Jessica Swain-Bradway, IL PBIS Network
With contributions from :
Jennifer Rose, Illinois PBIS Network
Lynn Owens, Schaumburg CCSD 54
 This is a presentation of the IL PBIS Network. All rights reserved.

 What is Universal Screening?
 Rationale for identifying children through universal screening for behavior
 Readiness checklist
 Illinois PBIS Network screening model
 A review of several screeners
 Exemplar discussion

 Briefly define Universal Screening to a coworker
 Be able to explain the rationale for including universal screening in your multi-tiered behavioral initiative:
 Benefits
 Concerns
 Briefly describe a district example including outcomes
 Identify a resource for more information on universal screening

 “Universal screening is the systematic assessment of all children within a given class, grade, school building, or school district, on academic and/or socialemotional indicators that the school personnel and community have agreed are important.”
• Source: Ikeda, Neessen, & Witt, 2009

 Integral to the Response to Intervention
(RtI) model
 Set the stage for prevention
 Emphasis on prevention versus intervention
 Use an evidence-based instrument to identify:
 Risk factors for emotional/behavioral difficulties
 Social-emotional strengths and needs

 We assert that MTSS is preventative
 A model of “reaction”:
 Kids have problems, we react.
 This is SLOW.
 This means= kids fail / have problems / hate school
/ disengage parents / teachers are stressed / etc.
 The louder the problem, the more quickly we react.
 The ISSUE: all problems aren’t “loud”, if we can
“hear” it, it is already gaining momentum!

• How prevalent are emotional disorders among school-age children and youth?
Study Citation
Methods for the
Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental
Disorders (MECA)
Shaffer et al., 1996
(1,285 children ages 9-17)
Great Smoky
Mountains Study of
Youth
Burns et al., 1995
( 1,015 children ages 9, 11 and 13 )
% of sample with any impairment
21%
20%
% of sample with serious impairment
5%
11%
National Health &
Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES)
Merikangas et al., 2010
( 3,042 children ages 8-
15 )
13% 11%

 A ‘window of opportunity’ ranging between 2-4 years when prevention is critical
(Costello, et al, 1996)
 U.S. Department of Education:
“…compelling research sponsored by OSEP on emotional and behavioral difficulties indicating that children at risk for these difficulties could also be identified through universal screening and more significant disabilities prevented through classroom-based approaches involving positive discipline and classroom management .”

 Universal screening for behavior is more effective than reliance on office discipline referrals (ODRs) for identifying students with risk factors for internalizing (e.g., depression, overly shy, withdrawn, anxiety) behaviors
 ODRs are typically measures of non-compliant, acting-out behaviors
 Teachers tend to under-refer internalizers
• Sources: Walker, Cheney, Stage, & Blum, 2005; Walker et al., 2010

 Flexibility of the brain:
 Use positive learning experiences to:
• Reshape neurological pathways
• Build positive, adaptive behaviors (versus maladaptive)
(Weinberger, et al., 2005)
The sooner we see behaviors predictive of increased risk, the sooner we can prevent problem behaviors.

• “ Untreated emotional problems have the potential to create barriers to learning that interfere with the mission of schools to educate all children.” (Adelman & Taylor, 2002)
• Youth who are the victims of bullying and who lack adequate peer supports are vulnerable to mood and anxiety disorders
(Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hawker & Boulton, 2000)
The longer children go
• “ without intervention, the disorders among adolescent suicide victims (Gould, Greenberg, more negative their
.
behaviors can be for
• “ Without early intervention , children who routinely themselves and others.
more serious anti-social patterns of behaviors that are resistant to intervention.” (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004)

 What are the risks of delaying identification and intervention?
 What are the benefits to speeding up identification and intervention?

