Download
from screening to functional assessment a response to intervention model n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
From Screening to Functional Assessment: A Response to Intervention Model PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
From Screening to Functional Assessment: A Response to Intervention Model

From Screening to Functional Assessment: A Response to Intervention Model

316 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

From Screening to Functional Assessment: A Response to Intervention Model

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-tiered (CI3T) Models of Prevention: Integrating Response-to-Intervention and Positive Behavior Supports From Screening to Functional Assessment: A Response to Intervention Model Kathleen Lane, Ph.D. Wendy P. Oakes, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University

  2. Project Support & Include Goals • Tennessee State Technical Assistance Grant to support schools in building three-tiered models of prevention • A priority on Positive Behavior Supports and Inclusive practices • To develop and apply an integrated comprehensive model of prevention (behavioral, social, and academic components) in 17 Tennessee Districts. State of Tennessee DOE Technical Assistance Grant

  3. Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tier Model of Prevention (Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) Goal: Reduce Harm Specialized Individual Systems for Students with High-Risk ≈ Tertiary Prevention (Tier 3) ≈ Goal: Reverse Harm Specialized Group Systems for Students At-Risk Secondary Prevention (Tier 2) PBIS Framework Goal: Prevent Harm School/Classroom-Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings Positive Action, Social Skills Improvement System, & Others ≈ Primary Prevention (Tier 1) Social Academic Behavioral

  4. Secondary Stand Alones Primary Series Tertiary Series Full Model Series PSI Training Series 2010-2011 12/8/10 1/10/11 1/24/11 2/18/11 3/31/11 4/5/11 3/7/10 2/15/10 9/30/10 11/8/10 6/9/11 1/18/11 3/3/11 5/17/11 1/31/11

  5. Primary Prevention Reinforcing Teaching HERO CERTIFICATE Exchange for time with friends Name:_____________________ Date:______________________ Be Respectful Be Responsible Be Safe Fanning Elementary School Monitoring

  6. Measuring Treatment Integrity at the Primary Level Three Measures of Primary Plan treatment Integrity: Schoolwide Evaluation Tool (SET, Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2001) Teacher Self-Report of procedures for teaching, reinforcing, and monitoring from the first day of school until the day completed (winter). Direct Observation from two perspectives (Teacher and RA) for a 30 min observation

  7. School 2009-2010Treatment Integrity Data Goal 80% Teacher Self-Report Observation: Teacher Completed Observation: RA Completed

  8. Essential Components of Primary Prevention Efforts

  9. Limitations of Current Practices 10 Report card grades and teacher judgment may miss students in need of supports(Severson & Walker, 2002) Response to Intervention models utilize curriculum-based measures, but behavioral performance is less often utilized(Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham) ODR data suffer from poor reliability if the system used to collect these data is not implemented with strong procedural fidelity(Sugai, Spague, Horner, & Walker, 2000) Lack of systematic methods of monitoring behavioral performance(Lane, Oakes, & Menzies, 2010) ODRs do not find students with internalizing concerns (McIntosh, Campbell, Carter, Zumbo 2009)

  10. SYSTEMATIC SCREENING:ESSENTIAL QUALITIES procedures for monitoring (AERA, 1999; Glover & Albers, 2007) Screening tools do not identify students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The goal is to identify students at risk who may benefit from additional supports. • Systematic screening tools must evidence strong psychometric properties, including adequate reliability and validity • Produce consistent findings that are repeatable over time • Produce information that is both trustworthy and reflects the construct of primary interest 11

  11. SYSTEMATIC SCREENING:ESSENTIAL QUALITIES procedures for monitoring (Schwartz & Baer, 1991) If social validity is lacking, even psychometrically strong tools are likely to remain unused by practitioners. • 2. Systematic screening tools should evidence social validity: • Feasible to implement • Cost-effective • Compatible with local needs • Readily interpretable • Able to inform intervention responses 12

  12. Data Management Systems for Screening and Progress Monitoring: Academic Outcomes

  13. Elementary School Screening Tools *SSBD; Walker & Severson (1992) *SRSS; Drummond (1994) SSiS; Elliott & Gresham, (2007) SDQ; Goodman (1997) BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007) Behavior Screening Tools: A Closer Look

  14. Systematic Screener for Behavior Disorders (SSBD, Walker & Severson,1992) • Teacher completed • Validated for the Elementary School • Three Stage screening process • Teacher nomination and ranking • Rating scales (6 students: 3 with internalizing and 3 with externalizing) • Direct Observation • Students who meet the specified criteria for each stage move to the next stage.

