so, how?

First Week of Term One…

Design a vocabulary lesson:

•Assess current level

• Explicitly teach new terms

•Practice opportunities w/ feedback• During lesson• Independent work

• Test for mastery & provide feedback

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions

•Individual Students

•Assessment-based

•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions

•Individual Students

•Assessment-based

•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions

•Some students (at-risk)

•High efficiency

•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions

•Some students (at-risk)

•High efficiency

•Rapid response

Universal Interventions

•All students

•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions

•All settings, all students

•Preventive, proactive

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Key Points

• Screening does not entitle anyone to service (IDEA consideration on suspicion of a disability)

• Screening should never be used alone to guide intervention selection

• Screening alone should never be used to initiate a special education evaluation

• Screening should simply prompt a serious of follow-up questions and conversations

• Screening for gaps in the school environment equally important

Why Screen?

• Internalizing concerns

• Early intervention and supports at every grade level

• System weaknesses / gaps

•Child find

Ways to screen

• Screening Instrument• Social• Emotional• Academic

•Review of existing archival data

•Non-response to intervention and/or supports

Outcomes of Screening

• Level of Risk• Low, Moderate, High

•Areas of Concern• Social, Emotional, Behavioral, Academic

• Inform Intervention Targets• Schoolwide• Classroom• Targeted Small Group• Intensive Individual

• Resource needs/System Re-design• Personnel, Materials, Professional Development, etc.

Projecting Capacity

MO SW-PBS Team Workbook (2017)

Pre-requisites to screening

• Universals in place• CLASSROOMS

• Data to discriminate “at-risk” environments• Classroom / non-classroom settings

• Data identified to progress monitor universal through individual behavior supports

• Understanding of cultural norms & learning history of school population

Goal is to avoid “false positives” for students

Turn & Talk

Are effective universal/classroom supports in place? How do you know? Plan to address?

Screening for System Gaps

Tools can be found:

Pbis.org

Pbismissouri.org

Self-Assessment Survey (SAS)Purpose:

• Identifies the perceptions of the status and the priority for improvement of SW-PBS systems:

• School-wide discipline

• Non-classroom management

• Classroom management

• Individual students engaging in chronic problem behaviors

• Used for building awareness with staff, action planning and decision-making, assessment of change over time, and team validation.

SAS Scoring Definitions & Artifacts

“Big Five”

Available from OSEP TA-Center www.pbis.orgwww.pbisapps.org

No Cost

Assessors Training PowerPoint andAssessors Training Video at www.pbisapps.org

Sub-subscale report

Tier ITeamsImplementationEvaluation

Tier IITeamsInterventionsEvaluation

Tier IIITeamsResourcesAssessmentSupport planMonitoring and adaptation

Item Report

TFI & SAS

Effective Classroom Practices

Resources - pbismissouri.org

Classroom Universal Essential Practices

1. Classroom expectations & rules defined and taught (all use school-wide, create classroom examples)

2. Procedures & routines defined and taught

3. Continuum of strategies to acknowledge appropriate behavior in place and used with high frequency (4:1)

4. Continuum of strategies to respond to inappropriate behavior in place and used per established school-wide procedure

5. Students are actively supervised (pre-corrects and positive feedback)

6. Students are given multiple opportunities to respond (OTR) to promote high rates of academic engagement

7. Activity sequence promotes optimal instruction time and student engaged time

8. Instruction is differentiated based on student need

Start with Self-Assessment p. 36

Classroom Quiz

1. When the teacher , most students stop and listen.

Yes Sometimes No

2. When class starts, the teacher has everything ready.

Yes Sometimes No

3. Before we start a new activity, the teacher reminds us what we are supposed to do.Yes Sometimes No

4. When we are asked to work by ourselves, all students work quietly and do what they are supposed to do.

Yes Sometimes No

5. I often finish my work and do not know what I should be doing while others are still working.

Yes Sometimes No

Classroom Systems

• Teach• Brief in-service, single

topic focus• Practice (performance

feedback)• Peer coaching• Principal “walk

through”• Direct observation /

data collection

Accommodations Guide Model

Two Examples

Universal Screening

• School used a universal screening instrument in October of 2012.