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
Tier 1/Universal
School-Wide Assessment
School-Wide Prevention Systems
ODRs,
Attendance,
Tardies, Grades,
DIBELS, etc.
Check-in
Check-out (CICO)
BEFORE big issues
Social/Academic
Instructional Groups (SAIG)
Daily Progress interfere with school:
Report (DPR)
(Behavior and
Academic Goals)
Competing Behavior
Tier 3/
Internalizers
Pathway, Functional
Assessment Interview,
Scatter Plots, etc.
Individualized Check-in
Check-out (CICO), Groups, &
Mentoring
Brief Functional Behavior Assessment/
Behavior Intervention Plan (FBA/BIP)
Complex or Multiple-domain FBA/BIP
Illinois PBIS Network, Revised April 2012
Adapted from T. Scott, 2004
SIMEO Tools:
HSC-T, SD-T, EI-T
Wraparound/RENEW

• Physical aggression
• Verbal aggression
(Arguing, threats, name calling, etc.)
• Being out of seat
• Not complying with teacher instructions or directives
Source: Walker and Severson, 1992

• Withdrawn:
 Not talking with other children
 Has very few, or no friends
• Extreme shyness
• Timid and/or unassertive
• Avoiding or withdrawing from social situations
• Not standing up for one’s self
Source: Walker and Severson, 1992

Gate 1
Gate 2
Teachers Rank Order then Select Top 3 Students on Each Dimension
(Externalizing & Internalizing)
Pass Gate 1
Teachers Rate Top 3 Students in
Each Dimension (Externalizing &
Internalizing) using either SSBD,
BASC-2/BESS, or other
evidence-based instrument
Pass Gate 2
(Multiple Gating Procedure Adapted from Walker & Severson, 1992)
Tier 2
Intervention.

 ‘Multi-gate’ process for implementing universal screening for behavior
 Efficient:
• Takes approximately one hour, maximum, per classroom to complete process
• Less expensive and more timely than special education referral process
 Fair:
• All students receive consideration for additional supports (gate one)
• Reduces bias by using evidence-based instrument containing consistent, criteria to identify students (gate two)

Teacher Rank Ordering for Universal Behavioral Screening: Externalizers
• Property destruction (e.g., damaging books, desks, other school property)
• Repeatedly quarrels with peers/adults
• Coercion of others (e.g., bullying behaviors includes physical actions and verbal threats)
• Regularly does not follow school/classroom rules
• Consistent refusal to follow teacher’s directions
• Frequently blurts out/speaks in class without permission
• Often moves around the classroom/hallways without permission
• Spreads rumors with the intention to harm others
•
Stealing
STEP TWO
STEP ONE
Externalizers: Students regularly displaying at least ONE of the listed behaviors
Externalizers: Top three students regularly displaying at least ONE of the listed behaviors
ID # Race/ethnicity

Teacher Rank Ordering for Universal Behavioral Screening: Internalizers
• Anxious, nervous (e.g., nailbiting, easily startled)
• Introverted (e.g., often seen alone)
• Rarely/doesn’t speaks to peers
•
Overly sensitive (e.g., cries easily, has difficulty standing up to others)
•
Bullied by other students
STEP ONE
Internalizers: Students regularly displaying at least
ONE of the listed behaviors
Adapted from Walker and Severson, 1992
STEP TWO
Internalizers: Top three students
Regularly displaying at least
ONE
Of the listed behaviors
ID# Race/ethnicity

