Feature Article
Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD): Further Validation, Replication, and
Normative Data
Hill M. Walker, Herbert H. Severson, Bonnie J. Todis, Alice E. Block-Pedego, Gregory J. Williams, Norris G. Haring, and Maureen Barckley
The Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) (Walker & Severson, in press) procedure was further evaluated. Two studies are reported in which validation, replication, and normative questions were addressed.
Study 1 was conducted in a suburban Oregon school district in which 15 elementary schools and their teachers participated. Study 2 was conducted in two school
districts, one urban and one suburban, in the state of Washington. The primary focus of Study 1 was upon normative and validity questions (factorial, criterion- related, and discriminant); the primary focus of Study 2 was upon replication and reliability questions. The results of Study 1 produced evidence of the SSBD's validi- ty, as indicated by powerful subject group differences and criterion-related validity coefficients between SSBD
measures and archival school record profiles. The results of Study 2 closely replicated those of Study I and ex- tended the results of Study 1 in two respects. Study 2 included test-retest estimates of SSBD Stage 1 and 2 measures for 40 participating teachers, and an empirical verification of the SSBD system's sensitivity to the
behavioral characteristics of previously certified severely emotionally disturbed (SED) students who were main- streamed into the participating teachers' classrooms.
Future research plans and school applications of the SSBD system and the measures it comprises are also discussed.
P
PROFESSIONALS CONSISTENTLY RANK children with severe behavior disorders as one of the highest service priorities among all children with handicapping conditions currently served by the public school system (Walker & Fabre, 1987). Although prevalence studies estimate that between 2 % and 10% of the public school population is in need of systematic services for nontrivial behavior problems, it is rare for a state to identify, cer- tify, and serve more than 1 % of the school-age popula- tion in any given year (Haring, 1987). In fact, state surveys indicate that the average n u m b e r of students identified as SED usually falls between .30 and .90 of 1%. Based on national survey data, Grosenick (1981) estimates that approximately 750,000 school-age stu- dents w h o are not currently receiving any services what-soever for their behavior problems and disorders would qualify for SED-related services. Thus, the underreferral and evaluation of students in least restrictive settings w h o are at potential risk for developing severe behavior disorders continue to be serious problems within cur- rent educational practice.
The professional literature suggests a n u m b e r of rea- sons w h y students at risk for behavior disorders and the resulting school adjustment failure are consistently under- identified. These include (a) the stigmatizing nature of the SED label; b) problems with the federal definition of SED, incorporated into Public Law 94-142, and the subjectivity involved in certifying whether someone meets these criteria; c) concerns about the costs of specialized services that are required if students are iden- 32
tified and certified; and d) administrative concerns re- lated to overidentification as well as the constraints that come into play when SED-certified students fall under the due process protections built into P.L.94-142 (Kauff- man, 1982, 1987; Morgan & Jenson, 1988). All of these factors contribute to consistent underidentification.
However, in the authors' view, the classroom teacher's role as gatekeeper in the referral process is a critically important factor that has been greatly underestimated in traditional analyses of this problem.
It is apparent that the classroom teacher is an impor- tant link between students who exhibit behavior prob- lems and their access to assessment, intervention, and/or specialized placement. As a rule, school systems allow general class teachers to determine who is referred for evaluation, possible certification, and exposure to avail- able specialized services, through the process of idiosyn- cratic teacher referrals. That is, in order to be referred and to thus access essential evaluation, intervention, and/or placement services, students must first come to the attention of their teacher and be judged as in need of specialized assistance. Analyses of existing school practices in this context indicate that students whose behavior problems are of an externalizing nature (e.g., noncompliance, aggression, teacher defiance, and tan- trums) have the highest probability of such referral (Grosenick, 1981; Noel, 1982). Students with internaliz- ing problems (e.g., depression, social isolation and avoidance, school phobia, affective disturbances) are rarely referred by teachers for their behavior problems even though such students are at serious, long-term developmental risk (Horn & Packard, 1985; Parker &
Asher, 1987; Robbins, 1966). Further, there is evidence that externalizing students with moderate to severe degrees of adjustment impairment are also infrequently referred by their teachers (Garfield, 1974; Grosenick, 1981; Walker, Severson, et al., 1988).
Unfortunately, students at risk for serious behavior problems, of both an externalizing and internalizing nature, will continue to be substantially underidentified and underserved as long as we continue to rely upon idiosyncratic teacher referrals alone to initiate the referral and child study team processes. As an alternative, the authors of this article propose regular and systematic screening of all students in elementary school, with respect to both externalizing and internalizing forms of problematic behavior, as an essential factor in remediat- ing this situation. Screening systems exist that can ac- complish this task with relative precision at both the preschool (Greenwood, Walker, Todd, & Hops, 1979) and the elementary level (Garfield, 1974; Cowan, Peder- son, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Walker, Severson,
& Haring, 1985). However, such systems are conspicuous by their absence within current school-based service delivery practices.
The purpose of this article is to further report on the development and validation of the Systematic Screen- ing for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) procedure. The SSBD
is a three-stage, multiple gating screening system de- signed for the standardized screening and identification of students in Grades 1 to 5 who may be at risk for their externalizing or internalizing behavior disorders (Walker
& Severson, in press). The development and initial trial of the SSBD was reported previously by Walker, Sever- son, et al. (1988). The present article describes two ad- ditional studies of the SSBD: (1) a 1-year field trial in- volving 15 elementary schools and 158 teachers assigned to Grades 1 to 5 within a moderate-sized, suburban school district in Oregon; and (2) a year-long replication of the Oregon field trial in two school districts in the state of Washington, one district suburban and one a large urban district, in which 40 teachers, 216 students, and 54 certified SED mainstreamed students were in- cluded in the sample.
These studies were designed to further investigate the psychometric properties and validity of the instruments composing the SSBD. In addition, the study assessed the extent to which such outcomes were replicable within school district sites located in another state.
