Examining the validity of the Early Identification System – Student Version for screening in an elementary school sample

Reinke, Wendy M.; Herman, Keith C.; Huang, Francis L.; McCall, Chynna S.; Holmes, Shannon R.; Thompson, Aaron; Owens, Siân-Eleri

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2021.10.001

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An initial investigation with 1,590 students elementary and middle schools largely supported the factor structure and psychometric properties of the EIS with excellent model fit and strong scale reliabilities (Huang et al, 2019). These findings were replicated across three developmental levels with approximately 5,000 students in each study (Herman, Reinke, Huang, et al, 2021;Reinke et al, 2022;Thompson et al, 2021). The factor structure was fully supported in each study, and EIS subscales related to other measures in expected ways.…”

Section: Early Identification Systemmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…EIS-TR Externalizing and Attention/Academic Issues subscales also have strong correlations with similar BASC-3 scales ( r s = .72 and .67, respectively; Stormont et al, 2022). Moreover, beginning-of-year EIS subscale scores predicted end-of-year school record data (e.g., discipline referrals, suspensions, attendance, achievement scores) across development (Herman, Reinke, Huang, et al, 2021; Reinke et al, 2022; Thompson et al, 2021). The EIS-SR is also sensitive to change; for instance, over a 3-year, nine-time point period, students in schools implementing the EIS reported a significant decline in the slope of total symptoms, and students in schools with lower fidelity to the model were more likely to have a pattern of worsening EIS problems (Reinke et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It includes both teacher- (EIS-TR) and student-rated (EIS-SR) versions including 39 and 36 mental health risk indicators, respectively. The items and core constructs are the same across teacher and student versions and developmental age groups; several studies have found these items have the same technical properties (e.g., factor structure, predictive utility, and classification accuracy) when examined within each developmental group (Herman, Reinke, Huang, et al, 2021; Reinke et al, 2022; Thompson et al, 2021). Both measures include six subscales: Externalizing Behavior, Internalizing Behavior, Peer Relationship Problems, Emotional Dysregulation, Attention and Academic Issues, and Relational Aggression.…”

Section: Early Identification Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in Messick’s (1995) original articulation of the unified framework, the relevance and utility of a measure are determined on an evidential basis by whether it assesses meaningful and modifiable characteristics associated with desired outcomes. The EIS measures each of the most common social, emotional, and behavior risk conditions known to be associated with important social and academic outcomes and presents the information in easy-to-understand and actionable ways (see Reinke et al, 2022). This heightens the usability of the measure because schools can both accurately identify students with risk characteristics and also act on this information.…”

Section: Early Identification Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This heightens the usability of the measure because schools can both accurately identify students with risk characteristics and also act on this information. Each risk condition is malleable and associated with evidence-based interventions and supports that schools can deliver at the universal, selective, or indicated–individualized levels (Reinke et al, 2022). For instance, several of the middle schools in the present study had teachers rate a high percentage of students (>50%) as having attention and organization concerns; rather than delivering individualized attention interventions for half the student populations, schools used this information to offer schoolwide training in organization and planning skills.…”

Section: Early Identification Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Usability and social consequences of the early identification system as a universal screener for social, emotional, and behavioral risks.

Herman¹,

Reinke²,

Thompson³

et al. 2023

School Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Early Identification System (EIS) was developed to overcome many of the usability challenges of school-based behavior screeners. Several prior studies have documented the technical adequacy of the EIS. The present study expanded this work by examining the use, relevance, values implications, and social consequence of EIS implementation in a sample of 54 K-12 schools and 23,104 students in the Midwestern United States. We found that nearly all schools, teachers, and students completed the EIS as planned. Schools used the data to provide universal, selective, and indicated services to a high percentage of students identified with risks as well as to plan professional development for educators based on the screening data. Seventy-nine percent of schools implemented the EIS system with high fidelity, and fidelity was unrelated to student demographic composition within schools. These findings suggest that the EIS may overcome many of the usability barriers that plague common behavior screeners. Limitations and implications for advancing the science of social consequence evaluation are discussed. Impact and ImplicationsThe present findings suggest the EIS is a cost-effective, efficient, and useful tool for screening youth mental health concerns that schools implement with high fidelity. The EIS may overcome many barriers that prevent most schools from conducting ongoing universal screening of youth social, emotional, and behavioral concerns.

show abstract