Determining The Level Of Risk In

Your Building Through Universal

Screening

Lori Lynass, Ed.D.,

NWPBIS Network
www.pbisnetwork.org

Session Objectives
This session will provide the tools to
help prepare for screening:
1. Provide the rationale and benefits
of Universal screening for behavior
2. Identify characteristics of evidencebased screeners for behavior
3. The role of Screening for Tier 2 &
Tier 3 interventions.

Acknowledgments

Hill Walker, U of O
Doug Cheney, U of WA
Kathleen Lane, Vanderbilt
Clay Cook, U of WA
Jeff Sprague, U of O
Bridget Walker, Seattle U
Wendy Iwaszuk, Beach Center, Kansas
Tricia Hagerty, Highline Public School

Turn and Talk

5 Minutes

How do we determine what

students need services at Tiers 2 &
3?
How do we currently determine the
level of risk present in a school?

IN AN IDEAL
WORLD:
Menu of a
Targeted/
Intensive
continuum of
(FEW High-risk
students)
evidence-based Individual
Interventions
(3-5%)
supports

Tier 3 Menu of Individual Supports fo

FBA-based Behavior Intervention Plan
Replacement Behavior Training
Cognitive Behavior Therapy
Multisystemic wraparound supports

Selected
(SOME At-risk Students)
Small Group &
Individual Strategies

Tier 2 Menu of Default Supports for SOME:

Behavioral contracting
Self monitoring
School-home note
Mentor-based program
Positive peer reporting
Group social-emotional skills training

(10-25% of students)
Universal
(All Students)
School/classwide, Culturally Relevant
Systems of Support
(75-90% of students)

Tier I Menu of Supports for ALL:

Schoolwide PBIS
SEL curriculum
Good behavior game
Proactive classroom
management

Factors that Place Children At-Risk

Biology/physiology

Lack of health care

Socioeconomic status
Family Conflict
Family Composition
Parenting Style

Poor nutrition
Frequent moves
Temperament
Academic failure

Screening:
The Need For Action
Antisocial behavior may emerge as soon
kindergarten (Walker et Al., 1998).
Behavior not addressed by third grade
will be more difficult to remediate and
will likely be a lifelong problem (Walker
and Severson, 1997, McIntosh et al,
2006)

Is The School-to-Prison Pipeline Real?

Pathways from Schools to Juvenile
Justice
School
Climate

Dropout

Juvenile
Justice/Deli
nquency

Why Universal Screening

benefits students.
Promotes early intervention in place of wait to fail
(Glover & Albers, 2007);

Of the 20% of school-aged children who

experience mental health difficulties, only
30% receive services (US Public Health
Service, 2000).
65% of students identified for EBD are 12
years or older (US Dept of Ed, 2001)
A reduction in over-representation of children of color

African American students are twice as likely

to be identified as EBD than White students
(Alliance for Excellence Education, 2009)
Addresses the issue of under-identifying girls and
students with internalizing issues (Hosp & Reschly, 2004)
Walker, B, 2009

Mental Health:
What Do We Know?
The most common conditions include
Anxiety (31.9%)
Behavior disorders (19.1%)
Mood disorders (14.3%)
Substance use disorders (11.4%)

Approximately 40% of individuals

meet criteria for multiple disorders.
(Merikangas et al., 2010)

What Do We Know?
The median age of onset occurs
during school-age years
6 years for anxiety
11 years for behavior
13 years for mood
15 years for substance use
disorders.
(Merikangas et al., 2010)

Rationale: Early
intervention is vital
Research suggests that theres a window of opportunity
ranging between 2-4 years when prevention is critical
Great Smoky Mountains Study: Age Between First Symptom and Initial Diagnosis

Source: OConnell, Boat, & Warner, 2009

Rationale: Student
Benefits Associated with
Universal Screening
The Commission found compelling research
sponsored by OSEP on emotional and behavioral
difficulties indicating that children at risk for
these difficulties could also be identified
through universal screening and more
significant disabilities prevented through
classroom-based approaches involving positive
discipline and classroom management.
Source: U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A New Era:
Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families

Why Universal Screening benefits

schools
Establishes a schools risk level and allows
for monitoring of responsiveness through
shifts in this risk level (Lane, Kalberg,
Bruhn, Mahoney & Driscoll, 2008)
Informs the use of Tier 2 & 3 interventions where to target limited funds.
Proactively finding the right students who
may benefit from additional supports
(Sprague, Cook, Browning-Wright & Sadler,
2008).
Can help prevent the need for more costly
intensive interventions.

A Whole Child Approach

It is important to
analyze academic
and screening data
in conjunction with
one another given
that behavior and
academic
performance do not
occur in isolation
(Lane & Wehby, 2002).