The SSBD contains three interrelated and sequential levels of screening. A description and overview of the SSBD procedure and the manner in which it functions are provided in Walker, Severson, et al. (1988). The SSBD is designed to structure and standardize teacher judgments in relation to screening all children in general classroom settings so that each child has an equal prob- ability of being identified for either externalizing or in- ternalizing behavior disorders. A more elaborate rationale underlying the SSBD procedure and psychometric data on the measures comprised by each of the three screen- ing stages are also contained in Walker et al. (1988);
Walker and Severson (in press); Todis, Severson, and Walker (in press); and Walker et al. (in press).
STUDY 1: SSBD OREGON FIELD TRIAL
This study was conducted during the 1986-87 school year and had the following objectives: (1) to field test the SSBD under school district conditions similar to those likely to be in existence when the SSBD is adopted for general use; (2) to initiate the process of building norms for the SSBD Stage 2 and 3 instruments; (3) to assess relationships between SSBD Stage 1,2, and 3 measures and student status on archival school record variables; and (4) to establish normative cutoff points on SSBD measures for advancing from Stage 2 to Stage 3 and from Stage 3 to referral to a child study team.
Method
Settings/SubjectsThe cooperating school district was located in Spring- field, Oregon, which has a suburban population of 40,500. Schools in this district are made up primarily
of Anglo students; minority group members constitute approximately 3% of the school-age population. Socio- economic status (SES) levels were quite diverse within each of the district's 15 elementary schools. However, approximately 40% of the district's students came from homes classified as low SES and 33% of all elementary school students in the district are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Subjects for this study were 158 participating teachers and students in their classes, in Grades 1 to 5, located within 15 elementary schools of the cooperating school district. The average class size in the district was 25 students.
Procedure
All but 12 of the school district's 170 elementary teachers participated in completing the SSBD Stage 1 and 2 screening procedures. This 93%) participation rate was due primarily to the school district's active sponsorship of this research study. Each elementary principal agreed that his or her school would participate; however, teacher participation was not mandatory. The authors presented the study and the corresponding teacher tasks at a faculty meeting at each school. Each participating teacher was paid for the time invested in completing the study tasks, which required approximately an hour and a half of non- school time.
Stage 1 Procedures. In SSBD screening Stage 1, teachers created two mutually exclusive lists of students (n = 10 each) whose characteristic behavior patterns, in the teacher's judgement, most closely matched the ex- ternalizing and internalizing behavioral profiles pro- vided. Next, each teacher rank ordered the students within both lists, from 1 to 10, according to the degree to which their behavior patterns actually matched or ap- proximated either externalizing or internalizing behavioral profiles provided to them as part of the Stage 1 ranking tasks.
Stage 2 Procedures. Teachers were then instructed to rate the top three externalizers and top three inter- nalizers from Stage 1 on two instruments designed to (a) produce frequency estimates of specific forms of adaptive and maladaptive behavior and (b) provide a basis for normatively separating more severe from less severe students on the externalizing and internalizing behavioral dimensions. These instruments were a 23- item Likert rating scale of adaptive and maladaptive behavior and a 33-item Critical Events Index (Walker &
Severson, in press). Appendix A contains sample items from these instruments.
The Critical Events Index is a checklist that samples highly salient but very low-frequency behavioral pin- points that may severely impair a student's adjustment with teachers and peers. In responding to this instru- ment, the teacher indicates whether the event has oc- curred by responding present or absent. The Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior rating scale consists of 12 34
adaptive and 11 maladaptive items, respectively, assess- ing both peer- and adult-related forms of adjustments, which the teacher rates on a 5-point frequency scale.
In addition to rating the top three ranked externalizers and internalizers from Stage 1 lists, teachers were asked to randomly select two unranked comparison students (a boy and a girl who did not appear on either list in Stage 1) and rate their status on these Stage 2 instruments.
Stage 3 Procedures. A sample of four students was selected from each of the 97 participating classrooms, as targets for direct observation in two settings (class- room and playground) using the SSBD Stage 3 observa- tion codes. Due to limited resources, students were observed in only 8 of the 15 participating schools. From each classroom, parental permission was sought to con- duct observations of the top-ranked externalizer, the top- ranked internalizer, and the two unranked comparison students. If parental consent was denied for observation of the top-ranked externalizer or internalizer, permission was sought from parents of the second-ranked student.
Signed consent forms were returned for 88 externalizers (50 first-ranked and 38 second-ranked) and 83 internal- izers (53 first-ranked and 30 second-ranked). Parental consent was not sought for students ranked lower than second on either the externalizing or internalizing dimensions.
A total of 142 of 194 consent forms were returned for the nonranked students. In 23 cases, consent was not received to observe a nonranked student; in those instances, teachers nominated another nonranked stu- dent. Thus, a total of 165 nonranked students (79 male and 86 female) were observed. The total number of sub- jects observed using the SSBD Stage 3 observation codes was 336 (i.e., 88 externalizers, 83 internalizers, and 165 nonranked students).
Observations. Each selected student was observed on four occasions: twice in the classroom and twice dur- ing recess periods on the playground. Observers were blind as to the group membership of all the participating study subjects. Classroom observations were 15 minutes in length and occurred primarily during independent seatwork reading, mathematics, and language arts periods and when the classroom activities did not involve group responding. A duration, stopwatch recording method was used to code academic engagement for each sub- ject during classroom observations (see Appendix B for a definition of this variable). The stopwatch ran when- ever the subject was academically engaged, and was stopped whenever nonengagement occurred. At the end of the observation period, the time on the stopwatch was divided by the time observed and multiplied by 100 to obtain an estimate of Academic Engaged Time (AET).
Playground observations were also 15 minutes long and were recorded under free play conditions at recess using a 10-second interval Peer Social Behavior (PSB) observation code. Observations were not recorded dur-
ing any playground activities organized or controlled by an adult, although the target subjects sometimes engaged in organized games with other children (kickball, soccer, etc.) Appendix B contains abbreviated definitions of the code categories contained in the PSB code used in re- cording playground observations.
Observer Training Procedures. Eleven observers were formally trained on the SSBD Stage 3 observation codes by the third author, who served as observer coor- dinator throughout the study. Each observer received from 4 to 6 hours of training, beginning with an observer training manual that described the coding process, code category definitions, coding examples, and guidelines.