• Results indicated that 32.3% of students were in the at-risk or high-risk range.

• Team decided to focus first efforts on implementation of Tier 1 with higher levels of fidelity.

Baseline Data Collection

• Classroom-Level Observations of Effective Classroom Practices

▪ Expectations & Rules

▪ Procedures & Routines

▪ Encouraging Expected Behavior

▪ Discouraging Inappropriate Behavior

▪ Active Supervision

▪ Opportunities to Respond

• Based on data, team identified 1 practice to improve upon.

Initial ratio of positive

specific feedback to correctives:

1.85:1

Professional Development Process & Data

October 2012– Initial Observations, Ratio at 1.85:1

January 2013 – Staff Professional Development on Positive Specific Feedback

February 2013 – Follow-up Classroom Observations, Ratio at 2.44:1

March 2013 – Additional Staff Professional Development with Increased Practice and Supports

May 2013 – Final Classroom Observations of the School Year, Ratio at 6.55:1

End of Year Outcomes

• ODRs decreased by 39.41% from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013.

• Minor referrals decreased by 34.8% from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013.

• Classroom minor referrals decreased by 33.5% from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013.

15% Tier 3

Goal 5%

16% Tier 2

Goal 15%

69% Tier 1

Goal 80%

6+ Referrals

2-5 Referrals

0-1 Referral

57 students with 9+ Referrals

1712 referrals

Baseline Behavior Data Spring

Data-Practices-Systems

• Self-assessment / Review of behavioral infractions

• Literacy block• Teacher led small group• Independent work• Student work group

•Clear procedures & routines• Taught & practiced

7% Tier 3

Goal 5%

10% Tier 2

Goal 15%

83% Tier 1

Goal 80%

Post Intensifying Tier I + Classrooms

516 Referrals

16 Students with 9+ Referrals

6+ Referrals

2-5 Referrals

0-1 Referrals

Turn & Talk

Does your school/district have a plan to address system gaps prior to screening for individual students?

Screening to Identify Students

Archival Data

Screening Instruments

Archival Data

Data Decision Rules

• Behavioral Infractions• Major• Minor

• Time out of Instruction• Buddy Room• Safe Seats• “Discipline” Room

• Other• School nurse visits• Attendance• Grades

RRKS TOC (front side)

RRKS – Time Out of Class Code: _____

Student: _________________________ Date:______________________

Incident Time: ____________________# of min. out of rm.: __________

Teacher: _______________________Subject: ____________________

What did you do/not do that got you sent out of class? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Circle the RRKS expectation that was not followed:Respect Responsible Kind Safe

What will you do differently next time?______________________________________

RRKS TOC (back side)

Processing Checklist:Processing data & time:

• Review with the student reason he/she was sent out.

• Teach & practice replacement behavior.

• Provide positive reinforcement for replacement behavior.

• Check the setting in which the behavior occurred.

Whole group instruction

Small group instruction

Individual work

Working with peers

Alone

1-on-1 instruction

Interacting with peers

Other: Please identify below

Minor List: Circle the appropriate code

(MDD)

Defiance/Disrespect/Non-

compliance

(MDS)

Disruption

(MI)

Inappropriate Verbal

Language

( MO) Other (MPC) Phys.

Contact

(MP) Property Misuse

Non-response to Universal supports

• Archival data

Key questions to answer before small group/individual supports considered

• Fidelity (Tiered Fidelity Inventory)

• Social and emotional targets identified, taught, and practiced

• Fidelity of effective classroom practices

Instrument Selection Systems Planning &

Implementation Examples

Starting Point - Resources

http://pbismissouri.org/tier-2-workbook-resources/

Example Instruments

• Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

• Social, Academic, & Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS)

Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

http://www.sdqinfo.com/

SDQ – What is it?

• Brief behavioral screening questionnaire about children and youth ages 3-18+.

• 25 items organized across 5 scales:• Emotional symptoms

• Conduct problems

• Hyperactivity/inattention

• Peer relationship problems

• Prosocial behavior

Items from 1-4 are added together to generate a total difficulties score.