Screening in Federal Legislation

NCLB, 2001- endorses universal screening to
identify children at risk for school failure.
IDEA, 2004 child find proactive screening
for disabilities.
Presidents Commission on Excellence in
Special Education calls for early
identification and intervention for
behavior.
Sprague, Cook, Browning-Wright & Sadler, 2008

Screening & The Tier 2/3

Team

Tier 2 Interventions
(Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008).

Assumes a Tier 1 School wide PBIS is in place SET, BOQ

Involves a problem-solving focused behavior support
team
Screening to identify a % of students non responsive to
Tier 1
Readily available and easily accessible
Uses efficient, available evidence based practices
Includes data-based progress monitoring & decisions
Have an entry & exit criteria, with non-responders
moving to Tier 3

The Tier 2 Team

ENTRY, EVALUATE, EXIT

Determine & Oversee Referral Process

Review Students Referred
Monitor Implementation Fidelity
Evaluate Outcomes and Make Decisions
Ongoing Progress Monitoring
Fidelity of Implementation
Social Validity

Establish Entry Criteria

A team agreed process should be
established for how students enter
Tier 2 programs. Common entry
criteria:
Office Referrals
Teacher Nomination - Through Process
Counselor Nomination
Screening Results

Universal screening
readiness checklist for Tier
2/3 Teams

Universal screening readiness

checklist for Tier 2/3 Teams
Build a foundation
Secure district and building-level administrative support
for universal screening
Establish universal screening committee consisting of
district and building-level administrators, student support
personnel, teachers, family and community
representatives and assign roles

Clarify goals
Identify purpose of universal screening (e.g., mental
health, social skills assessment)
Determine desired outcomes

Universal screening readiness

checklist
Identify resources and logistics
Identify resources for supporting students identified via
screening (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

Universal screening
readiness checklist
Select an evidence-based
screening instrument
Use The Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, or resources from
other professional organization
resources (e.g., National Association for
School Psychologists; NASP), as guidelines
for selecting an appropriate screener

Universal screening
readiness checklist
Data
Develop data collection and progress
monitoring system
Determine systematic process for using
results to inform interventions
Plan for sharing screening and progress
monitoring results with staff and families

Factors Related to Screening

Effectiveness
Teachers are reliable evaluators/judges of
student academic & behavioral performance.
Screening occurs across all students in the areas
of health, academic, and social-emotional
functioning.
Schools need to be ready to move away from
reactive systems of responding only to long
standing need (Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle,
Kratchowill & Gresham, 2007)
Most effective when in the context of a
comprehensive RTI/PBS initiative

Issues with Implementation 1:

Staff Training and Implementation
For effective screening to occur leadership
teams must consider:
Procedural considerations in
implementation of the process of
screening
General training in the purpose and
content of screening.

Issues with Implementation 2:

Informed Assent Process, Student
Privacy
Determine threshold for specific informed
assent/consent in your district/community
Establish procedure to protect student
privacy throughout the process
Review confidentiality guidelines and
follow up procedures with staff
Follow up procedures for students who are
identified as at-risk, no interventions at
that level without informed parental
consent

When to Screen
Six Weeks into the School Year
February
Possibly At the End of the Year

In Addition to Screening
Consider:
Teacher/Counselor/Parent Request
Forms
Office Referral Data
Academic Data
Classroom Minor Data
Attendance

Cant Do versus Wont Do

Cant Do or Dont Know When To Do
- Skill Deficit
- Performance Deficit
- Perception Deficit
Wont Do
- Function of Behavior

How Are We Currently

Screening For Social
Behavior?

Screening for At-risk Students

How most schools determine

student need for services
Office discipline
referrals &
Teacher/Staff
referrals are
commonly used
Only 2-5% of schools
screen all children
for mental heath
reasons (Romer &
McIntosh, 2005)

Office Referral Information

But Who Are We
Missing?

Office Discipline Referrals

Implemented widely in SWPBIS where 2-5
ODR is considered threshold for at-risk
(Horner et al., 2005)
Issues with Consistent Use of ODR
May miss a number of students
One study found that 35% of students
who qualified as at risk on SSBD did not
have multiple ODRs (Walker, Cheney,
Stage, & Blum, 2005)

Choosing A
Universal Screener

Choose a Screener that:

1. Is appropriate for its intended use and
that is contextually and
developmentally appropriate and
sensitive to issue of diversity
2. Has Technical Adequacy
3. Useable - efficient, feasible, easy to
manage
- Calderella,Young, Richardson & Young, 2008

Systematic Screening for Behavior

Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992)
Originally normed K-6, recently normed for middle
and High School (Calderella,Young, Richardson &
Young, 2008)
Early Screening Project for 3-5 Year Olds (ESP, Feil,
Severson & Walker, 2002)
Multiple gating procedures following mental health &
PBIS model
Externalizing and Internalizing dimensions
Evidence of efficiency, effectiveness, & cost benefits
Exemplary, evidence-based measure

