Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Universal Screening National PBIS Leadership Forum October 27, 2011.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Universal Screening National PBIS Leadership Forum October 27, 2011."— Presentation transcript:

1 Universal Screening National PBIS Leadership Forum October 27, 2011

2 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? Consider 4 questions: - What Implementation Phase? - What do I hope to learn? - What did I learn? - What will I do with what I learned?

3 Where are you in implementation process? Adapted from Fixsen & Blase, 2005 We think we know what we need so we are planning to move forward (evidence- based) Exploration & Adoption Let’s make sure we’re ready to implement (capacity infrastructure) Installation Let’s give it a try & evaluate (demonstration) Initial Implementation That worked, let’s do it for real (investment) Full Implementation Let’s make it our way of doing business (institutionalized use) Sustainability & Continuous Regeneration

4 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 commonly- occurring disorders Source: Merikangas, 2010

5 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

6 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

7 Mental health and school age children Source: Bradshaw, Buckley, & Ialongo, 2008 Internalizers are underserved by special education and mental health systems

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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

12 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 decision- making – Install and support efficient teaming structures

13 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)

14 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

15 Tier 1/Universal School-Wide Assessment School-Wide Prevention Systems SIMEO Tools: HSC-T, RD-T, EI-T Check-in/ Check-out Individualized Check- In/Check-Out, Groups & Mentoring (ex. CnC) Brief Functional Behavioral Assessment/ Behavior Intervention Planning (FBA/BIP) Complex FBA/BIP Wraparound ODRs, Attendance, Tardies, Grades, DIBELS, etc. Daily Progress Report (DPR) (Behavior and Academic Goals) Competing Behavior Pathway, Functional Assessment Interview, Scatter Plots, etc. Social/Academic Instructional Groups Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports: A Response to Intervention (RtI) Model Illinois PBIS Network, Revised August 2009 Adapted from T. Scott, 2004 Tier 2/ Secondary Tier 3/ Tertiary Intervention Assessment

16 Illinois Universal Screening Model The Illinois PBIS Network recommends a ‘multi- gate’ 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)

17 Illinois Universal Screening Model Multiple Gating Procedure (Adapted from Walker & Severson, 1992) Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students on Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in Each Dimension (Externalizing & Internalizing) using either SSBD, BASC-2/BESS, or other evidence-based instrument Gate 1 Gate 2 Pass Gate 1 Pass Gate 2 Tier 2 Intervention

18 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

19 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

20 Teacher ranking form: Externalizers

21 Teacher ranking form: Internalizers

22 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

23 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)

24 Sample of SSBD Critical Events Form

25 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

26 Sample of SSBD CFI Form

27 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)

28 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

29 Illinois Universal Screening Model: BASC-2/BESS Sample

30 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

31 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)

32 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

33 Illinois Universal Screening Model: Implementation A note on recommended screening frequency – Academic screening (e.g., Curriculum Based Measures- CBMs-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

34 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

35 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

36 Illinois Universal Screening Model: Universal Screening Results

37

38

39

40 Contact Information Jennifer Rose, M.Ed., Tertiary Research & Evaluation Coordinator-Illinois PBIS Network: jen.rose@pbisillinois.org jen.rose@pbisillinois.org

41 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

42 Systematic Screening within the Context of Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention Prepared By: St. Louis City School District

43 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 AcademicBehavioral 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 Social Skills Improvement System (SSiS) - Classwide Intervention Program

44 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.

45 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.

46 MeasureAuthorsOrdering Information Early Screening Project Walker, Severson, & Feil (1994) Available for purchase from Sopris West Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders Walker & Severson (1992) Available for purchase from Cambium Learning/ Sopris West Student Risk Screening Scale Drummond (1994)Free Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Goodman (1991) Free online at 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

47 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 -Low0 – 3 -Moderate4 – 8 -High9 + (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)

48 Student Risk Screening Scale (Drummond, 1994)

49 USING THE SRSS TO EXAMINE BEHAVIORAL RISK: SNAP SHOTS IN TIME An Illustration

50 Behavior Screeners – SRSS School Time Point n= 408n= 323 n = 14n = 32 n = 64n = 88 n = 245n = 288 Students with unrated items: Fall – 33Spring – 118 Total students enrolled at time of screening: Fall – 441Spring – 441 Percentages

