1. Arizona State University
Universal Screening for Behavior: Pennsylvania’s Collaboration with Researchers and District Level Implementers’
Tina Lawson PaTTAN
Kathleen Lynne Lane
University of Kansas
Wendy P. Oakes
Arizona State University

2. Agenda Define Pennsylvania’s PBIS Structure
Provide a Rationale for Universal Screening of Behavior
Define the Partnership between PaPBIS, School Districts, and the University Researchers
Define the Study
Share Lessons Learned

3. PA PBIS…

4. This slide is an overview of the structure of the PAPBS Network
This slide is an overview of the structure of the PAPBS Network. Some states have had pockets of PBIS implementation that have coalesced into a statewide system (bottom up approach). PA created a state level support team, followed by regional and local support structures (top down approach). We will talk about each of these levels in more detail as we go along.
NOTE: BOTH SCHOOL AGE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD ARE REPRESENTED AT THE CO-DIRECTORS & SCT LEVEL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

5. Participating Schools / LEAs
Inclusive of both cohorts, all 29 Intermediate Units (IUs) have staff participating in the PAPBS Network as facilitators, consultants, etc.

6. PAPBS Network SWPBIS Sites – Cohort 1 (2007) & Cohort 2 (2009-present)

8. The rationale …

9. Prevalence Considerations
ED … <1%
EBD … 12%
Lane & Oakes

10. Student with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD)
Internalizing
Externalizing
Lane & Oakes

11. Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention
(Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009)
Goal: Reduce Harm
Specialized Individual Systems
for Students with High-Risk
Goal: Reverse Harm
Specialized Group Systems
for Students At-Risk
PBIS Framework
Goal: Prevent Harm
School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings
Validated Social Skills Program
Academic
Behavioral
Social

12. Systematic Screening Measure Authors Ordering Information
Early Screening Project
Walker, Severson, & Feil (1995)
Available for purchase from Sopris West
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD)
Walker & Severson (1992)
Available for purchase from Cambium Learning/ Sopris West
Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS)
Drummond (1994)
Free-Access
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
Goodman (1991)
Free-Access online at
BASC-2 Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS)
Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007)
Available for purchase from Pearson/ PsychCorp
Social Skills Improvement System: Performance Screening Guide (SSiS – PSG)
Elliott & Gresham (2007)
Systematic Screening

13. Student Risk Screening Scale
(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
Student Risk Screening Scale

14. Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
The SRSS is 7-item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior. This tool is appealing to schools because it takes minimal teacher time and is of no cost.
Teachers evaluate each student on the following items
- Steal - Low Academic Achievement
- Lie, Cheat, Sneak - Negative Attitude
- Behavior Problem - Aggressive Behavior
- Peer Rejection
Each item is rated on a Likert-type scale of 0-3
Never 0
Occasionally 1
Sometimes 2
Frequently 3
Student Risk is divided into 3 categories
Low 0 – 3
Moderate 4 – 8
High 9 – 21

15. Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994)15

16. Student Risk Screening Scale-IE
TEACHER NAME
0 = Never
Steal
Lie, Cheat, Sneak
Behavior Problem
Peer Rejection
Low Academic Achievement
Negative Attitude
Aggressive Behavior
Emotionally Flat
Shy; Withdrawn
Sad; Depressed
Anxious
Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior
Lonely
Self-Inflicts Pain
1 = Occasionally
2 = Sometimes
3 = Frequently
Use the above scale to rate each item for each student.
Student Name
Original SRSS-IE 14
12 items retained for use at the elementary level
14 items under development in middle and high schools
(Lane, Oakes, Harris, Menzies, Cox, & Lambert, 2012)
Lane and Oakes 2013 16

17. Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide
(SSiS- PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)

18. Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSiS- PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007)

19. SSiS– Performance Screening Guide
4 items per student
Preschool Scale – 4-point Rubric
Elementary Scale – 5-point Rubric
Behavioral areas assessed
Prosocial Behavior
Motivation to Learn
Reading Skills (Early Reading Skills)
Math Skills (Early Math Skills)