Gate 2: Examples of Screening Measures
Screener
Systematic Screening for
Behavior Disorders
(SSBD; Walker &
Severson, 1990) http://store.cambiumlea
rning.com
BASC-2/BESS (Kamphaus
& Reynolds, 2007) http://www.pearsonass
essments.com
Pros
• Well-validated (Endorsed in 1990 by the
Program Effectiveness Panel of the U.S.
Department of Education)
• Efficient (Screening process can be completed within 45 minutes to 1 hour)
• Most effective instrument for identifying internalizers (Lane et al., 2009)
• Meets AERA/APA instrument selection criteria
• Inexpensive (Manual= $ 134.49; includes reproducible screening forms)
• Measures behaviors associated with internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors and academic competence
• Meets AERA/APA instrument selection criteria
• Incorporates three validity measures to rule out response bias
• Utilizes large (N= 12,350 children & youth), nationally-representative sample
• Web-based screening capacity available via
AIMSewb
Cons
• Normed for grades 1-6
• Dated norms (normed in 1990)
• Normative sample skewed to western U.S. region
• Can be expensive for districts/schools that don’t have access to a scantron machine
• $26.25 for 25 hand-scored protocols
• Online access via AIMSweb:
Additional $1.00 per student for subscribers and $4.00 per student for non-subscribers)
• Hand-scoring is time-consuming and reduces access to validity measures
• Computer software is expensive
($620)

 Other relevant student information for students being screened:
 Student IDs
 Birthdate
 Race/ethnicity
 Special education/Section 504 status
 Grade level

 Parents of nominated students, who meet the screening criteria, are contacted in writing to request permission for their child’s participation in a simple, secondary intervention (e.g., check-in/check-out)
 Coordinator inform teachers of students who are participating in interventions
 Teachers receive progress monitoring data

 Key outcomes from four years of implementation in Illinois schools:
 On average within PBIS schools less than 10% of students, enrolled in grades screened, met criteria for needing additional supports
 Over time, fewer students were identified via universal screening process
*Enrollment based on ISBE 2010 Fall Housing Report for grades screened

12,0%
IL-PBIS Network Universal Screening Results: 2007-11
10,0% 9,4%
8,9%
9,6%
8,0%
6,3%
6,0%
4,0%
5,6%
5,8%
5,1%
3,5%
3,8% 3,8% 3,8%
2,7%
2,0%
0,0%
Externalizers Internalizers
2007-08: N=18 schools 2008-09: N=30 schools
2009-10: N=45 schools 2010-11: N=61 schools
Total

 Illinois PBIS Network:
 Search for “Universal Screening”
 http://www.pbisillinois.org/trainings/universalscre ening/presentations
 Florida PBIS: http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/
 National PBIS Technical Assistance Center: www.PBIS.org
 RTI Action Network:
 http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/univers al-screening-within-a-rti-model

 Build a foundation
 Secure district and building-level administrative support for universal screening
 Establish universal screening committee consisting of district and building-level administrators, student support personnel, teachers, family and community representatives and assign roles
 Clarify goals
 Identify purpose of universal screening (e.g., mental health, social skills assessment)
 Determine desired outcomes

 Identify resources and logistics
 Identify resources for supporting students identified via screening
(in-school and community-based)
 Create a timeline for executing screening process including frequency of screening (e.g., once, or multiple times per year?)
 Develop budget for materials, staff, etc.
 Create administration materials (e.g., power point to share process with staff, parents and community members, consent forms, teacher checklists)
 Schedule dates for screening(s) and meetings to share school-wide results

 Create a quick and easy for teachers, AND,
 Select an evidence-based screening instrument for advanced screening (gate 2)
 Use The Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, or resources from other professional organization resources (e.g.,
National Association for School Psychologists; NASP
), as guidelines for selecting an appropriate screener

 Data
 Develop data collection and progress monitoring system
 Determine systematic process for using results to inform interventions
 Plan for sharing screening and progress monitoring results with staff and families

Created by:
Lynn Owens, MSW, MEd
Schaumburg CCSD 54
District External Coach

 21 Elementary Buildings (K-6)
 5 Jr. High Buildings (7-8)
 1 Elementary & Jr. High Building (K-8)
 District Enrollment: 14, 318
 Low Income: 18%
 IEP: 11.3%
 Bi-Lingual: 17.5%
 Ethnicity:
• White: 46.3%
• African American: 6.5%
• Hispanic: 22.5%
• Asian: 20.0%
• American Indian: 0.3%
• Multi-Racial: 3.3%