  15. SSBD Screening Process Pool of Regular Classroom Students TEACHER SCREENING on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavioral Dimensions 3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing Behavior Criteria PASS GATE 1 TEACHER RATING on Critical Events Index and Combined Frequency Index Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI PASS GATE 2 DIRECT OBSERVATION of Process Selected Pupils in Classroom and on Playground Exceed Normative Criteria on AET and PSB PASS GATE 3 Pre-referral Intervention(s) Child may be referred to Child Study Team

  16. Stage 1: Rank order students who most closely match the description of each behavior pattern. Mutually Exclusive Lists

  17. Stage 2: Externalizing - Teacher rating for high intensity low frequency behavior • Critical Events Index completed for students ranked 1, 2, and 3 on Stage 1 for Externalizing • So, 3 students per class • 33 items mark as presence for absence

  18. And lower intensity, high frequency behaviors • Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior • 12 items – Adaptive • 11 items – Maladaptive • 5-point Likert-type scale • 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently

  19. Stage 2: Internalizing -Teacher rating for high intensity low frequency behavior • Critical Events Index completed for students ranked 1, 2, and 3 on Stage 1 for Externalizing • So, 3 students per class • 33 items mark as presence for absence

  20. And lower intensity, high frequency behaviors • Combined Frequency Index for Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior • 12 items – Adaptive • 11 items – Maladaptive • 5-point Likert-type scale • 1 = Never to 5 = Frequently

  21. SSBD: Risk Status for Nominated Students: Externalizing and Internalizing Winter 2007 - 2009 Externalizing Winter 2009 Internalizing Winter 2009 Winter 2008 Winter 2008 Winter 2007 Winter 2007 47 13 46 17 55 13 57 9 60 6 63 7 6.8% 4.4% 2.17% 2.78% 1.44% 1.5% Note. The numbers represent totals for the students for whom the SSBD was completed.

  22. Winter 2009-2010 Critical Need Comparison by Grade Level * Students missing

  23. Winter 2009-2010 Critical Need Comparison by Grade Level * Students missing

  24. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994) • No-cost, brief systematic screening tool originally designed to identify K-6 elementary-age students at risk for antisocial behavior • Teachers use a one-page instrument to evaluate students on 7 items using a 4 point Likert-type scale: - Steals - Low Academic Achievement - Lies, Cheats, Sneaks - Negative Attitude - Behavior Problems - Aggressive Behavior - Peer Rejection • Student Risk is divided into 3 categories: • Low 0 – 3 • Moderate 4 – 8 • High 9 - 21

  25. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994)

  26. SRSS Fall 2007 to Fall 2010 Percentage of Students Screened n=714 n=675 n=636 n=654 2 Students were not rated

  27. SRSS By Grade LevelFall 2010

  28. SRSS By Grade LevelFall 2010

  29. Low Intensity Behavioral Support Enrichment/ Behavioral Support Reading Instruction/ Behavioral Support

  30. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994) How reliable and valid is the SRSS for use at the elementary school?

  31. Elementary Level Results: ROC Curves Externalizing .952 1.0 AUC = 0.952 0.8 0.6 Sensitivity Chance = 50% 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 - Specificity

  32. Elementary Level Results: ROC Curves Internalizing .802 1.0 AUC = .802 0.8 0.6 Sensitivity 0.4 Chance = 50% 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 - Specificity

  33. Middle School Screening Tools *SRSS; Drummond (1994) SDQ; Goodman (1997) SSiS; Elliott & Gresham, (2007) BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007) Behavior Screening Tools: A Closer Look

  34. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994) • No-cost, brief systematic screening tool originally designed to identify K-6 elementary-age students at risk for antisocial behavior • Teachers use a one-page instrument to evaluate students on 7 items using a 4 point Likert-type scale: - Steals - Low Academic Achievement - Lies, Cheats, Sneaks - Negative Attitude - Behavior Problems - Aggressive Behavior - Peer Rejection • Student Risk is divided into 3 categories: • Low 0 – 3 • Moderate 4 – 8 • High 9 - 21

  35. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994)

  36. INCREDIBLE! PBIS – That’s the ticket! SRSS Behavior Screeners Over Time Middle SchoolFall 2004 through Fall 2010 n =7 n = 32 n = 488 Percentage of Students These numbers are based on the total number of students screened. X students were not screened. (Fall 2010) n=534 n=502 n=454 n=470 n=477 n=476 n=527 Screening Time point Data represent the information completed on: 10/11/2010

  37. SRSS By Grade LevelFall 2009

  38. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994) How reliable and valid is the SRSS for use at the middle school?

  39. Middle School Study 1: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups (Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007)

  40. High School Screening Tools *SRSS; Drummond (1994) SSiS; Elliott & Gresham, (2007) SDQ; Goodman (1987) BESS; Kamphaus & Reynolds (2007) Behavior Screening Tools: A Closer Look

  41. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994)

  42. SRSS Winter 2008 to Winter 2009 (2nd period Raters) 39(2.29%) 20 (1.12%) 169 (9.94%) 99 (5.54%) 1492 (87.76%) 1667 (93.34%) *These numbers and percentages are representative of the students rated.

  43. SRSS Winter 2008 to Winter 2009 (7th period Raters) 60 (3.41%) 19 (1.06%) 159 (9.04%) 75 (4.17%) 1539 (87.54%) 1703 (94.77%)

  44. Student Risk Screening Scale(Drummond, 1994) How reliable and valid is the SRSS for use at the high school?

  45. High School: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Using SRSS Time 1 to Year 2 Instructional Rater (Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008)

  46. High School: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Using SRSS Time 1 to Year 2 Non-Instructional Rater (Lane, Kalberg, Parks, & Carter, 2008)

  47. High Schools: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Winter Year 1Screening Predicting Year 1 2nd Period Raters (Lane, Oakes, Parks, & Cox, in press)

  48. High Schools: Behavioral & Academic Characteristics of SRSS Risk Groups Spring Year 1 Screening Predicting Spring Year 2 7nd Period Raters (Lane, Oakes, Parks, & Cox, in press)