A Review of the Research on the Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance: Screener

Lambert, Matthew C.; Garcia, Allen G.; Epstein, Michael H.; Cullinan, Douglas; Martin, Jodie

doi:10.1080/15377903.2020.1780659

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A body of research is necessary to evaluate the reliability and validity of an instrument. Studies indicate the previous versions of the SAED-3 Screener (e.g., the EBS) produced data that were reliable (Lambert et al, 2020; Nordness et al, 2014). It has also been recommended that norm-referenced measures be renormed and examined for reliability and validity evidence every 10 years (Weiss, 2016) to reflect the current population and behavioral standards.…”

Section: Research Rationale and Study Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance–Third Edition: Reliability and Validity of the Screener

Huscroft-D’Angelo

Wery

Martin-Gutel

et al. 2021

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Scales for Assessing Emotional Disturbance Screener–Third Edition ( SAED-3) is a standardized, norm-referenced measure designed to identify school-aged students at risk of emotional and behavioral problems. Four studies are reported to address the psychometric status of the SAED-3 Screener. Study 1 examined the internal consistency of the Screener using a sample of 1,430 students. Study 2 investigated the interrater reliability of the Screener results across 123 pairs of teachers who had worked with the student for at least 2 months. Study 3 assessed the extent to which the results from the Screener are consistent over time by examining test–retest reliability. Study 4 examined convergent validity by comparing the Screener to the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire ( SDQ). Across all studies, samples were drawn from populations of students included in the nationally representative normative sample. The averaged coefficient alpha for the Screener was .88. Interrater reliability coefficient for the composite was .83. Test–retest reliability of the composite was .83. Correlations with the SDQ subscales ranged from .74 to .99, and the correlation of the Screener to the SDQ composite was .99. Limitations and implications for use of the Screener are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Research Rationale and Study Purposementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Delaying assessment and identification exacerbates an already tenuous educational outcome for students with emotional disturbance (ED). Preventive and proactive approaches have a positive impact and can improve outcomes for students with ED, which includes the use of universal screening (Lambert et al, 2020; Mitchell et al, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%