Observer training, calibration, and monitoring pro- cedures were identical to those reported in Walker, Severson, et al. (1988) for the SSBD. The average percen- tage agreement levels between observers and the calibrator were 96% for the AET code (range = 84% to 100%) and 88% for the PSB code (range = 80% to 100%). Reliability checks were conducted for 10.5% of the total AET observations (N = 386) and for 16.3% of the total PSB observations (TV =386).
School Archival Record Search (SARS) Proce- dures. In addition to teacher rankings, ratings, and direct observations, systematic archival school record searches were conducted for each observed subject.
Using a record search and coding procedure developed by Walker, Block, Todis, Barckley, and Severson (1988), six project observers, still blind to the group member- ship status of the subjects, used the SARS recording form to code the school files of each subject. Intercoder reli- ability for the total SARS recording procedure was 96%, with a range of 94%) to 100% (Walker et al., in press).
As part of this process, school record files were ex- amined for student status on a standard list of 10 SARS variables, including within- and out-of-school referrals, disciplinary contacts with the principal, attendance, achievement, retentions, special education certification, receiving Chapter I services, and whether students were assigned to non-general-classroom placements (resource, self-contained classrooms) for any part of the school day.
Finally, classroom teachers were asked to indicate for each subject in their classrooms the approximate level of the student's academic functioning and the type and frequency of disciplinary actions required for that child.
The SARS provides a method for systematically assess- ing a student's school history and also provides an overall student profile on three factorially derived dimen- sions (disruption, needs assistance, and low achieve- ment), as well as individual student status on the 10 SARS variables. The SARS was developed and initially tested on a sample of 307 cases in Oregon and later replicated on a sample of 216 cases in Washington (see Walker, Severson, et al., in press). SARS data were used as a criterion-related variable in this investigation to partially validate selected SSBD measures.
Results
Results are presented below in two major sections:
descriptive outcomes and validity. Descriptive outcomes are presented by each SSBD screening stage and for the SARS record searches.
Descriptive Outcomes
Stage 1. The gender ratio of the students assigned to the Stage 1 externalizing and internalizing lists differed markedly. The group membership for externalizers con- sisted of 256 males and 59 females (81 % vs. 19%). For internalizers, group membership consisted of 149 males and 157 females (49% vs. 51%).
Stage 2. Table 1 contains average scale mean scores and standard deviations for all three subject groups on the Stage 2 instruments and for each of the three sub- ject groups broken down by gender. The number of cases on which each group mean score is based is also provided.
These results closely replicated prior average score levels in research on the SSBD reported by Walker, Severson, et al. (1988). Statistical analysis of mean dif- ferences among the three subject groups on the Critical Events Checklist and the Adaptive/Maladaptive Rating Scales using separate one-factor ANOVAs Scheffe post hoc tests indicated that (a) means for comparison sub- jects were statistically different from those for both ex- ternalizers and internalizers (p< .01), and (b) means for externalizers were significantly different from those for internalizers (p<.01). The resulting F ratios for the ANOVAs conducted for the three SSBD Stage 2 instru- ments were as follows: Critical Events Index: F(2,853) =
163.62, p < . 0 0 1 ; Adaptive Behavior Rating Scale:
F(2,850) = 500.51, p < .001; and Maladaptive Behavior Rating Scale: F(2,821) = 596.97, p <.001. The corre- sponding omega-squared coefficients for the one-way ANOVAs conducted for these analyses were, respectively,
.28, .54, and .59.
The Critical Events Checklist had an average of three items checked for each externalizer; just under two items checked for each internalizer; and only one item checked, on the average, for every 10 comparison subjects. The Adaptive Behavior Scale items registered the lowest average scores for externalizers (36.50), followed by in- ternalizers (44.78). Comparison subjects had the highest adaptive scale score, averaging 55.43. Similarly, exter- nalizers had the highest average scale scores on the maladaptive items (30.65), followed by internalizers (18.62) and comparison students (13.52). Minor gender differences can be noted in Table 1 on the Stage 2 in- struments for the three groups. However, these differ- ences were negligible.
Stage 3- ANOVAs and Scheffe post hoc tests were also used to assess for the presence of statistically signifi-
35
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Stage 2 Instruments for Subject Groups in Oregon Sample
cant mean differences on the SSBD Stage 3 observation codes, as well as selected combinations of these code categories. Statistically significant mean differences were obtained on the academically engaged time (AET) class- room observations for the subject groups. Comparison subjects (n = 153) were on task an average of 77.7% of observed time (SD = 13.7%), while internalizers (n = 75) were on task 73.1 % (S£>= 15.2%), and externalizers (n = 70), 65% (SD = 18.1 %) of the time observed. The F ratio for the AET ANOVA was JF(2,31 1) = 17.28, p<
.001; the omega-squared coefficient for this analysis was .09. The mean difference between comparison students and externalizers was significant a t p < . 0 1 , as was the mean difference between comparison students and in- ternalizers, p< .05. The mean difference between exter- nalizers and internalizers was not statistically significant.
Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for the three subject groups on the PSB code that was used to record playground observations,
Inspection of Table 2 reveals that statistically signifi- cant differences were obtained on 9 of the 11 PSB vari- ables listed. No significant differences were found on the variables of total social interaction and no codable response. At least one significant difference was found on the nine remaining variables among the three subject groups. The corresponding F ratios for these analyses ranged from 6.03 (social engagement, p< .002) to 17.99 (negative social interaction, p< .001). The omega-squared coefficients are listed in order of the SSBD variables for which significant differences were obtained.
As a general rule, the obtained differences were in ex-
pected directions. Externalizers, for example, showed a very high level of participation in games and activities at recess, compared to internalizers and normal com- parison students. They also had lower rates of positive social exchanges with peers and engaged in more nega- tive behavior than did subjects in either of the other sub- ject groups. The negative behavior rate for externalizers was approximately three times that for the other two groups. In contrast, internalizers were less socially en- gaged than other groups and spent significantly more time alone and in parallel play.