20. SSiS – Performance Screening Guide Risk Categories
Preschool Scale
Adequate Progress = 3 or 4 (green band)
Moderate Risk = 2 (yellow band)
Elevated Risk = 1 (red band)
Elementary Scale
Adequate Performance = 4 or 5 (green band)
Moderate Difficulties = 2 or 3 (yellow band)
Significant Difficulty = 1 (red band)

21. Purpose
Report the findings of a psychometric study exploring reliability of the SRSS-IE in secondary schools
Report the convergent validity comparing scores two screening tools: the Student Risk Screening Scale – Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE) and the Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide (SSiS-PSG; Elliott & Gresham, 2007).

22. The Partnership journey …

23. Eligible Districts were close to a major airport
Natural next step
Network Schools
Tier 1 with high fidelity
Advanced tier systems in place
Network Facilitators
Eligible Districts were close to a major airport
Kathleen and Wendy were interested!!!

24. The study …

25. METHOD A Look in School Secondary Schools

26. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
Student 
n = 974
n = 749
N = 1,723
Gender % (n)
Male
52.05 (507)
52.20 (391)
52.12 (898)
Female
47.95 (467)
47.80 (358)
47.88 (825)
Ethnicity % (n)
White
68.69 (669)
65.95 (494)
67.50 (1163)
Black
21.66 (211)
24.83 (186)
23.04 (397)
Hispanic
3.49 (34)
3.20 (24)
3.37 (58)
Asian
2.57 (25)
2.14 (16)
2.38 (41)
Native American
0.10 (1)
0.13 (1)
0.12 (2)
Other
0.00 (0)
0.06 (1)
Mixed races
3.39 (33)
3.74 (28)
3.54 (61)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

27. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
Grade level % (n)
Fifth
23.92 (233)
0.00 (0)
13.52 (233)
Sixth
27.41 (267)
15.50 (267)
Seventh
23.72 (231)
13.41 (231)
Eighth
24.95 (243)
14.10 (243)
Ninth
32.44 (243)
Tenth
31.11 (233)
Eleventh
16.02 (120)
6.96 (120)
Twelfth
20.43 (153)
8.88 (153)
Special Education % (n)
23.61 (230)
18.56 (139)
21.42 (369)
Emotional Disturbance
1.64 (16)
2.27 (17)
1.92 (33)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

28. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
Course Enrolled for Ratings
Physical education
0.00 (0)
7.48 (56)
3.25 (56)
Arts
4.14 (31)
1.80 (31)
Foreign language
English
40.25 (392)
22.96 (172)
32.73 (564)
Aide
0.80 (6)
0.35 (6)
Electives
0.51 (5)
5.87 (44)
2.84 (49)
Math
29.16 (284)
15.62 (117)
23.27 (401)
Science
15.09 (147)
15.75 (118)
15.38 (265)
Social Studies
14.99 (146)
19.89 (149)
17.12 (295)
Age M (SD)
12.15 (1.18)
16.00 (1.29)
13.82 (2.27)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

29. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
Teacher
n = 52
n = 58
N = 110
Gender % (n)
Male
30.77 (16)
49.12 (28)
40.37 (44)
Female
69.23 (36)
50.88 (29)
59.63 (65)
Ethnicity % (n)
White
94.23 (49)
94.75 (54)
94.50 (103)
Black
5.77 (3)
0.00 (0)
2.75 (3)
Hispanic
1.75 (1)
0.92 (1)
Other
3.51 (2)
1.83 (2)
Primary role % (n)
General education
80.77 (42)
92.98 (53)
87.16 (95)
Special education
19.23 (10)
7.02 (4)
12.84 (14)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

30. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
Certified in the area currently teaching % (n)
95.92 (47)
98.25 (56)
97.17 (103)
Highest degree earned % (n)
High school diploma
0.00 (0)
1.75 (1)
0.92 (1)
Associate’s degree
1.92 (1)
1.83 (2)
Bachelor’s degree
28.85 (15)
26.32 (15)
27.52 (30)
Master’s degree
69.23 (36)
70.18 (40)
69.72 (76)
Completed course in classroom management % (n)
Yes
92.31 (48)
82.14 (46)
87.04 (94) No
7.69 (4)
17.86 (10)
12.96 (14)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

31. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
Middle School
High School
Total
Professional development in academic screening % (n)
Yes
21.15 (11)
30.36 (17)
25.93 (28) No
78.85 (41)
69.64 (39)
74.07 (80)
Professional development in behavior screening % (n)
30.77 (16)
32.14 (18)
31.48 (34)
69.23 (36)
67.86 (38)
68.52 (74)
Years teaching experience M (SD)
11.06 (8.93)
11.96 (8.29)
11.53 (8.57)
Years teaching experience current school M (SD)
9.38 (9.19)
11.18 (8.96)
10.33 (9.07)
Age M (SD)
33.86 (9.35)
37.79 (10.82)
35.93 (10.29)
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

32. School Characteristics 2010-2011 Variable School
Table 2
School Characteristics
Variable
School MS HS
Attendance ratea / Graduation Rate a
93%
80%
Classroom teachers (FTE)b
81.75
91.57
Enrollmentb
996
1,106
Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb
56.02%
45.39%
Grades servedb
5 - 8
9 - 12
Localeb
Suburb: Large
NCLB statusac
Corrective Action II
School Improvement II
Student/teacher ratiob
12.18
12.08
Title 1 eligibleb
Yes No
Note. FTE = full time equivalent; NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act (1997); AYP = adequate yearly progress.
a school report card data. bNational Center for Education Statistics, Common Core Data cThe NCLB established improvement goals measured by AYP in (a) attendance or graduation, (b) academic performance, and (c) test participation. Corrective Action II refers to the level of greatest need for support and actions taken including possible governance changes. School Improvement II refers to school who have not met annual yearly progress for three consecutive years in the same subject and students are eligible for supplementary educational services (e.g., tutoring).

33. Procedures Study 1: Middle School & high school
Consenting Meetings
Completed two measures for one class period
SRSS-IE (10-15 min)
SSIS-PSG (30 min)
Social Validity
Data entry and reliability by research assistants

34. METHOD
A Look in Elementary Schools

35. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
Student
n=626
n=492
n=562
N=1,680
Gender % (n)
Male
52.88 (331)
49.39 (243)
52.49 (295)
51.73 (869)
Female
47.12 (295)
50.61 (249)
47.51 (267)
48.27 (811)
Ethnicity % (n)
White
79.07 (495)
54.27 (269)
76.87 (432)
71.07 (1194)
Black
9.42 (59)
30.28 (149)
5.16 (29)
14.11 (237)
Hispanic
3.67 (23)
5.69 (28)
5.87 (33)
5.00 (84)
Asian
5.75 (36)
3.05 (15)
9.07 (51)
6.07 (102)
Native American
0.16 (1)
0.00 (0)
0.06 (1)
Mixed races
1.92 (12)
6.71 (33)
3.02 (17)
3.69 (62)

36. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
Grade level% (n)
Kindergarten 25
13.10 (82)
13.21 (65)
14.77 (83)
13.69 (230)
First 26
14.54 (91)
17.28 (85)
12.10 (68)
14.52 (244)
Second 27
15.81 (99)
14.06 (79)
14.46 (243)
Third 28
12.14 (76)
17.07 (84)
Fourth 29
13.58 (85)
13.82 (68)
13.07 (77)
Fifth 15
17.73 (111)
11.99 (59)
16.73 (94)
15.71 (264)
Sixth 16
13.41 (66)
13.88 (78)
13.45 (226)
Special education services % (n)
9.11 (57)
8.74 (43)
6.23 (35)
8.04 (135)
Emotional Disturbance % (n)
0.00 (0)
2.44 (12)
0.71 (12)
Age M (SD)
8.19 (2.02)
7.97 (1.99)
8.15 (2.05)
8.11 (2.02)

37. Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
Teacher
n = 35
n = 24
n= 29
N = 88
Gender % (n)
Male
12.12 (4)
21.74 (5)
7.14 (2)
13.10 (11)
Female
87.88 (29)
78.26 (18)
92.86 (26)
86.90 (73)
Ethnicity % (n)
White
79.07 (29)
69.57 (16)
85.19 (23)
81.93 (68)
Black
0.00 (0)
8.70 (2)
11.11 (3)
6.02 (5)
Hispanic
4.35 (1)
1.20 (1)
Asian
9.09 (3)
13.04 (3)
3.70 (1)
8.43 (7)
Native American
Declined to report
3.03 (1)
Primary role % (n)
General education
90.91 (30)
(23)
(28)
96.43 (81)
Special education
3.57 (3)

38. Table 1 cont. Variable/ Level School A School B School C Total
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
Certified in the area currently teaching % (n)
(32)
(23)
(28)
(83)
Highest degree earned % (n)
Bachelor’s degree
15.63 (5)
8.70 (2)
28.57 (8)
18.07 (15)
Master’s degree
81.25 (26)
91.30 (21)
71.43 (20)
80.72 (67)
Master’s degree + 30
3.13 (1)
0.00 (0)
1.20 (1)
Completed course in classroom management % (n)
Yes
93.94 (31)
95.65 (22)
96.43 (27)
95.24 (80) No
6.06 (2)
4.35 (1)
3.57 (1)
4.76 (4)
Professional development in academic screening % (n)
69.70 (23)
43.48 (10)
51.85 (14)
56.63 (47)
30.30 (10)
56.52 (13)
48.15 (13)
43.37 (36)

39. Student and Teacher Characteristics
Table 1 cont.
Student and Teacher Characteristics
Variable/ Level
School A
School B
School C
Total
Professional development in behavior screening % (n)
Yes
59.38 (19)
43.48 (10)
29.63 (8)
45.12 (37) No
40.63 (13)
56.52 (13)
70.37 (19)
54.88 (45)
Years teaching experience M (SD)
14.67 (9.01)
11.13 (7.65)
14.00 (8.91)
13.48 (8.65)
Years teaching experience current school M (SD)
10.75 (7.68)
8.95 (77.51)
11.57 (8.57)
10.57 (7.96)
Age M (SD)
38.83 (12.19)
35.35 (10.43)
38.41 (10.65)
37.69 (11.16)
MES, OES, RES
Note. Percentages are based on the number of participants who completed the item.

40. School Characteristics 2012-2013
Table 2
School Characteristics
 Variable
School
School A
n = 626
School B
n = 492
School C
n = 562
Attendance ratea
97%
96%
Classroom teachers (FTE)b
43.55
35.40
37.25
Enrollmentb
621
447
540
Free or reduced-price lunch eligibleb
82 (13.20%)
106 (21.54%)
40 (7.41%)
Grades servedb
K-6
Localeb
Suburb: Large
NCLB statusac
Made AYP
Student/teacher ratiob
14.26
12.60
14.50
Title 1 eligibleb No
Yes
Note. FTE = full time equivalent; NCLB = No Child Left Behind Act (1997); AYP = adequate yearly progress.
a school report card data. bNational Center for Education Statistics, Common Core Data cThe NCLB established improvement goals measured by AYP in (a) attendance or graduation, (b) academic performance, and (c) test participation.

