A Preliminary Investigation Into the Added Value of Multiple Gates and Informants in Universal Screening for Behavioral and Emotional Risk

A systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school-based identification of children and young people at risk of, or currently experiencing mental health difficulties

“…Some evidence suggests that overall, universal screening may be the most effective method of identification; however, the rate of false-positive results yielded by this method is high (Auger, 2000; 2004; Husky et al ., 2011), so the expectations of teachers, pupils, and parents would need to be managed accordingly. Some findings indicate that multistage models are more accurate (Scott et al ., 2009; Morey et al ., 2015; Sweeney et al ., 2015); however two studies reported that a single assessment with a universal screening measure is sufficient to accurately identify high-risk individuals, and additional assessments and informants do not improve accuracy (Dowdy et al ., 2016; Kilgus et al ., 2018). Teacher nomination yields a higher number of false negative results than universal screening (Campbell, 2004; Dwyer et al ., 2006; Eklund et al ., 2009; Dowdy et al ., 2013; Cunningham and Suldo, 2014).…”

Examining the Latent Structure of the BASC-3 BESS Parent Preschool Form

“…Although we considered testing a bifactor model with an overall BER factor and specific factors of Externalizing, Internalizing, Adaptive Skills, and Attention, we chose not to engage in a model-fitting comparison between bifactor and other higher order models due to the inherent statistical bias favoring the fit of the bifactor models (Murray & Johnson, 2013;Rodriguez, Reise, & Haviland, 2016). Were the BER theoretical structure more strongly supported, the BERI score could serve as a general "red flag" to trigger additional assessment (Dowdy, Dever, Raines, & Moffa, 2016). In multiple gating screening, a broad first "gate" screening is offered universally, and those identified to be at risk are then referred for an additional gate of more intensive and precise assessments.…”

Languishing students: Linking complete mental health screening in schools to Tier 2 intervention

“…While it is important for schools to consider their capacity to address the needs of students identified as having the highest level of need via screening, it must be remembered that any student reporting significant symptoms of distress should be followed up with immediately to ensure their safety and well-being. Appropriate follow-up for youth identified as having the highest risk may include referral to Student Support Team, referral to school counseling or mental health staff for additional assessment via specialized or targeted measures (i.e., second-gate assessments; Dowdy, Dever, Raines, & Moffa, 2016;Levitt et al 2007), referral to community mental health supports, or development of an individualized treatment plan (e.g., referred for a comprehensive evaluation and development of an Individualized Education Program [IEP] with mental health services and goals delineated). Moore et al (2015) provide an example of follow-up procedures for youth identified as having high risk.…”