A number of gender differences were noted on the PSB variables and on teacher ratings of adaptive be- havior. Significance tests, using t tests, were conducted to detect for the presence of gender differences on all 15 SSBD Stage 1,2, and 3 variable measures using data for normal comparison students. For the PSB variables, the ns for the two groups approximated 78 each; for the adaptive behavior scale ratings, the ns approximated 116 each. Significant gender differences exceedingp<
.05 were obtained for the following PSB variables; social engagement, participation, total social interaction, positive interaction, and total negative behavior. Signifi-
cant differences were also found (p<.005) for Stage 2 adaptive behavior ratings. Girls were socially engaged more often than boys, participated in structured games and activities less at recess, interacted more, engaged in more positive social behavior and less total negative behavior, and were rated more positively than boys by teachers in their adaptive behavior.
Two-factor ANOVAs were conducted to test for the 36
Table 2. Peer Social Behavior: Means and Standard Deviations for Code Categories by Subject Group
aExtemalizers vs. Comparison students p<.05. blnternalizers vs.
presence of gender by group interaction effects. Levels of the factors were, respectively, Factor 1 (male versus female) and Factor 2 (externalizing, internalizing, and comparison) students. Separate analyses were conducted for each of the 15 variable measures derived from SSBD Stages 1,2, and 3. No statistically significant group by gender interactions were obtained for any of these analyses.
Using the data from this sample, the authors con- structed normative cutoff points for externalizers and internalizers to serve as exit criteria for SSBD Stages 2 and 3- For externalizers, a critical events scale score equal to or greater than 4 or a critical events score of 1 or more and an adaptive scale score of less than 35 and a mal- adaptive scale score greater than 30 define the criteria for passing Gate 2. For internalizers, these levels were a critical events score equal to or greater than 4 or critical events score greater than 1 a?id an adaptive scale score of less than 44 and a maladaptive score greater than 14.
For externalizers in Stage 3, a combined criterion of positive interaction equal to or less than 79% and
negative interaction equal to or greater than 2 % defines a passing exit criterion. For internalizers, a combined score of alone and parallel play of at least 20% results in a passing score. In addition, an academic engaged time score of 50% or less resulted in an alternate route for passing Gate 3 for both externalizers and internal- izers. Application of these exit criteria will identify ap- proximately one externalizing student and one internal- izing student about every three classrooms who, in the authors' estimation, warrant further evaluation by a child
;. Comparison students p<.05. cExternalizers vs. Internalizers p<.05.
study team or evaluation specialist.
The rationale for setting SSBD exit criteria so as to identify approximately one externalizer and one inter- nalize every three classrooms is based upon evidence relating to the number of students actually certified and the number judged to be at risk by experts and those estimated via national surveys (see Grosenick, 1981;
Kauffman, 1982, 1987). As reviewed above, it is general- ly agreed that 2 % to 3 % of the school-age population could qualify as seriously behaviorally disordered, yet states average approximately .50 of 1%) of the school- age population certified and served as behavior dis- ordered (Forness, 1989; Haring, 1987). The exit criteria set for the SSBD identify approximately 2% to 3% of the school-age population divided evenly between ex- ternalizers and internalizers. Further, those students who are identified consistently manifest serious behavioral adjustment problems as indicated by SSBD measures and confirmed by archival school records (Walker, Block, et al., 1988).
School Archival Record Search (SARS) Outcomes.
Table 3 contains results of the archival record search data for the three subject groups on the 10 individual SARS variables. Chi-square tests of the differences between proportions, conducted on all of the SARS variables ex- cept achievement, indicated highly significant differ- ences among the subject groups for each variable (p<
.01). The profiles of the three groups on each of the variables showed much more favorable status for nor- mal comparison students than for the other two sub-
Table 3. Externalizing, Internalizing, and Normal Comparison Subjects on SARS Variables for the Oregon Sample
Note. p<.01 for all SARS variables on all chi-square group com ject groups. The SARS profile for externalizers was clear- ly the most problematic of the three groups, indicating very serious adjustment problems as well as academic performance problems. The profiles for internalizers were less serious than for externalizers but still indicated less than adequate adjustment to the demands of the school setting, both academically and socially.
A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences among the subject groups on their total achievement test scores. The resulting F ratio, F(2,304) = 41.40, p< .001, was highly significant and indicated that both external- izers and internalizers had significantly lower total achievement levels than comparison students. Omega- squared for this analysis was .21.
These results document the continuing and serious problems that children at risk for either externalizing and internalizing behavior disorders experience in school.
Internalizers are not usually regarded by school profes- sionals as being at elevated risk in a developmental or educational sense in the same way that externalizers are.
However, these results suggest that internalizers exper- ience serious problems that could clearly affect their ultimate school success and long-term development. It should also be noted that all of these students were enrolled for the majority of the school day in general classroom settings. Presumably, there are students assigned to more restrictive school settings whose record search profiles would be even more problematic than those of the subjects in the current study.
Validity
Three forms of construct validity were investigated in this study. These were factorial, criterion-related, and discriminant. Each is described below.
Factorial Validity. Principal components factor analysis procedures, using a varimax rotation, were used to investigate the factor structure of both the SSBD Stage 2 adaptive/maladaptive rating scale and the SARS. It was
parisons.
expected that the adaptive and maladaptive rating scales would collectively assess the two primary forms of school adjustment required of all students (i.e., peer related and teacher related) (Walker & Fabre, 1987).
Two factors emerged from the rating scale analysis that provided confirmation of this expectation. Factor 1, which was very dominant in the overall structure, con- sisted of scale items that define school adjustment ac- cording to adult expectations, while the content of Factor 2 seemed to clearly focus on peer relations. This outcome is not surprising, given the content of the items comprised by the Adaptive and Maladaptive Rating Scales. The eigenvalues for Factors 1 and 2 were, respec- tively, 12.1 and 2.3. Together, these two factors ac- counted for 62% of the variance (i.e., 52% and 10%, respectively).
The 10 individual variables of the SARS were factor analyzed and yielded three factors, with eigenvalues of greater than 1, that collectively accounted for a total of 61 % of the variance. These factors were labeled Needs Assistance, Disruption, and Low Achievement. The cor-
responding eigenvalues for these factors were 3-32, 1.53, and 1.23. Table 4 contains the results of this analysis, with the factor loadings of each SARS variable displayed for each of the factors.