Can be completed by: teacher, parent/caregiver, or self-report

General Population Screening

• When screening in low-risk or general population samples, use a 3 scale division

• Internalizing (emotional + peer relationship)

• Externalizing (conduct + hyperactivity/inattention)

• Prosocial

Sample Questionnaire

On-line Scoring & Report System

• Register for a User ID (free)

• https://sdqscore.org/Downloads/SDQadminIntroduction.pdf

Hand Scoring

Interpretation of Scores

Social, Academic, & Emotional Risk Behavioral Screener (SAEBRS)

http://ebi.missouri.edu/?p=1116

SAEBRS – What is it?

• Brief questionnaire that to screen for behavioral and emotional risk in K-12 settings.

• 19 items organized across 3 scales:• Social behavior

• Academic behavior

• Emotional behavior

Items are added together to generate a Total Behavior Score.

Completed by classroom teacher

Sample Questionnaire

On-line Scoring & Report System

http://www.fastbridge.org/assessments/behavior/

Hand Scoring

http://ebi.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/EBA-Brief-SAEBRS.pdf

Interpretation of Scores

http://ebi.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/EBA-Brief-SAEBRS.pdf

Other Tools

Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS)

Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD)

https://www.ancorapublishing.com/https://www.pearsonclinical.com/

Instrument Selection Systems Planning &

Implementation Examples

School Level Considerations

• Do we have district support for screening?

• Have we examined multiple tools and selected one that meets our needs?

• Have faculty participated in professional learning about screening?

• Have we informed parents of the purpose for this practice?

• Do we have designated school leaders who will oversee & manage the process?

• Do we have a secure method for managing and collecting data?

• Do we have access to other sources of data?

• Can teachers easily access this data?

• Do we have an organized plan for responding to need?

• Do we have a plan for communicating results with parents?

District Level Considerations

MO SW-PBS Tier 3 Workbook May 1, 2017

Universal Screening Considerations (AdaptedfromMuscott,2008)

DocumentedPurposeandPolicy

MinimumFeature QuestionstoConsider TeamNotes/TaskstoComplete

1.Thepersonwhocanauthorizesocial-emotional/behavioralscreeningisidentifiedandapprovalisobtainedtodesignandimplementtheprocess.

a.Whoprovidesapproval?• Isittheschoolboard,schoolsuperintendent,specialservicesdirector,aleadershipteamand/orbuildinglevelprincipal?

2.Aclearpurposeandintendedoutcomeofscreeningisdocumentedandalignswithdistrictandbuildinglevelmission,prioritiesandimprovementgoals.

a.Isthealignmentwithdistrictandbuildinglevelmission,prioritiesandimprovementgoalsdocumented?

b.Isthereanexistingsystemforidentifyingat-riskstudents?

c.Istheexistingsystemeffectiveinfindingstudentswithexternalizingorinternalizingtypesofconcerns?

d.Arethereanygroupsofstudentswhoarenotconsistentlyidentified?

e.Howwilltheresultsbeused?f. Howwillscreeningbedistinguishedfromadiagnosticprocess?

3.Thepolicyandproceduresforscreeninginnon-behaviorareasisusedtoinformdevelopmentofscreeningsystemforsocial-emotional/behavioralconcerns.

a.Whatarethecurrentpoliciesandproceduresregardingvision,hearingandacademicscreening?

b.Isthatpolicyeffectiveandcanitbeusedforsocial-emotional/behavioralconcerns?

4.Thepolicyandproceduresforsocial-emotional/behavioralscreeningincludedecisionrulesforparentnotification,parentconsentanduseoftheresults.

a.Howwillawarenessoftheprocessanditsbenefitsbedevelopedamongstakeholders?b.Howwillparentsbenotifiedofthescreening?c.Whenintheprocesswill

parentalconsentbeobtained?Willparentalconsentbeactiveor

passive?d.Howwillresultsofthescreeningbe

sharedwithparents?Willallparentsbenotified

ofresultsorwillonlyparentsofstudentsidentifiedbeinformed?e.Howwillresultsofthescreeningbe

used?