41. Results
Study 2: Elementary Schools
EC: (8/26/12) added Middle School

42. Table 3
Convergent Validity: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5, and SRSS-IE12 with the SSiS-PSG
SSiS-PSG Scale M
(SD)
Correlation
Time
Fall M (SD)
Spring M (SD)
SRSS- E7
1.72 (2.74)
1.79 (3.03) r
SRSS- I5
0.95 (1.81)
0.67 (1.71)
SRSS-IE12
2.67 (3.87)
2.46 (4.12)
Reading Skills
Fall
3.77
(1.05)
-0.60
-0.37
Spring
4.01
(1.06)
-0.54
-0.27
-0.51
Math Skills
3.88
(1.00)
-0.56
4.06
(1.01)
-0.53
-0.32
-0.52
Motivation to Learn
3.92
(1.03)
-0.66
-0.40
4.20
(0.95)
-0.63
-0.36
-0.61
Prosocial Behavior
3.95
(0.96)
-0.42
-0.64
4.19
(0.92)
-0.69
-0.41
-0.67
Note. SRSS-IE = SSiS-PSG = Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide; SRSS-E7 = the original 7 externalizing SRSS items; SRSS-I5 = the 5 internalizing items added to the SRSS; SRSS-IE12 = the original 7 externalizing and the added 5 internalizing SRSS items combined. Correlations were interpreted using the following guidelines .00 to .10 were nonexistent, .10 to .30 were small, .30 to .50 were medium, .50 to .70 were large, .70 to .90 were very large, and .90 to 1.00 were close to perfect (Cohen, 1992, Hopkins, 2001; Kettler Elliott, Davies, & Griffin, 2010). In Fall, 1,680 participants were rated on the SRSS-IE and the SSiS-PSG. In Spring, 1,646 participants were rated on the SRSS-IE and 1,626 on the SSiS-SPG.

43. Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSiS-PSG
Table 4
Test-Retest Stability: SRSS-IE and SSiS-PSG
Measure
Subscale N
Correlation
P value
SRSS-IE
SRSS-E7
1646
0.71
< .0001
SRSS-I5
0.56
SRSS- I12
0.67
SSiS-PSG
Reading Skills
1626
Math Skills
0.64
Motivation to Learn
0.60
Prosocial Behavior
0.59
Note. 31 weeks lapsed between fall and spring administrations. SRSS-IE = Student Risk Screen Scale – Internalizing and Externalizing; SRSS-E7 = the original 7 externalizing SRSS items; SRSS-I5 = the 5 internalizing items added to the SRSS; SRSS-IE12 = the original 7 externalizing and the added 5 internalizing SRSS items combined; SSiS-PSG = Social Skills Improvement System – Performance Screening Guide.

44. Social Validity – ES Teacher in Fall
The greater differences appear to be related to:
SRSS-IE (a free-access screening tool) rated more favorably
Monetary resources (Cohen’s d = 1.40) as the primary concern
Easy to prepare (Cohen’s d = .73),
SSiS-PSG to be better able to
cover the critical elements of behavior that concern teachers (Item 5; Cohen’s d = -.40),
offer teachers important information to support students (Item 6; Cohen’s d = -.46), and
offer the school as a whole important information (Item 7; Cohen’s d = -.46).
Total social validity scores suggest a low-magnitude favorable rating for the SRSS-IE as whole relative to the SSiS-PSG. However, time, ease, and cost were the key factors; not utility.

45. The Lessons Learned …

46. District perspective
Administrative leadership both district and building level is critical
Convenience is KEY!
Faculty appreciated the ability to share perspectives through social validity survey
Faculty appreciated immediate feedback through electronic format
Participants needed frequent reminders of the conceptual purpose of Universal Screening
Consent
Follow up with plans for sustainability

47. Subsequent Inquiry …

48. SRSS-IE: SRSS-E7, SRSS-I5 Cut Scores
Enter ‘practice’ data into that one sheet so that the total scores and conditional formatting are tested.
Items 1-7 (The SRSS externalizing scale)
0 – low risk
4 – moderate risk (yellow)
9 – high risk (red)
Items 8-12 (The SRSS-IE internalizing items)*preliminary cut scores for elementary only
0 – low risk
2 – moderate (yellow)
4 – high (red)
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Swogger, E. D., Schatschneider, C., Menzies, H., M., & Sanchez, J. (in press). Student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Preliminary cut scores to support data-informed decision making. Behavioral Disorders

49. SRSS-E7 Results – All Students
Sample … Winter
SRSS-E7 Results – All Students
N = 15
N = 66
N = 276

50. SRSS-I5 Results – All Students
Sample … Winter
SRSS-I5 Results – All Students
N = 27
N = 48
N = 282

51. Pennsylvania Now… Established PA Process Finalized PA materials
Trained all facilitators
Awarded 6 mini grants
Lessons Learned

52. Data-based decisions lead to interventions…

53. Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
- -
Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment

54. Essential Components of Classroom Management
Classroom Climate
Physical Room Arrangement
Routines and Procedures
Managing Paper Work

55. Instructional Considerations
How motivating is my classroom?
Control – Challenge – Curiosity – Contextualization
Am I using a variety of instructional strategies?
How am I differentiating instruction?

56. Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
- -
Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment

57. Low-Intensity Strategies
Active Supervision
Proximity
Pacing
Appropriate use of Praise
Opportunities to Respond
Instructive Feedback
Incorporating Choice

58. Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data
Small group Reading Instruction with Self-Monitoring

59. Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress:
Exit Criteria
Small group Reading instruction with Self-Monitoring
Small group reading instruction (30 min, 3 days per week). Students monitored their participation in the reading instructional tasks. Students used checklists of reading lesson components each day to complete and compare to teachers’ rating.
K – 1.
Students who:
Behavior:
Fall SRSS
at moderate (4 -8) or high (9 – 21) risk Academic:
Fall AIMSweb
LNF at the strategic or intensive level
AIMSweb reading PSF and NWF progress monitoring probes (weekly).
Daily self-monitoring checklists
Meet AIMSweb reading benchmark at next screening time point.
Low Risk on SRSS at next screening time point.

60. Triangulation of Behavioral and Academic Data
Project ASSIST: Study Skills/ Conflict Resolution Class

61. Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress:
Exit Criteria
Study Skills
Content:
Study skills curriculum of skills and strategies used to gain and demonstrate knowledge.
Goals:
Gain knowledge from a text, class discussions, and teacher-led instruction.
Demonstrate knowledge on formal and informal assessments (test, quizzes, homework, presentations, and projects)
Topics Include:
Note-taking strategies
Use of graphic organizers
Organization
Goal setting
Test taking strategies
Writing process (planning/ drafting/ editing)
Scheduling:
50 min class (30 min instruction; 20 min applied practice)
56 Lessons
Academic:
(1) Grade Point Average (GPA) ≤ 2.7; OR
(2) 1 or more Course Failures in a quarter (D or F/E) AND
(3) Not participating in Read 180 reading intervention AND
Behavior:
(1) Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS; Drummond, 1994) score in the Moderate (4 – 8) or High (9 – 21) Risk; OR
(2) 1 or more office discipline referral (ODR) within a four month time period
Schoolwide Data:
GPA
Course Grades (9-weeks)
SRSS
ODRs
Proximal Measures:
(1) Criterion Referenced Assessment – Acquiring Knowledge, Demonstrating Knowledge, and Conflict Resolution (Lane, 2003)
(2) Knowledge of Study Skills (KSS)
(3) Knowledge of Conflict Resolution Skills (KCRS)
Distal Measures:
(1) Study Habits Inventory (SHI; Jones & Slate, 1990)
(2) ConflictTalk (Kimsey & Fuller, 2003)
Academic: (for the quarter)
(1) Grade Point Average (GPA) > 2.7;
(2) No Course Failures (D or F/E)
AND
(1) SRSS screening low risk (0 – 3)
(2) No ODRs within the quarter
Students would participate in this class for one semester. If exit criteria are not meet further interventions would be considered for the following semester.
This is only one section do you want multiple slides for this?
(Table 4.7; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012)

62. Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
- -
Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment

63. Sample Secondary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
Schoolwide Data: Entry Criteria
Data to Monitor Progress
Exit Criteria
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
Self-monitoring
Students will monitor and record their academic production (completion/ accuracy) and on-task behavior each day.
Students who score in the abnormal range for H and CP on the SDQ; course failure or at risk on CBM
Work completion and accuracy in the academic area of concern; passing grades
Passing grade on the report card in the academic area of concern
Sample Secondary Intervention Grid

64. Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support
Multi-tiered System of Support
Low Intensity Strategies
Basic Classroom Management
Effective Instruction
Low Intensity Strategies
Behavior Contracts
Self-Monitoring
- -
Functional Assessment-Based
Interventions
Higher Intensity Strategies
Assess, Design, Implement, and
Evaluate
Assessment

65. Sample Tertiary Intervention Grid
Support
Description
School-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.

66. Thank you!