 26 Elementary and Jr. High Buildings Implementing all 3 Tiers of PBIS
 Cohort model:
 Pull in cohorts of schools implementing / training
• Tiers
• Specific components (universal screening, restorative justice, for example)

 2010-11
 4 Buildings from Cohort 1 participated
• 2 Elementary (Kindergarten-Sixth Grade)
• 2 Jr. High (Seventh-Eighth Grade)
 2011-12
 8 Buildings from Cohort 1 and 2 participated
• 4 Elementary (Kindergarten-Sixth Grade)
• 4 Jr. High (Seventh-Eighth Grade)
 2012-13
 16 Buildings from Cohort 1-4 participated
• 11 Elementary
• 5 Jr. High Buildings

Preparing for Screening: Year 1-Pilot
 Screening Window: October – November 2010
 District Admin and External Coach Responsibilities (Sept-Oct)
 External Coaches attended Universal Screening Facilitator training by Jen
Rose, IL PBIS Network
 Tier 2 Coaches identified as Screening Facilitators
 Presented Universal Screening to Superintendent, Board Cabinet, District
Leadership Team, and Building Administrators
 Developed Parent Information/Consent Letter
 Prepared protocols for Facilitators
 Identify and Train Screening Facilitators (Oct)
 Cohort 1 buildings for Pilot
• Implementing PBIS at least 2 years
• CICO implemented with fidelity for 1 full year
 Elementary Facilitator Training:
• Time Lines for the year
• SSBD Facilitator Training
 Jr. High Facilitator Training:
• Time Lines for the year
• BASC-2/BESS Facilitator Training

Preparing for Screening Year 1-Pilot
(con’t)
 Facilitator Responsibilities (Oct-December)
 Review and follow timeline
• Facilitator timeline
• Teacher timeline
 CICO was up and running since mid-September
• Increase in students participating as result of screener
• Changes to support internalizing students identified via screener
– CICO Parent letter
 Scheduled screening dates with administrator
• 20-30 min. overview
• 1.5 hr. administration
• Wednesday Staff Development (Elementary & Jr. High)
• Grade Level Meeting (Jr. High)
 Presented screening overview and administration with External Coach
• 1 building presented without External Coach
 Prepared screening protocols for scoring
• SSBD: Facilitators scored using excel spread sheet
• BASC-2: IL PBIS personnel scored
 Reviewed results with administrator and staff

Screening: Year 2
 Screening Window: October – November 2011
 District Admin and External Coach Responsibilities (Aug-Sept)
 Notified Tier 2 Coaches about Screening Facilitator training
 Provided Facilitator training with IL PBIS Network
 Building Administrators informed of screening window
 Modified Parent Information/Consent Letter
• Informed consent
• Screener part of support students receive at Tier 2
 Identify and Train Screening Facilitators (Sept)
 Cohort 1 and 2 buildings conduct screening
• Implementing PBIS at least 2 years
• CICO implemented with fidelity for 1 full year
 Elementary Facilitator Training:
• Time Lines
• SSBD Facilitator Training
 Jr. High Facilitator Training:
• Time Lines
• BASC-2/BESS Facilitator Training

Screening: Year 2 (con’t)
 Facilitator Responsibilities (Sept-December)
 Review and follow timeline
• Facilitator and Teacher timeline
• “Jump-start” Time Line
 CICO up and running since mid-September
• Increase in students participating as result of screener
• Changes to support internalizing students identified via screener
– CICO Parent letter
– DPR cards
 Scheduled screening dates with administrator
• 20-30 min. overview
• 1-1.5 hr. administration
 Presented overview and screening administration with External Coach to staff
• 5 buildings presented without assistance from External Coach
 Prepared screening protocols for use for staff and scoring
• SSBD: Facilitators copied/labeled protocols and scored on-site
• BASC-2: Facilitators labeled protocols and PBIS scored off-site
 Reviewed results with administrator and staff