5.Thepolicyandproceduresforsocial-emotional/behavioralscreeningcomplywithdistrictchildfindprocedures.

a.Havethepolicyandproceduresbeenreviewedandapprovedbytheappropriatedistrict-levelpersonnel?

Guides a team through implementation of universal screening.

Planning for Screening

• Documented purpose and policy• Goal of screening, use (and non-use) of data, anticipated

percentage of students per MTSS implementation, in line with district child find procedures

• Clearly defined procedures• Tool identified, timeline established, procedure for reviewing

the data

• Availability of Supports• Universal• Classroom• Tier 2 / Tier 3

Planning for Screening

• School Context• Elementary, Secondary, Early Childhood, Alternative, etc.

• Personnel• Administering, Scoring, Graphing and Reporting

• Time• Managing Administration, Scoring and Response• Frequency of Administration, Time of Year

• Outcome Goals• Schoolwide, Classroom, Small Group, Individual• Partnerships with MH Providers

Instrument Selection Systems Planning &

Implementation Examples

Implementation Example 1

• 319 students in a K-2 primary building screened using teacher ratings from the BESS• 256 Normal, 42 Elevated, 21 Extremely Elevated

• Elevated sorted into Tier 2 interventions• CICO, Social Skills, or Check & Connect

• Extremely Elevated• Conducted classroom observations and provided feedback

for effective classroom management

Implementation Example 2

• 302 students in a 3-5 intermediate building, using teacher BESS ratings– 252 Normal, 35 Elevated, 16 Extremely Elevated

• Met with each classroom teacher to review results and gather additional information– Academic, emotional-behavioral, combined

– Internalizing, externalizing, combined

– Problem behavior, setting, antecedent, consequence, possible function

• Determine interventions to develop; provide information for 2012 class lists

Implementation Example 3

• 267 students in a 6-8 middle school buildingcompleted teacher BESS ratings– 198 Normal, 46 Elevated, 23 Extremely Elevated

• Challenging because different teachers viewed same student differently depending on setting.

• Reeds Spring Middle School– Conducted self-assessment using student BESS ratings

– Used data when other indicators were met.

Other Implementation Examples

• Parents complete rating questionnaire during Kindergarten registration

• Parents and/or students complete ratings when new family registers for school

• Incoming 9th graders complete screening questionnaire when they create course schedule; risk scores used to assign advisory courses

• Classroom teacher screenings in the spring prior to transition to new building

Key Points

• Screening does not entitle anyone to service (IDEA consideration on suspicion of a disability)

• Screening should never be used alone to guide intervention selection

• Screening alone should never be used to initiate a special education evaluation

• Screening should simply prompt a serious of follow-up questions and conversations

• Screening for gaps in the school environment equally important

Resources

• http://pbismissouri.org• Access Tier 1, 2, and 3 workbooks• Create a free account to access virtual modules

• Project Aware Ohio/Ohio PBIS Network• School-Wide Universal Screening for Behavioral and Mental

Health Issues: Implementation Guidance https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/School-Safety/Building-Better-Learning-Environments/PBIS-Resources/Project-AWARE-Ohio/Project-AWARE-Ohio-Statewide-Resources/Screening-Guidance-Document-Final.pdf.aspx

• Ohio Department of Education• Mental Health, Social-emotional, And Behavioral Screening And

Evaluation Compendium (2nd Ed) https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/School-Safety/Building-Better-Learning-Environments/PBIS-Resources/Tier-II-Tier-III-and-Behavioral-Health/Mental-Health-Social-and-Emotional-Screening-and-Evaluation-Compendium-with-bookmarks.pdf.aspx

Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2016). Consideration of base rates within universal screening for behavioral and emotional risk: A novel procedural framework. School Psychology Forum, 10(1), 120-130.

Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., Menzies, H., Bruhn, A., Eisner, S., & Crnobori, M. (2011). Using systemic screening data to assess risk and identify students for targeted supports: Illustrations across the K-12 curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 32(1), 39-54.

Muscott, H. (2008). Systematic screening procedures benchmarking worksheet. New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

References