The SARS variable loadings on the three factors are robust and show a general pattern of loading strongly on one factor and weakly or negatively on the other fac- tors. The three factors each define relevant dimensions of schooling and adjustment; that is, the student displays disruptive, noncompliant behavior that is unacceptable to school personnel (labeled Disruption); the student is in need of and receiving specialized services and/or placements to remediate deficits and problems of a non- disruptive nature (labeled Needs Assistance); and the stu- dent is experiencing academic and achievement-related problems in school (labeled Low Achievement). These factorial dimensions appear to be consistent with pub- lished studies that document the behavioral adjustment problems of students with externalizing and internaliz- ing behavior disorders (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978).
Table 4. SARS Factor Loadinas
Factor score profiles on these factorial dimensions were calculated for students in the three subject groups and are displayed in Figure 1.
These profiles suggest that (a) externalizers, as ex- pected, are at risk for both disruptive behavior and achievement problems; (b) internalizers, somewhat sur- prisingly, appear to be equally at risk for low achieve- ment and receive a number of special school services for remediation of their deficits and problems; and (c) comparison students appear not to be at risk in any of the domains defined by the three factors. It is note- worthy that, although externalizers are clearly disrup- tive to the school setting and are perceived as such by most school personnel, they receive comparatively few services for remediation of their problems when com- pared with internalizing students.
Criterion-Related Validity. The authors were in terested in assessing the extent to which subjects' status on the three factorially derived SARS dimensions, as in- dicated by their factor score profiles, could be predicted from SSBD Stage 1, 2, and 3 variable measures. Separate regression analyses were conducted using each of the SARS factors as criterion variables and selected SSBD Stage 1, 2, and 3 measures as predictor variables. The SSBD predictor variables used in each of these analyses are listed below according to the rank order of their part correlations with the dependent variable. Each predic- tor variable is designated as 1, 2, or 3 in parentheses to indicate whether it was derived from SSBD Stage 1,2, or 3 measures. Disruption: Total positive behavior (3), frequency or rate of positive social interaction with peers (3), percentage of recess time spent participating in struc- tured games and activities (3), externalizing teacher rank- ing (1), time spent alone on the playground (3), and teacher ratings of adaptive behavior (2). Needs Assis- tance: Teacher Tatings of critical behavioral events (2), internalizing teacher ranking (1), time spent alone on the playground (3), total negative behavior at recess (3), and externalizing factor scores derived from teacher ratings (2). Low Achievement: Internalizing factor scores de-
rived from teacher ratings (2), externalizing factor scores derived from teacher ratings (2), academic engaged time during teacher-allocated instructional periods (3), teacher ratings of critical behavioral events (2), and total negative behavior at recess (3). These SSBD variables were the best predictors for the respective SARS dimensions of all the variables (N= 15) derived from the SSBD Stage 1,2, and 3 measures.
The multiple correlations between SSBD predictor variables and status on the three factorial criterion variables were .50 for Disruption, .43 for Needs Assis- tance, and .54 for Low Achievement. The respective R squares of these correlations are .25, .19, and .29, which are relatively low in terms of variance accounted for.
Across subject groups, the best predictor variables varied for each of the three SARS factors and represented an interesting combination of SSBD Stage 1 (teacher rank- ings), Stage 2 (teacher ratings), and Stage 3 (direct obser- vations recorded in playground and instructional settings) measures. Overall, the multiple correlations provide some evidence for the ability of the SSBD measures to predict subjects1 status on independently recorded cri-
1 5 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
~| Disruption Needs Assistance Low Achievement
1.0 J
H -7 0
X -5 0
0.5 J \ .38
\ S* / ^
8 x s' x A2
% o.o J . A , ^L
-.41
-1.0 J
E Externalizer I * Intemalizer .! 5 J " Normal Control
Figure 1. SARS factor score profiles of externalizing, internalizing, and comparison students.
39
terion variables derived from archival school records.
However, it is clear that other factors, not measured by the SSBD, substantially account for status on these ar- chival variables as well.
Discriminant Validity. Two indications of the dis- criminant validity of the SSBD screening system were provided in this study by (a) the ability of the SSBD Stage 2 and 3 measures to correctly classify the group mem- bership assignments of study subjects by teachers in screening Stage 1, and (b) the existence of statistically significant differences on Stage 2 and 3 measures for first- versus second-ranked students in screening Stage 1.
Overall, the SSBD Stage 2 and 3 measures correctly classified 84.69% of the three subject groups selected by their teachers in screening Stage 1 using a discrimi- nant function analysis procedure. A total of 142 of 150 (95%) comparison subjects, who were nonranked in Stage 1, (i.e., students who did not appear on either of the externalizing [TV = 10] or internalizing [TV = 10] teacher rank ordering lists) were correctly classified, with 2 mis- classified as externalizers and 6 misclassified as internal- izes. Similarly, 56 of 69 (81%) externalizers were correctly classified, with 4 misclassified as normal com- parison students and 9 misclassified as internalizers.
Finally, 51 of 75 (68%) internalizers were correctly classified, with 13 misclassified as comparison students and 11 misclassified as externalizers. Overall, this level of classification accuracy far exceeds chance levels. As expected, the measures were least successful in correctly classifying internalizers whose behavioral characteristics have less salience, as a rule, for adult raters and observers and overlap more closely with those of normal students.
Three teacher rating variables and two observation codes discriminated among the first- and second-ranked externalizers, while two teacher rating variables and one observation code category discriminated first- and second- ranked internalizers. Independent t tests were used to assess significant differences for variables derived from SSBD Stages 1,2, and 3. All of the differences obtained (p<.()5) were in the predicted directions and favored the highest ranked subjects. For externalizing subjects, the discriminating variables were critical behavioral events, adaptive behavior ratings, maladaptive be- havior ratings, parallel play, and total positive behavior.
For internalizing subjects, the discriminating variables were critical behavioral events, adaptive behavior 40
ratings, and participating in structured games and ac- tivities at recess. These results provide evidence of the sensitivity of teacher ranking judgments, wherein first- ranked students, as a group, were significantly less well adjusted than second-ranked students on both teacher rating and direct observational measures.
