Universal screening for social-emotional and behavioral risk: Differential item functioning on the SAEBRS.

Universal screening for social-emotional and behavioral (SEB) risk is one strategy for schools to proactively identify students in need of additional supports and services. As schools serve an increasing number of children from racially and culturally diverse backgrounds, further research is needed to examine the differential functioning of brief behavior rating scales. The present study examined differential item functioning (DIF) on the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS)-Teacher Rating Scale. Participants included 11,496 kindergartens through 12th-grade students. DIF analyses were conducted by race/ethnicity, grade level, and biological sex. Results indicated small-to-large effects of DIF for teacher ratings of Black students compared to their non-Black peers on each item resulting in a moderate effect at the test level (Total Behavior [TB] expected test score standardized difference [ETSSD] = -0.67). There was a small-to-moderate effect of DIF for teacher ratings of White students compared to their non-White peers at the test level (TB ETSSD = 0.43). There was a small-to-moderate effect of DIF by biological sex, with teachers rating males differentially with high risk (TB ETSSD = -0.47). There were no significant effects at the test level for differences in ratings by grade level. Future research is needed to identify the factors influencing the interaction between the rater, the student, and the rating scale that could lead to resulting differential functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Development and validation of the Intervention Skills Profile-Skills: A brief measure of student social-emotional and academic enabling skills.

The purpose of this study was to support the development and initial validation of the Intervention Selection Profile (ISP)-Skills, a brief 14-item teacher rating scale intended to inform the selection and delivery of instructional interventions at Tier 2. Teacher participants (n = 196) rated five students from their classroom across four measures (total student n = 877). These measures included the ISP-Skills and three criterion tools: Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS), Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA), and Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES). Diagnostic classification modeling (DCM) suggested an expert-created Q-matrix, which specified relations between ISP-Skills items and hypothesized latent attributes, provided good fit to item data. DCM also indicated ISP-Skills items functioned as intended, with the magnitude of item ratings corresponding to the model-implied probability of attribute mastery. DCM was then used to generate skill profiles for each student, which included scores representing the probability of students mastering each of eight skills. Correlational analyses revealed large convergent relations between ISP-Skills probability scores and theoretically-aligned subscales from the criterion measures. Discriminant validity was not supported, as ISP-Skills scores were also highly related to all other criterion subscales. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses informed the selection of cut scores from each ISP-Skills scale. Review of classification accuracy statistics associated with these cut scores (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) suggested they reliably differentiated students with below average, average, and above average skills. Implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed, including those related to the examination of ISP-Skills treatment utility.

Differences in specific learning disability identification with the Woodcock-Johnson IV.

The Ability Achievement Discrepancy model remains the primary identification method used by school personnel. This study examined identification of a specific learning disability using the Ability Achievement Discrepancy model with the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ-IV). Two different test scores can be used to represent the ability construct: one that maintains the overlap between intelligence quotient (IQ) and basic psychological processes (i.e., general intellectual ability) and one that mostly removes the overlap between IQ and basic psychological processes (i.e., fluid-crystallized intelligence). The study included 3,736 individuals from the WJ-IV standardization sample to ascertain whether different proportions of individuals were identified by the 2 methods as well as identify which tests contributed to the differences. χ2 tests of independence and absolute ratios were used to examine the proportion of individuals identified; a multivariate analysis of variance and follow-up Tukey honestly significant differences were conducted to determine whether the groups of individuals identified in each model differed on their academic achievement scores, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify the tests that contributed to differences in identification rates. The results indicated that different proportions of individuals were identified as a function of the IQ score used, even though achievement scores were generally similar across identification methods. Black students were overrepresented and White students were underrepresented compared with their proportion in the total sample. Discrepancy profiles largely varied as a function of the internal psychometrics of the WJ-IV rather than characteristics of the individual. Implications for practice and methodological limitations are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Reliability, validity, and accuracy of the intervention selection profile-Function: A brief functional assessment tool.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and accuracy of scores from the Intervention Selection Profile-Function (ISP-Function): a brief functional assessment tool founded upon Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) methodology. Participants included 34 teacher-student dyads. Using the ISP-Function, teachers rated the extent to which students exhibited disruptive behavior, as well as the frequency with which disruptions were met with four consequences. Ratings were completed across three 10-min sessions, during which a research assistant also collected systematic direct observation (SDO) data regarding the same behavior and consequences. Results indicated adequate temporal reliability (≥.70) was attained for the adult attention and peer attention targets across the three ratings; in contrast, up to 8-18 data points would be needed to achieve adequate reliability across the remaining targets. Findings further suggested that while ISP-Function ratings of disruptive behavior, adult attention, and peer attention were moderately to highly correlated with SDO data, correlations were in the low range for the access to items/activities and escape/avoidance targets. Finally, analysis of difference scores showed that on average, mean ISP-Function scores fell within only 0.33 to 1.81 points of mean SDO scores (on the 0-10 DBR scale). Agreement coefficients indicative of exact score agreement were less consistent, suggesting accuracy ranged from poor to substantial. Results are promising, but future research is necessary to support applied ISP-Function use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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

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 = 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).