Screening within a multitiered early prevention model: Using assessment to inform instruction and promote students' response to intervention.

Parisi, Danielle; Ihlo, Tanya; Glover, Todd A.

doi:10.1037/14316-002

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As with most applied research, some decisions regarding this screening effort, including the timeline, were made based on the needs and interests of the district. However, the 2‐year latency was of interest in the present study, given that previous research recommended as many as three screenings a year (Parisi et al., ; Walker et al., ), despite other work that suggested considerable stability over as much as a 4‐year latency, at least within a small sample (Dowdy et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…As the movement toward universal, prevention‐focused practices such as screening for behavioral and emotional risk becomes more prominent in school psychology, questions about the appropriate frequency for screening and the stability of the findings have emerged. Walker () suggested one to two screening occasions per academic year, but other researchers have recommended conducting universal screening three times per academic year (Parisi et al., ; Walker et al., ). However, the findings of the present study would suggest that students demonstrating normal levels of behavioral and emotional risk may require screening less frequently than those who are initially classified as being At‐Risk for behavioral and emotional difficulties, as risk status is moderately stable over the course of a 2‐year period.…”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…() recommend that behavioral screening procedures be conducted three times per year (beginning of the academic year, January, and March or early April) to identify students who may need additional services, those whose functioning may have deteriorated over time, and new students who may be in need of support. Similarly, Parisi, Ihlo, and Glover () indicate that screenings are typically conducted in the fall, winter, and spring of each year to ensure that data are collected frequently enough to inform educational decisions. These recommendations for frequent screenings are made based on assumption that there is sufficient instability or transiency across an academic year to warrant additional assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stability and Change of Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scores

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal screening for behavioral and emotional difficulties is integral to the identification of students needing early intervention and prevention efforts. However, unanswered questions regarding the stability of screening scores impede the ability to determine optimal strategies for subsequent screening. This study examined the 2-year stability of behavioral and emotional risk screening scores and investigated whether change could be predicted based on student characteristics or initial risk scores. As part of a district-wide screening effort, 863 middle and high school students completed the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System at two time points. Stability coefficients were moderate, with the majority of students remaining in a similar risk category across time. Gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, grade, school transition, and special education status were not predictive of movement across time. Initial risk score was predictive of movement from normal to at-risk categorization, with the internalizing domain being the most predictive of change. C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stability and Change of Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scores

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within an MTSS framework, one of the main purposes of universal screeners is to measure students' response to core instruction and to determine if students are in need of supplemental instruction (Ikeda et al, 2008;Parisi et al, 2014;Clemens et al, 2015). Universal screening is a process that includes systematically implementing short, technically adequate assessments to all students at regularly spaced intervals during the school year (e.g., fall, winter, and spring; Batsche et al, 2005).…”

Section: Universal Screening Within Mtssmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting Reports From Universal Screeners: Roadblocks, Solutions, and Implications for Designing Score Reports

Shivraj¹,

Ketterlin-Geller

2019

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many teachers struggle with interpreting formative assessment data. As a result, they are often unable to modify instruction that is responsive to student performance. To support valid interpretations and uses of assessments, test developers need to better understand teachers' ability to read and interpret score reports, their perception of the information that is being conveyed, and how they use the information to change instruction. The purpose of this manuscript is to report on a series of focus groups examining (a) how teachers interact with various score report features and (b) how these features support or hinder their ability to interpret and analyze formative assessment data. Results provide insights into the design of score reports that may facilitate teachers' ability to interpret and analyze data. Solutions to the roadblocks teachers encountered are proposed and generalized examples of how score reports can be designed to facilitate teachers' interpretations are provided. Findings from this study may help test developers anticipate challenges the intended audience could face when interpreting assessment results on score reports, and subsequently improve the quality of score reports to enhance teachers' interpretations and decision-making at the classroom level.

show abstract

“…There is great debate regarding the specific uses and frequency of best practice screening for social and emotional strengths and concerns. Walker et al (2014) and Parisi, Ihlo, and Glover (2014) both recommend, similar to academic benchmarking, students should be screened 3 times per year to track risk over time, but do not offer empirical research supporting these recommendations. Conversely, Dowdy et al (2014) suggested that annual screening may be adequate.…”

Section: Administration and Stability Of Universal Screening Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Long-Term Stability of a Strengths-Based Screener Over 2 Years

Warmbold-Brann

Maras

Splett

et al. 2017

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of universal screening for effective school mental health programs is dependent on the availability of usable measures as well as empirically based recommendations for use. The current study examined the long-term stability of a strengths-based social-emotional screening tool, the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment-Mini (DESSA-Mini). Elementary teachers rated students (N = 273; kindergarten and first grade at Time 1) 3 times per year over 2 years to identify students for early intervention. Stability coefficients were moderate to large for continuous and categorical data but lower between years, and a transition matrix demonstrated greater movement across categories compared with prior research. A latent profile analysis with all six time-point T-Scores indicated four stability profiles. Three patterns were stable across all times while one profile improved over time. Profile results were compared with covariates of free and reduced-price lunch, special education, and intervention status as well as outcomes of reading achievement and behavior referrals. Practice implications and areas for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Screening within a multitiered early prevention model: Using assessment to inform instruction and promote students' response to intervention.

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

Stability and Change of Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scores

Stability and Change of Behavioral and Emotional Screening Scores

Interpreting Reports From Universal Screeners: Roadblocks, Solutions, and Implications for Designing Score Reports

Examining the Long-Term Stability of a Strengths-Based Screener Over 2 Years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About