October 2011
Dear Parent/Guardian,
As you know, ___________ school has been implementing Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports
(PBIS) which is a proactive approach to establishing the behavioral supports and social culture needed for all students in a school to achieve social, emotional, and academic success.
Our school was selected to be a replication site by the Illinois PBIS organization, which provides us with training and support as we work to continually improve ways to support our children and families. As part of being a replication site this year, we will be utilizing an assessment tool for teachers that will help identify students who may be having minor challenges in school, such as following rules and expectations, or making friends. Our goal in using this teacher assessment tool is to identify which children may need some assistance before minor challenges become big problems.
Over the next few weeks, your child’s classroom teacher will review the class roster and identify students who currently may be having problems or difficulties in school. We will contact the parents of children who have been selected by their classroom teacher to participate in a simple intervention focused on supporting the child in a proactive and positive manner.
Please feel free to contact me at ________ if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Principal

Universal Screening
Elementary Facilitator “JumpStart” List
Universal Screener To Do Checklist (ELEMENTARY )
Schedule Date with Administrator, External Coach, & PBIS TAC
__Staff Overview (following coordinator meeting with External Coach &
PBIS TAC- 20 to 30 min during STAFF DEVELOPMENT
__Screening Administration (Schedule no sooner than 2 weeks after
Overview- 1 to 1.5 hours during STAFF DEVELOPMENT
__Review and Mail Parent Letter (at least 2 weeks prior to screening date)
Prep for Overview
___Copy Teacher timeline to be given at/during overview (1 per teacher)
___Reserve meeting place with projector to view power point
___Review power point
Prep for Screening Administration
___Reserve meeting place with projector and place for teachers to complete protocol
___Find place to keep protocols locked-up until input into excel spread sheet (keep protocols locked up until end of school year then shred)
___Extra Pens or Pencils (just in-case some teachers forget)
___Prep protocols (Identifying information Label is attached to white copy to be sent by External Coach week of October 11)
__Copy 3 of each per teacher (Green for Internalizers and Blue for Externalizers).
___Review power point
**CONTACT EXTERNAL COACH WITH ANY QUESTIONS! EXTERNAL COACH AND/OR PBIS TAC NEED TO BE PRESENT
DURING ADMINISTRATION!!***

 Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD;
Walker and Severson, 1992)
 Used in Elementary Schools (Grades 1-6)
• Universal screening (similar to annual vision/hearing screenings)
• Identifies behaviors that may impede academic and social functioning
 Cost Effective
• Used in multiple grades and buildings
• Copying and labeling protocols on-site
 Score protocols on-site
• Scored using excel spreadsheet
• No special skills required
• Student information remains locked in building
• Students receive support with-in 2 weeks of administration

 The SSBD is NOT recommended as a diagnostic tool for eligibility for special education services
 The SSBD screening WILL NOT replace the current procedures for special education evaluation or any other identification for support process
IL-PBIS Network, Sept 2010

 Overview
 1 st -6 th Staff attend a 20min presentation that includes rationale for screening
• District Support
• Parent Letter
 Review externalizing and internalizing behaviors
 Teacher timeline and ranking form
• Teachers given timeline for preparation and completion of screener
• Teachers provided ranking forms for Internalizers and Externalizers with descriptors
• Given 2 weeks to identify Top 10 Internalizers and Top 10 Externalizers from class roster
 Review Administration
• Supplies
– Pen/Pencil
– Student roster with identifying information (DOB, Race/Ethnicity, ID, etc.)
– Ranking forms with Top 3 Internalizers and Externalizers identified
• Expectations
– Limit talking during administration to protect student information
– Complete all forms (incomplete forms returned)
– Come prepared
– Ask questions prior to ensure the students who need support get it

