Co-occurrence of academic and behavioral risk within elementary schools: Implications for universal screening practices.

Abstract

The purposes of this study were twofold. The first was to use latent class analysis to identify groupings of students defined by the presence or absence of academic or behavioral risk. The second was to determine whether these groups differed across various dichotomous academic and behavioral outcomes (e.g., suspensions, office discipline referrals, statewide achievement test failure). Students (N ϭ 1,488) were sampled from Grades 3-5. All students were screened for academic risk using AIMSweb Reading Curriculum-Based Measure and AIMSweb Mathematics Computation, and behavioral risk using the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS). Latent class analyses supported the fit of a three-class model, with resulting student classes defined as low-risk academic and behavior (Class 1), at-risk academic and high-risk behavior (Class 2), and at-risk math and behavior (Class 3). Logistic regression analyses indicated the classes demonstrated statistically significant differences statewide achievement scores, as well as suspensions. Further analysis indicated that the odds of all considered negative outcomes were higher for both groups characterized by risk (i.e., Classes 2 and 3). Negative outcomes were particularly likely for Class 2, with the odds of negative behavioral and academic outcomes being 6 -15 and 112-169 times more likely, respectively. Results were taken to support an integrated approach to universal screening in schools, defined by the evaluation of both academic and behavioral risk. Impact and ImplicationsThe results of this study speak to the value of an integrated universal screening procedure that incorporates both academic and behavioral screening tools. Results suggested this approach can identify a group of students who are at high risk for a number of negative academic and behavioral outcomes.

The effect of student race/ethnicity on the diagnostic accuracy of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS)

“…A meta-analysis examining the academic performance of students classified with emotional and behavioral disorders found these students performed significantly lower than their peers in academics, regardless of academic subject area (Reid et al, 2004). These findings, along with others (e.g., Kilgus et al, 2019), suggest SEB and academic difficulties often occur in tandem, which can present significant challenges for at-risk youth.…”

“…One of the most well‐researched approaches to date has been universal screening, which is defined by the use of brief and efficient measures with every individual in a population (e.g., all students in a district) to identify those experiencing some condition (e.g., risk for SEB concerns). Due to their universal nature, screening measures are administered to all students within a school to identify students who may benefit from additional support at Tiers 2 or 3 (Glover & Albers, 2007; Kilgus & Eklund, 2016). Using data gleaned from universal screening measures, school mental health, and educational professionals are able to match student needs with the appropriate level of services and support.…”

Examining utility and impact of social, emotional, and behavioral screening to identify and address needs.

“…Finally, we sought to better understand who was most and least likely to receive services after universal SEB screening to inform future research and practice that improves the utility and impact of universal SEB screening results. Current guidance for using universal SEB screening results to connect students to intervention services recommends schools to consider multiple sources of data, such as existing academic, attendance, and behavioral data, in addition to the risk level of the screener results (Kilgus et al, 2019; Romer et al, 2020). To replicate this approach, we used person-centered analyses (e.g., latent profile analysis [LPA]) to identify patterns of risk among multiple indicators.…”

Exploring the validity of university‐based practicum tailored to develop expertise in addressing challenging behavior

“…Behavior challenges in school settings often serve as a barrier to inclusion and almost always have adverse effects on academic performance (Kilgus et al, 2019; King et al, 2016). For example, there are well‐established links between challenging behavior and suboptimal progress on academic targets, such as reading and math achievement (King et al, 2016; Morgan et al, 2008; Trzesniewski et al, 2006).…”