STUDY 2: WASHINGTON SSBD FIELD TRIAL
The authors conducted a second field trial and replica- tion study in the state of Washington during the 1986-87 school year. The objectives of this study were fourfold:
(1) to assess the sensitivity of the SSBD system to the behavioral characteristics of previously certified but fully mainstreamed behavior disordered students in the ele- mentary age range; (2) to assess the temporal stability of the SSBD screening Stages 1 and 2; (3) to replicate normative levels on the SSBD Stage 2 and 3 measures and the SARS for externalizing, internalizing, and nor- mal comparison elementary students; and (4) to establish preliminary normative levels for certified behavior disor- dered (BD) students on the SSBD Stage 2 and 3 measures.
Method
Subjects/SettingsA total of 40 elementary teachers and their students in Grades 1 to 6, from 17 cooperating elementary schools in two school districts in the greater metropolitan area of Tacoma, Washington, served as subjects in this study.
Each of the 40 teachers had at least one student who had been previously certified as severely behavior dis- ordered (SBD) (N= 54). The 40 classrooms included 3 first grades, 5 second grades, 5 third grades, 11 fourth grades, 10 fifth grades, 3 sixth grades, and one each of the following combined classes: first-second, third- fourth, and fourth-fifth. Teachers were not blind to the status of the SBD students as previously certified by a child study team; however, they were unaware that they had been deliberately selected for participation in the study because an SBD student was assigned to their class- room. The total N for this study was 270, which com- prised high-ranked externalizers and internalizers, non- ranked comparison students, and certified SBD students.
Procedure
All 40 teachers completed SSBD screening Stages 1 and 2 on two occasions, separated by 1 month, and were paid for their participation. SARS record searches were also conducted for the top-ranked externalizer and internalizer in each class, for one male and one female student who did not appear on either Stage 1 ranking list(s) (nonranked comparison group), and for the cer-
tified SBD students, regardless of their rankings on SSBD Stage 1.
The SARS record searches were conducted indepen- dently by the fifth author and a research assistant. Paren- tal consent was not solicited prior to conducting the record searches. These searches were sanctioned by the
1973 Family Right to Privacy Act (the Buckley Amend- ment), which gives permission to researchers to access student records in constructing and validating instru- ments used for predictive purposes. The fifth author had routine access to student files in his capacity as a teacher trainer and behavior disorders specialist. Safeguards for the subjects1 confidentiality were strictly observed.
Names were eliminated from the SARS record search forms and only subject numbers were used.
Results
Results are presented below in relation to each of the four objectives of the Washington field trial.
Objective 1
This objective concerned the sensitivity of the SSBD Stage 1 screening procedures in identifying the certified SBD students who were assigned to the 40 teachers' classes. Teachers assigned all 54 SBD students to either the externalizing (n = 45) or internalizing (n = 9) rank order lists. In terms of their actual rank orders, 39 of 45 externalizers were ranked by their teachers as among the top 3 students on the externalizing list (out of 10 total students assigned to the list). In contrast, all nine internalizing students appeared among the top three highest ranked students on the internalizing list. These results speak well for the sensitivity of the SSBD Stage 1 procedures in identifying students with known his- tories of behavioral adjustment problems in school.
Objective 2
This objective dealt with the temporal stability of the SSBD Stage 1 and 2 measures. The mean test-retest rank order correlations (rhos) on the externalizing and inter- nalizing teacher rank ordering lists (N= 10), for a 1- month interval, were .79 and .72, respectively. On the externalizing rank ordering task, individual teacher rank order correlations ranged from - .16 to .96, while for the internalizing task, these correlations ranged from - .07 to .92. Eighty-eight percent of the 40 participating teachers had test-retest rhos greater than .45. In a re- analysis of the data, the authors excluded two teachers from the sample whose rhos were negative ( - .16 and - .07) and treated them as outliers. The average exter- nalizing rho improved to .88 and the average internaliz- ing rho improved to .74 in this reanalysis.
A chi-square analysis was used to assess the stability of the group membership of students assigned to the
top three ranks on the externalizing and internalizing lists from Time 1 to Time 2. The resulting chi-squares were statistically significant well beyond p< .01 for the exter-
nalizing and internalizing proportions.
Person r's were computed from Time 1 to Time 2 for the SSBD Stage 2 rating instruments completed by the 40 teachers on two occasions, separated by approxi- mately a 1-month interval. For the Critical Events Index, the correlation was .81; for the Adaptive Behavior Rating Scale, the correlation was .90; and for the Maladaptive Behavior Rating Scale, the correlation was .87. These correlations were all statistically significant at p<.0\.
Overall, these results for the temporal stability of SSBD Stage 1 and 2 instruments were encouraging. They sug- gest that teachers are capable of making relatively stable judgments regarding child behavioral attributes using these measures.
Objective 3
This objective dealt with replication of normative levels on the SSBD Stage 2 instruments for the three sub- ject groups of externalizers, internalizers, and compari- son students. These mean levels closely replicated those for subjects from the Oregon site as reported in Study 1, as well as for subjects in the initial trial testing of the SSBD (see Walker, Severson, et al., 1988). Separate one- factor ANOVAs with post hoc Scheffe tests were used to assess the significance of mean differences among the subject groups on the three Stage 2 instruments for sub- jects from the Washington sample (TV =270). Levels of the single between-groups factor were externalizing, in- ternalizing, and normal comparison subjects. The F ratios for the Critical Events Index, the Adaptive Behavior Rating Scale, and the Maladaptive Behavior Rating Scale were, respectively, F(2,267) = 77.97, p< .001; F(2,267) = 152.00, p < . 0 0 1 ; and F(2,267) = 214.93, p < . 0 0 1 . Omega-squared coefficients for these analyses were, respectively, .34, .47, and .56. These F ratios were statistically significant well beyond chance expectations.
Further, post hoc Scheffe tests indicated that all mean differences for the three subject groups exceeded chance expectations (p<.05) on each of the three Stage 2 in- struments (i.e., Critical Events Checklist, Adaptive Be- havior Rating Scale, and Maladaptive Behavior Rating
41
Scale). In each case, statistically significant differences were found between externalizers and comparison stu- dents, between internalizers and comparison students, and between externalizers and internalizers on these instruments.
Table 5 contains profiles for the three subject groups on the 10 SARS variables. All 10 SARS variables signifi- cantly discriminated the three subject groups a t p < .01.