 Administration
 Two weeks prior(following overview)
• Parent Letter mailed home
• Staff attend overview
• Facilitators prepare protocols
 One week prior
• Staff sent reminder email (no less than 2 days prior)
• Facilitators and External Coaches make final arrangements
 Day of Administration
• Present brief overview of process
• Review externalizing and internalizing behaviors
• Review expectations
• Facilitators collect and check forms for accuracy and completion
• Facilitators lock completed forms in designated area until scoring date

 Year 1 (2 Schools)
 Total Number of Students screened: 986
 Total Number of Students identified: 89
• Total Number of Externalizers: 41
• Total Number of Internalizers: 48
 Year 2 (4 Schools)
 Total Number of Students screened: 1,475
 Total Number of Students identified: 115
• Total Number of Externalizers: 40
• Total Number of Internalizers: 75

10,00%
9,00%
8,00%
7,00%
6,00%
5,00%
4,00%
3,00%
2,00%
1,00%
0,00%
Year 1
Year 2
Internalizers
4,87%
5,08%
Externalizers
4,16%
2,71%
Total
9,03%
7,79%

Behavioral and Emotional Screening
System (BESS): Jr. High School
 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS)
(Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007) (also called BASC-2)
 Used in Elementary and Jr. High Schools (Grades Pre K-8)
• Universal screening (similar to annual vision/hearing screenings)
• Identifies eternalizing and internalizing behavioral strengths and weaknesses
 Cost Effective
• Used in multiple grades and buildings
• Only used for Jr. High buildings
• Protocols provided by IL-PBIS Network years 1 and 2
 Protocols Scored off-site
• Scantron machine scores protocols
• Student information remains locked in building until hand delivered to TAC or PBIS office
• Students receive support with-in 2-4 weeks of administration

• The BASC-2/BESS is NOT recommended as a diagnostic tool for eligibility for special education services
• The BASC-2/BESS screening WILL NOT replace the current procedures for special education evaluation or any other identification for support process
IL-PBIS Network, Sept 2010

 The BASC-2/BESS uses T-scores to communicate results relative to the average
(mean=50)
 Identifiers and percentile ranks are provided for ease of interpretation
 Normal risk level: T-score range 10-60
 Elevated risk level: T-score range 61-70
 Extremely Elevated risk level: T-score range ≥ 71
IL-PBIS Network, Sept 2010

 Overview
 Jr. High Teaching Staff attend a 20min presentation that includes rationale for screening
• District Support
• Parent Letter
 Review externalizing and internalizing behaviors
 Teacher timeline and ranking form
• Teachers given timeline for preparation and completion of screener
• Teachers provided ranking forms for Internalizers and Externalizers with descriptors
• Given 2 weeks to identify Top 10 Internalizers and Top 10 Externalizers from class roster
 Review Administration
• Supplies
– #2 Pencil(s)
– Student roster with identifying information (DOB, Race/Ethnicity, ID, etc.)
– Ranking forms with Top 3 Internalizers and Externalizers identified
• Expectations
– Limit talking during administration to protect student information
– Complete all forms (incomplete forms returned)
– Come prepared
– Ask questions prior to ensure the students who need support get it

 Administration
 Two weeks prior(following overview)
• Parent Letter mailed home
• Staff attend overview
• Facilitators label protocols
• Facilitators attend grade level team meetings to provide support
 One week prior
• Staff sent reminder email (no less than 2 days prior)
• Facilitators and External Coaches make final arrangements
 Day of Administration
• Present brief overview of process
• Review externalizing and internalizing behaviors
• Review expectations
• Facilitators collect and check forms for accuracy and completion
• Facilitators lock completed forms in designated area until picked up for scoring
• External coaches make arrangements to deliver protocols to PBIS TAC

BASC-2/BESS Screening Data-Jr. High
 Year 1 (2 Schools)
 Total Number of Students screened: 1,256
 Total Number of Students identified: 106
• Total Number of Externalizers: 69
• Total Number of Internalizers: 37
 Year 2 (4 Schools)
 Total Number of Students screened: 2, 441
 Total Number of Students identified: 228
• Total Number of Externalizers: 167
• Total Number of Internalizers: 61