Multiple Gating Procedure (Severson et al. 2007)

Gate 1

Gate 2

Gate 3

Teachers Rank
Order 3 Ext. & 3
Int. Students
Pass Gate 1
Teachers Rate Top 3
Students on Critical
Events, Adaptive &
Maladaptive Scales
Pass Gate 2
Classroom &
Playground
Observations

Tier 2 & 3
Interventions

Tier 3 Intervention or Special Ed. Referral

Rank Ordering

SSBD Screening
Internalizing Behaviors
Examples
Not talking w other children
Acting in a fearful manner
Not participating
Avoiding or withdrawing
Not standing up for ones
self
Non-examples
Initiating social interactions
Having conversations
Joining in with others

Externalizing Behaviors

Examples
Displaying aggression
Arguing
Defying the teacher
Being out of seat
Disturbing others

Non-examples
Cooperating
Sharing
Working on tasks

SSBD: Sample Questions

Critical Events (Behavioral Earthquakes):

Is physically aggressive with other

students or adults
Steals
Damages others property
Maladaptive Behavior
Pouts or sulks
Child tests teacher imposed limits.

Adaptive Behavior
Is considerate of the feelings of others.
Produces work of acceptable quality

SSBD Differentiates Grads , Non-grads,

Comparisons
Graduates

Non-Graduates

Comparison

5.9 (2.8)

5.4 (3.0)

5.2 (2.8)

SSBD Maladaptive

31.2 (10.5) a

37.2 (5.7) b

32.2 (7.8) a

SSBD Adaptive

32.3 (8.0) a

28.0 (4.8) b

30.6 (6.8) a

SSBD Critical
Events

Student Risk Screening Scale

(Drummond, 1994)
Originally normed at elementary level, recently
normed at middle and high school (Lane, Kalberg,
Parks, & Carter, 2008)
Classroom teacher evaluates and assigns a
frequency-based, Likert rating to each student
in the class in relation to seven behavioral
criteria
Score indicates the level of risk (low, medium,
high)
Scores predict both negative academic and
behavioral outcomes
Effective, Efficient and Free

Student Risk Screening Scale

(Drummond, 1994)
lies,
cheats,
sneaks,
steals,
behavior problems,
peer rejections,
low achievement,
negative attitude,
Aggressive.
Rated on a 4-point Likert scale (never,
seldom, sometimes, frequently)

SRSS

Student Internalizing Behavior

Screener (SIBS, Cook et al.
2008)
Normed K-12 Grade. Rates on 7 Items:
Nervous or Fearful
Bullied by Peers
Spends Time Alone
Clings to Adults
Withdrawn
Seems Sad or Unhappy
Complains About Being Sick or Hurt

Rated on a 4-point Likert scale (never, seldom,

sometimes, frequently)

SIBS

BASC 2- Behavior and Emotional Screening

Scale
(BESS, Pearson Publications)
Based on BASC by Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2002
Universal screener with norms for preschool & K12,
Includes teacher, parent, and self-rating forms
grades 3-12. 3-5 minutes per form. Completed
on all students in class.
Hand scored and scannable forms (in spanish
too), ASSIST software available
Provides comprehensive summary of student
scores and teacher ratings across the school
Assessment of a wide array of behaviors that
represent both behavioral problems and
strengths, including internalizing problems,
externalizing problems, school problems, and
adaptive skills.

Sample of BASC-2/BESS
Form

Administration & Scoring

Criteria
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

Brief Academic Competence

Evaluation Scales System
(BACESS; Elliott, Huai, Roach, 2007)
Intended to be a universal screener (cover both
academic and academic enabling behaviors)
Phase 1: Criterion referenced Academic Screening used on
ALL students
Phase 2: 10 items five academic and five academic
enabling behaviors rating of students who passed through
phase 1 (from ACES)
Phase 3: Teachers complete the entire ACES measure for
students with specific cut score (less than 26)

Academic Competency Evaluation Scale (ACES;

DiPerna and Elliott,1999, 2000) is normed K-12, with
teacher forms and student forms for grades 3-12. Pearson

Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire SDQ (Goodman,
2001)
The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001) is a
free psychological measure available at
www.sdqinfo.org
Assesses emotional functioning of children
aged 3-17 based on parent, or teacher reports
Various uses: Screening, clinical assessment,
progress monitoring, research tool

Administration & Scoring

Criteria
The SDQ is comprised of five scales
with five corresponding items
Each item is scored on a three-point
Likert type scale
Not true=0; Somewhat true=1; Certainly
true=2