As with the Oregon site SARS data (see Study 1, Table 3), chi-square analyses were used to assess the signifi- cance of the differences among proportions for the three groups; however, a single factor ANOVA was computed to evaluate group differences for the three subject groups on the achievement variable. The F ratio for this analysis was /7(2,212) = 23.84, p < . 0 1 . Omega-squared for this analysis was .05. These outcomes consistently replicated the SARS results from the Oregon site.
Objective 4
This objective focused on establishing normative levels on SSBD Stage 2 measures for students previously certified as severely behaviorally disordered. Table 6 contains mean scores for the SBD students on whom complete Stage 2 data were available.
Normative levels on each of the Stage 2 measures in- dicated relatively more problematic adjustment status for the SBD students than for either the externalizing or in- ternalizing subject groups within both the Washington and Oregon Site samples. In spite of this finding, a total of 12 SBD students did not meet exit criteria, established by the authors, for passing SSBD screening Stage 2. This result suggests that the exit criteria set by the authors may actually be too stringent and underinclusive of students who could benefit from more comprehensive
Table 5. SARS Record Search Profiles for Externalizing, Internalizing, and Normal Comparison Subjects on Individual Variables for the Washington Sample
Note. p<.01 for all SARS variables.
Table 6. Normative Levels for Certified SBD Students on Stage 2 Measures
42
evaluations, possible certification and/or placement, and exposure to an array of school-based intervention ser- vices. An alternative explanation would argue that the SSBD procedure found some SBD students who did not qualify to receive services via regular school certifica- tion procedures, or that their behavior patterns in the current mainstream setting were now similar to that of their peers.
Discussion
Overall, the results of these field trials of the SSBD screening system are encouraging. Nearly all findings from the initial trial test of the SSBD, as reported in Walker, Severson, et al. (1988), were collectively repli- cated across the two field sites. The number of subjects (teachers and students) was much larger in the present investigation than in the initial trial testing of the SSBD (see Walker, Severson, et al., 1988). The present results are considered by the authors to be more robust and to considerably extend the previous SSBD findings, via replication and larger, more representative samples.
The psychometric characteristics of the instruments comprised by SSBD screening Stages, 1,2, and 3 and the SARS appear to be quite adequate. These instruments have proven to have acceptable levels of reliability, are cost-efficient in terms of the time required to administer them, and are highly sensitive in discriminating exter- nalizing, internalizing, comparison, and certified SBD students from each other. Results of the two studies re- ported herein enlarge the empirical data base support- ing the SSBD's technical adequacy.
The findings relating to the reliability and discriminant power of the SARS were especially gratifying because archival school records are generally a less reactive source of information about student behavioral attributes than is information supplied by current social agents (peers, teachers). The SARS can also serve as a fourth level of screening and as a vehicle to assess the student's school history in a systematic and empirical manner.
This instrument may ultimately prove to have broad applicability to a number of research questions and decision-making processes commonly encountered in the context of schooling (Walker et al., in press). It may also have applicability as a screening tool for predicting later adjustment problems and school drop out.
The multiple correlations between SSBD predictor variables and SARS criterion status measures (i.e., Disrup- tion, Needs Assistance, Low Achievement) provide evi- dence for the criterion-related validity of the SSBD system. However, only low to moderate amounts of variance were accounted for in SARS factor scores by the SSBD measures. It is likely that student status on the SARS is multiply determined. It would be interesting to know the extent to which sociometric measures and teacher ratings of student social skills would improve the amount of variance accounted for in this regard. The
authors are currently in the process of conducting a study to answer these and related questions with respect to the SSBD (Severson et al., 1989).
To date, normative data on the SSBD Stage 2 and 3 measures have been collected under standardized field test conditions in 20 school districts and 10 states dis- tributed across the four U.S. census zones. By the end of 1989, the SSBD system authors expect to have a com- plete normative data base on these measures that will approximate 5,000 cases on the SSBD Stage 2 measures and 1,300 cases on the Stage 3 measures in Grades 1 to 5. An SSBD user's manual will be produced that con- tains application guidelines, decision criteria, and infor- mation relating to the technical adequacy of the SSBD.
It is expected that these materials will facilitate easier adoption of the SSBD screening system for normal use within school district settings. The complete SSBD pack- age will be available for distribution in early 1990 (Walker
& Severson, in press).
The authors are continuing to research the technical adequacy and social validity of the SSBD. In spite of the positive findings on the SSBD that have been produced to date by the authors and others (e.g., Nicholson, 1988), considerable research is required and a large number of unanswered questions persist concerning conditions of the SSBD's use and its acceptability to potential users.
Social validity and consumer satisfaction issues are of critical importance in this regard. These questions are being pursued as part of the authors' normative and field-testing research efforts on the SSBD.
There are some limitations associated with the pres- ent findings that are important to note. First, the authors are not able to say at this time that students who have problematic profiles on the SSBD and/or SARS instru- ments will manifest such patterns during future school years. Further, the specific outcomes that such profiles predict over the long term are not clear in a longitudinal sense. These are both issues of critical import to the evaluation of any screening system's efficacy, including the SSBD. Third, the analyses reported herein are based upon highly selective student groups; as a result, the magnitude of the obtained differences among groups as well as the magnitude of relationships reported between measures are no doubt inflated. Therefore, caution should be used in generalizing these results to the full range of students within public school settings. Finally, it is clear that teacher ratings of subjects' status on the SSBD Stage 2 instruments powerfully discriminated the three subject groups. However, it should be noted that teachers were unavoidably aware of the group member- ship status of each subject they rated on the Stage 2 in- struments. This bias no doubt contributed to the magni- tude of the group differences obtained. However, it was a factor over which the authors could exercise no con- trol, due to the interdependent nature of the ranking/
rating relationships between SSBD Stages 1 and 2.