10,00%
9,00%
8,00%
7,00%
6,00%
5,00%
4,00%
3,00%
2,00%
1,00%
0,00%
Year 1
Year 2
Internalizers
2,95%
2,50%
Externalizers
5,49%
6,84%
Total
8,44%
9,34%

 CICO
• DPR card same for all students
• Check-In and Out with same staff member
• Parents notified of participation through calls and/or letter
 Social Academic Instructional Groups
• Pro Social
• Problem Solving
• Academic
 Check & Connect
• Used when student may need more than generic check-in
• Used when student needs change of check-in station or change of staff
 FBA/BIP
• Problem solving team identifies need for more support
• Utilize SAIG groups to teach skills to support replacement behavior

 Scheduling screening window after start of school year
 Assessment schedule overlapping with other measures (fidelity for MTSS, reading assessments, etc.)
 Staff Development schedule difficult to change
 Created scheduling conflicts for External Coaches
 Delay in students receiving support once identified
 Building unprepared for increase in students participating in CICO
 Not enough staff to open new CICO stations
 More externalizers identified than internalizers
 Delay in scoring and identifying students (Jr. High)
 Staff refusing to “bubble-in” identifying information on scantron
 Scoring done off-site
 Staff support limited due to lack of knowledge about internalizers
 “I don’t have any students to screen”
 “Why are we calling out these students when they already have low selfesteem”

 Scheduling screening window earlier allowed for flexibility with External Coaches to support teams
 Facilitators who participated Year 1 had the option conduct Screening Overview and
Administration without outside support
 Increased staff support due to knowledge and experience from Year1

 In Year 2: Number of Students who were identified as internalizing / at risk for internalizing
 increased 25%: Elementary buildings
 Increased by 50%: Jr. High buildings
 Year 2: Increased number of students receiving Tier 2 support
 Did NOT have to wait until they failed or had more extreme behavioral problems!
 Truly PREVENTATIVE!

 Be able to explain an overview of Universal
Screening to a co-worker
 Be able to explain the rationale for including universal screening in your multi-tiered behavioral initiative:
 Benefits
 Concerns
 Briefly describe a district example including outcomes
 Identify a resource for more information on universal screening

 Illinois PBIS Network:
 Search for “Universal Screening”
 http://www.pbisillinois.org/trainings/universalscre ening/presentations
 Florida PBIS: http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/
 National PBIS Technical Assistance Center: www.PBIS.org
 RTI Action Network:
 http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/univers al-screening-within-a-rti-model
 Jessica.swainbradway@pbisillinois.org

Additional Evidence-Based Screening
Instruments
Screener Pros
Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman,
2001) http://www.sdqinfo.org
• Measures internalizing/externalizing behaviors
• Free
• Option of completing pencil and paper, or online version
• Can be scored online
• Technically sound: Large, representative normative group
Cons
• Perceived length of administration time
• Items skewed toward externalizing behaviors
Student Risk Screening Scale
(SRSS; Drummond, 1993)
Social Skills Improvement
System (SSIS; Gresham & Elliott,
2008) http://psychcorp.pearsonassess
ments.com/pai/ca/cahome.htm
• Measures internalizing/externalizing behaviors
• Free
• Quick to administer (less than 5 minutes per student; 15 minutes for entire class, depending upon number of students)
• Easy to understand and interpret score results
• Technically-adequate
• Measures problem behaviors, social and academic competence
• Computer and web-based (AIMSweb) administration and scoring available
• Not as accurate as the SSBD regarding identification of internalizers
• Expensive: Technical manual=$105.60; Rating forms=
$43.75 for package of 25 handscored forms; scoring software=
$270.00; Scanning software=
$640