A Comparison of Systematic Screening Tools for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

Early identification of students who might develop emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is essential in preventing negative outcomes. Systematic screening tools are available for identifying elementary-age students with EBD, including the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) and the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). The SSBD is considered the gold standard for systematic EBD screening. The brevity of the SRSS is often favored with respect to resource allocation. The authors evaluated the concurrent validity of the SRSS to predict SSBD results when used to detect school children with externalizing or internalizing behavior concerns. Between low- and high-risk categories, the SRSS had excellent accuracy for predicting both externalizing (95%) and internalizing (93%) problems on the SSBD. Sensitivity (94%) and specificity (95%) were both excellent for externalizing behavior, but for internalizing behavior, sensitivity was lower (44%), while specificity was excellent (95%). Receiver-operating characteristic analysis also suggested that the SRSS was more accurate for detecting externalizing than internalizing behaviors. Limitations and future directions are offered.

Teacher Perspectives on Indicators of Adolescent Social and Emotional Problems

“…In addition to relying on teacher identification, some schools collect data, for example office discipline referral data, to identify students needing supports (Horner et al, 2009; Pas, Bradshaw, & Mitchell, 2011). Schools also use multiple gating procedures, informant rating scales, and universal self-report mental health screenings to identify youth with mental health needs (e.g., Chin, Dowdy, & Quirk, 2013; Columbia University TeenScreen Program, 2009; Glover & Albers, 2007; Husky, Sheridan, McGuire, & Olfson, 2011; Lane et al, 2009). For schools administering tiered interventions, screening can contribute to identifying students requiring higher levels of service provision and facilitate early intervention (Doll & Cummings, 2008; Lane, Oakes, Menzies, & Harris, 2013).…”

“…School screenings are typically completed by either teachers or students themselves. Screenings that incorporate self-report data have the additional advantage of improved detection of internalizing, or less easily observable emotional problems (Lane et al, 2009). In particular, studies document discrepancies in identification of internalizing problems when relying of self-report as compared to teacher report (Youngstrom, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2000).…”

A Comparison Between SRSS-IE and BASC-2 BESS Scores at the Middle School Level

“…Then, we conducted three analyses to compare the extent to which SRSS-IE scores had comparable classification accuracy as BASC-2 BESS scores in detecting students with externalizing or internalizing behavior patterns following the same data analytic plan used by Lane and colleagues when comparing SRSS and SSBD scores (Lane et al, 2009). First, we computed conditional probabilities (Bennett & Offord, 2001).…”

The Screening Test for Emotional Problems–Parent Report (STEP-P)

“…Children with emotional difficulties make up one of the fastest growing segments of the public school system in the United States (Lane et al, 2009). Prevalence estimates of emotional disturbance in school-age children ranged from 2% to 20% (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004), although less than 1% of students actually received special education services under the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; U.S.…”

“…Department of Education, 2004). Detection of early warning signs lead to early intervention in support of students with possible emotional disturbances (Lane et al, 2009). This detection is hindered by a lack of screening tools that accurately identify emotional disturbances according to IDEA standards (Erford, Balcom, & Moore-Thomas, 2007), as well as confusion and disagreement over the definition of emotional disturbance (Epstein, Nordness, Cullinan, & Hertzog, 2002).…”