51 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 *6 50 (79.37%) 10 (15.87%) 3 (4.76%) 1 st Grade 78 *5 57 (73.08%) 18 (23.08%) 3 (3.85%) 2 nd Grade 54 *6 28 (51.85%) 18 (33.33%) 8 (14.81%) Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened. * Students missing

52 SRSS Comparison by Grade Level Fall 2008 Grade Level Number of Students in Grade Level Low (0-3) Moderate (4-8) High (9 +) 3 rd Grade 73 *7 52 (71.23%) 17 (23.29%) 4 (5.48%) 4 th Grade 65 *5 44 (67.69%) 13 (20.00%) 8 (12.31%) 5 th Grade 75 *4 57 (76.00%) 12 (16.00%) 6 (8.00%) Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened. * Students missing

53 SRSS Comparison by Grade Level Spring 2009 Grade Level Number of Students in Grade Level Low (0-3) Moderate (4-8) High (9 +) 3 rd Grade 69 *11 50 (72.46%) 17 (24.64%) 2 (2.90%) 4 th Grade 39 *31 24 (61.54%) 10 (25.64%) 5 (12.82%) 5 th Grade 48 *31 39 (81.25%) 8 (16.67%) 1 (2.08%) Percentage refers to the percentage of the grade level population screened. * Students missing

54 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. How reliable and valid is the SRSS for use in our community?

55 What Did We Learn? The SRSS is an internally consistent measure with estimates of.82 and.81 at Fall and Spring administrations. Test-retest stability was statistically significant over time (r =.86) between Fall and Spring administrations. Predictive validity analyses indicated that students with 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. The SRSS is a reliable tool, predicting important outcomes … higher risk was associated with higher rates of ODRs and lower oral reading fluency at year end.

56 ANALYZING DATA IN TANDEM THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE FROM WILDER, K. (2010) UNPUBLISHED MASTERS’ THESIS. How can we look at multiple sources of data to learn more about our students?

57 A DESCRIPTIVE LOOK AT GENERAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION POPULATIONS? Where are special education students placing along this continuum of risk?

58 USING DATA TO CONNECT STUDENTS WITH TIER 2 AND 3 SUPPORTS How can information from behavioral and academic screening tools be used to support students?

59 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 AcademicBehavioral 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 Social Skills Improvement System (SSiS) - Classwide Intervention Program

60 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

61 Procedures for Monitoring: Assessment Schedule AugSeptOctNovDecJanFeb MarAprMay School Demographics *Student Demographics XXXXXX Student Outcome Academic Measures Report Card (MS/HS) *GPA *Course Failures XXXX Student Outcome Behavior Measures *SRSS - Screener XXX Discipline *ODR XXXX *Attendance (Tardies/ Unexcused Absences) XXX Referrals SPED and S-TEAM XXX Program Measures For Consented Teachers Only *Social Validity (PIRS) XXX *SET/Treatment Integrity (TI) Interval X *TI -Observations X

62 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

63 Secondary Intervention Grid SupportDescriptionSchool-wide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Exit Criteria

64 Sample Secondary Intervention Grid: Middle School SupportDescriptionSchoolwide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Exit Criteria Check, Connect, and Expect This program involves checking in with a mentor at the beginning and end of the day to receive a performance goal for the day. Behavior: SRSS Moderate or High Risk on screening Academic: overall GPA < 2.5 or 2 or more course failures at any report card Daily BEP Progress Reports Students who have met there goal consistently for 3 weeks will move to the self-monitoring phase. 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. Behavior: SRSS - mod to high risk Academic: 2 or more missing assignments with in a grading period Work completion, or other behavior addressed in contract Successful Completion of behavior contract

65 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 AcademicBehavioral 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 Social Skills Improvement System (SSiS) - Classwide Intervention Program

66 Tertiary Intervention Grid SupportDescriptionSchool-wide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Exit Criteria

67 State of Tennessee DOE Technical Assistance Grant IRB # 090935 Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid SupportDescriptionSchool-wide Data: Entry Criteria Data to Monitor Progress Exit Criteria Functional Assessment -Based Intervention Individualized interventions developed by the behavior specialist and PBS team Students who: Behavior scored in the high risk 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, earned more than 5 office discipline referrals (ODR) for 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 district-wide assessments Data will be collected on both the (a) 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 The function- based 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.