Factor analytically derived tool based

on standard classification of
psychological disorders

Overview
SDQ scales and corresponding items
Emotional
Symptoms
Scale

Conduct
Problems
Scale

Hyperactivity
Scale

Peer Problems
Scale

Prosocial
Scale

Often complains
of headaches,
stomach-aches

Often has temper

tantrums or hot
tempers

Restless,
overactive, cannot
stay still for long

Rather solitary,
tends to play
alone

Considerate of
other peoples
feelings

Many worries,
often seems
worried

Generally
obedient, usually
does what

Constantly
fidgeting or
squirming

Has at least one

good friend

Shares readily
with other children

Often unhappy,
downhearted or
tearful

Often fights with

other children or
bullies them

Easily distracted,
concentration
wanders

Generally liked by
other children

Helpful if
someone is hurt,
upset or feeling ill

Nervous or clingy
in new situations

Often lies or
cheats

Thinks things out

before acting

Picked on or
bullied by other
children

Kind to younger
children

Many fears, easily

scared

Steals from home,

school or
elsewhere

Sees tasks
through to the
end, good
attention span

Gets on better
with adults than
with other children

Often volunteers
to help others

Sample SDQ Form

25 Minutes

Screening Activity

What Are Your Initial Thoughts?

What Other Information Might You Seek?
If You Have 3 Slots for Tier 2, Whom Do You Serve First?

We Have Screened,
Now What?
Make Sure You Have A Plan For
What to Do Once You Screen..

Integrating Screening
into RTI/PBIS Initiatives
How is it done?

2009 Bridget Walker, Ph.D.

Sample List of Students Identified Through

Schoolwide Screening
How could this
information help
you determine
where your
limited support
resources
should focus?

Kdg A
Sam Spade

Kdg B
Frederico
Latica
Charles
Brown

Grade 1 A
Lina Ruis
Char Beyer
Rana Wilcox
Renny
Linquist

Grade 1 B
Jack Jonson

Grade 2 A
Kim
Signorelli
Mike
Majewski

Grade 2 B
Lin Wu
Monico Leon

Grade 3 A
Howard
Muscott
Doug Cheney

Grade 3 B
Peggy Hunt
Pat
Harrington

Grade 4 B
Tim Leary
Peppermint
Patty

Grade 5 A
Scott Stage

Grade 5 B
Kelli Jane
Paula
Seabright

Grade 6 A
Alex Tapps
Shin Ji
Lauren
Anderson
Dave Drobek
Jerome
Garcia

Grade 6 B
Robert Weir
Chris
Norman
Kate Davis
Dennis Chipp
Rashan
Lincoln

Names listed in blueare students who have passed Gate 2 of SSBD.

Names listed in red are students who have been identified with
academic issues
Names in green are students who have been identified by both
academic screening & SSBD.
The Support team is meeting to determine appropriate supports for
each group
Bridget Walker, Ph.D.

Universal Screening in
Practice: Highline Public
Schools, Washington
District PBIS Coordinator, Tricia
Hagerty
Patricia.robles@highlineschools.or
g

How Did We Screen?

Conduct SSBD or SRSS/SIBS Screening at
October staff mtg.
Counselors & psychologists help define
externalizers & internalizers & lead process
Teachers identify & rank students in order of
concern
Teachers complete the screening protocol on top
3 internalizers & 3 externalizers
Bldg. PBIS Team scores screening, compares
screening to previous years ODRs & identifies
targeted group and individuals for intensive
supports

What tools did we use?

SWIS ODRs - Office Discipline Referrals
Web-based System (www.swis.org )
SSBD - Systematic Screening for
Behavior Disorders
OR
SRSS -Student Risk Screening Scale &
SIBS Student Internalizing Behavior
Screener
Teacher Nomination & Matching to
Intervention

Cascade MS Example of Screening &

Identifying Students in Need
CCE

Student

SRS SIB
servic OD Suspensi # of
S
S sped es R #
on
D/F

Annoying, Me

Different,
Fromme

10

Yes

True, Faith

11

Yes

Zebra, Striped

13

3
Lunch
SLD Bunch

4
2

Monitoring Responders & NonResponders

How has screening changed

the outcomes in Highline?

Helps us match students to building supports

Provided teams with common language
Strengthened behavioral expertise for all staff
Students are identified earlier & more efficiently
without having to qualify
Shift in thinking about addressing behavioral
concerns the same way we address academics
Teach! Re-teach! Model! Practice & Reinforce!

Impacts In Highline in Just One

Year
Time Bought Back When We
Reduce Problem Behaviors that
Lead to
Office Referrals

This Data Reported Yearly to the Highline School Board

As Part of Their Visibility and Sustainability Efforts

10
Minutes

How might screening work

in your school?
What questions do you have
for me?

www.pbisnetwork.org
Nov 7th-8th PBIS Conference in Spokane,
WA
Lori Lynass execdirector@
pbisnetwork.org

* Walker, B. (2010). Effective schoolwide screening to

identify students at-risk forsocial and behavioral
problems. Intervention in School and Clinic. 46, 104-110.