68 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.

69 Overview of FABIs Testing the Intervention Data Collection Across all phases of the design Treatment Integrity Social Validity Intervention Development - A-R-E Function MatrixFunction-based Decision Model Functional Assessment Interviews (Teacher, Parent, Student) Records Review Rating Scales ( SSiS, Parent and Teacher) A-B-C Data Collection

70 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.

71 Function Matrix

72 Harry’s Function Matrix (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007) Positive Reinforcement (Access something) 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) 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 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

73 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

74 Conduct FBA Can the student perform the replacement behavior? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practice? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practices? Method 1: Teach the replacement behavior Method 2: Improve the environment Method 3: Adjust the contingencies Method 1 & 2: Teach the replacement behavior and Improve the Environment Select Replacement Behavior 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.

75 Function-Based Intervention Decision Model Conduct FBA Can the student perform the replacement behavior? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practice? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practices? Method 1: Teach the replacement behavior Method 2: Improve the environment Method 3: Adjust the contingencies Method 1 & 2: Teach the replacement behavior and Improve the Environment Select Replacement Behavior NO 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. Yes YES Method 1: Teach the replacement behavior

76 Function-Based Intervention Decision Model Conduct FBA Can the student perform the replacement behavior? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practice? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practices? Method 1: Teach the replacement behavior Method 2: Improve the environment Method 3: Adjust the contingencies Method 1 & 2: Teach the replacement behavior and Improve the Environment YES NO YES NO Select Replacement Behavior NO YES 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.

77 Function-Based Intervention Decision Model Conduct FBA Can the student perform the replacement behavior? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practice? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practices? Method 1: Teach the replacement behavior Method 2: Improve the environment Method 3: Adjust the contingencies Method 1 & 2: Teach the replacement behavior and Improve the Environment YES NO YES NO Select Replacement Behavior NO YES 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.

78 Function-Based Intervention Decision Model Conduct FBA Can the student perform the replacement behavior? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practice? Do antecedent conditions represent effective practices? Method 1: Teach the replacement behavior Method 2: Improve the environment Method 3: Adjust the contingencies Method 1 & 2: Teach the replacement behavior and Improve the Environment YES NO YES NO Select Replacement Behavior NO YES 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.

79 Intervention Components A Adjust the Antecedents R Rates of Reinforcement E Extinction Procedures

80 Harry’s Treatment Integrity Form

81 Harry’s Antecedent Adjustments Antecedent AdjustmentsMonday 0= no 1= yes 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.

82 Harry’s Reinforcement Contingencies Reinforcement ContingenciesMonday 0= no 1= yes 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.

83 Harry’s Extinction Components Extinction ComponentsMonday 0= no 1= yes E1Provide one gestural prompt (every 5 min as needed) to self- monitoring sheet to remind student of rules and expectations. Do not use verbal responses.

84 Treatment Integrity for Harry PhaseComponent Teacher Completed M (SD) Liaison Completed M (SD) Intervention (B1)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) Intervention (B1)Antecedent (-)100 (0.00) Reinforcement (-)33.33 (0.00) Extinction (-)66.67 (0.00) Total (-)58.33 (33.33)

85 Harry’s Graph

86 LOGISTICAL QUESTIONS As you think about conducting behavior screenings, there are a number of…

87 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.

88 QUESTIONS? Thank you for you time …

89 APPENDIX

90 Universal screening readiness checklist

91 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

92 Universal screening readiness checklist Identify resources and logistics  Identify resources for supporting students identified via screening (in- school 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

93 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

94 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

95 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.

96 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-livehttp://flagship.luc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di Walker, H.M., & Severson, H.H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.


Download ppt "Universal Screening National PBIS Leadership Forum October 27, 2011."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google