The authors view the role and functions of the SSBD as essentially neutral in relation to the current heated 43
debate over the need for special education reform in the areas of referral, certification, placement, and service delivery. Regardless of h o w and where specialized be- havioral or academic services are delivered to the SBD population, someone has to make a judgment regarding the specific students w h o may be in need of such evalua- tion and/or services. Historically, w e have relied primari- ly on idiosyncratic teacher judgments and referrals to accomplish this goal. The SSBD has the potential to make this process substantially m o r e objective, system- atic, and precise, regardless of the context in which it occurs and irrespective of one's pro or c o n position regarding the Regular Education Initiative. It is h o p e d that the regular and systematic screening of all students in the elementary age/grade range will ultimately result in the delivery of substantially m o r e and better services across the full range of school settings. *±
Hill M. Walker, PhD, is a professor of special education and associate dean of the Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, College of Education, University of Oregon. His research in- terests include assessment and intervention in school-related behavior disorders, mainstreaming and social integration, and social skills training.
Herbert H. S e v e r s o n , PhD, is a research scientist at the Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon.
His areas of professional interest include behavioral assessment, behavior disorders, prevention of drug use, cessation of tobacco use, perception of risk, and identification of at-risk children. B o n n i e J.
Todis, PhD, is a project coordinator at the Oregon Research Institute in Eugene and is a graduate of the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Special Education and Rehabilitation at the University of Oregon. She is a co-author of two social skills instructional programs, ACCEPTS (for elementary students) and ACCESS (for secondary students). Her interests include qualitative research methods, social skills training, and research on self-esteem and self-efficacy among individuals with disabili- ties. Alice E. B l o c k - P e d e g o , MA, is currently completing her PhD in special education/behavior disorders at the University of Oregon. Her areas of professional interest include behavior disorders, early identification of at-risk children, behavioral assessment, and intervention with behavior
problems and behavioral consultation. G r e g o r y J.
Williams, PhD, is assistant professor of education, special education, at Pacific Lutheran University,
Tacoma, Washington. His interests include assess- ment and management of students with behavior disorders, social skill instruction with behavior- disordered adolescents, and SBD program evalua- tion development. Norris G. Haring, EdD, is professor of education, special education, at the
University of Washington in Seattle. His interests include assessment and management of students 44
with severe behavior disorders and studying strategies for facilitating generalization and transi- tion with severely handicapped students. M a u r e e n B a r c k l e y , MS, is a research programmer analyst at Oregon Research Institute in Eugene. She has a master's degree in mathematics from the University of Oregon, and her interests are in statistical analysis.
Authors' Note
This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Depart- ment of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Grant No. 008630137.
References
Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 275-301.
Garfield, S. (1974). The development of a teacher referral form for identifying early school maladaptation. American jour- nal of Community Psychology, 2, 199-210.
Cowan, E.L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L.D., & Trost, M.A. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulner- able children, journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychol- ogy, 41, 438-446.
Forness, S. (1989, April). The current status of programming and services for students with serious behavior disorders.
Testimony presented before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped in support of the 1989 reauthorization of the EHA.
Greenwood, C , Walker, H.M., Todd, N., & Hops, H. (1979).
SAMPLE (Social Assessment for Preschool Level). (Available from CHD Publications, Center on Human Development, Clinical Services Bldg., University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403).
Grosenick, J. (1981). Public school and mental health services to severely behavior disordered students. Behavior Dis- orders, 6, 183-190.
Haring, N. (Ed.). (1987). Assessing and managing behavior disabilities. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Horn, W., & Packard, T. (1985). Early identification of learn- ing problems: A meta-analysis, fournal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 597-607.
Kauffman, J. (1982). Social policy issues in special education and related services for emotionally disturbed children and youth. In M. Noel & N. Haring (Eds.), Progress or change:
Issues in educating the emotionally disturbed (pp. 1-10).
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Kauffman, J. (1987). Social policy issues in special education and related services for FED children and use. In N. Haring (Ed.), Assessing and managing behavior disabilities (pp.
x-xix). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Morgan, D., & Jenson, W. (1988). Teaching behaviorally dis- abled students: Preferred practices. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Nicholson, F. (1988). Evaluation of a three-stage multiple gating standardized procedure for the screening and iden-
tification of elementary students at risk for behavior dis- orders. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Volume 11 Issue 2 March/April 1990
Noel, M. (1982). Public school programs for the emotionally disturbed: An overview. In M. Noel & N. Haring (Eds.), Pro- gress or change: Issues in educating the emotionally dis- turbed (Vol. 2, pp. 11-28). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-acceptance children at risk? Psycho- logical Journal, 2(3), 357-389.
Robbins, L. (1986). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins.
Severson, H.H., Walker, H.M., Barckley, M., Block-Pedego, A.E., Todis, B.J., & Rankin, R. (1989). Confirmation of the accuracy of teaching rankings on internalizing and ex- ternalizing behavior profiles: Mostly hits and a few misses.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Todis, B., Severson, H., & Walker, H. (in press). The critical events scale: Behavioral profiles of students with external- izing and internalizing behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders.
Walker, H., Block, A., Todis, B., Barckley, M., & Severson, H.
(1988). The school archival records search (SARS). Eugene:
Oregon Research Institute.
Walker, H., Block, A., Todis, B., Severson, H., Barckley, M.,
& Rankin, R. (in press). The school archival record search (SARS) procedure. Behavioral Disorders.
Walker, H., & Fabre, T.R. (1987). Assessment of behavior dis- orders in the school setting: Issues, problems, and strategies revisited. In N.G. Haring (Ed.), Assessing and managing behavior disabilities (pp. 198-243). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Walker, H., & Severson, H. (in press). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD): Forms and manuals. Long- mont, CO: Sopris West.
Walker, H., Severson, H., & Haring, N. (1985). Systematic screening and identification of behavior disordered pupils in the elementary age range: Rationale, procedures, and guidelines. Eugene: Oregon Research Institute.
Walker, H., Severson, H., Stiller, B., Williams, G., Haring, N., Shinn, M., & Todis, B. (1988). Systematic screening of pupils in the elementary age range at risk for behavior disorders:
Development and trial testing of a multiple gating model.
Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 8-14.
Appendix A:
Sample Items from the Critical Events Index and the Adaptive and Maladaptive Rating Scale
Critical Events
1. Is physically aggressive with other students or adults, e.g., hits, bites, chokes, or throws things.
2. Exhibits large weight loss or gain over past three months. (Significant weight fluctuation would be in excess of 20% change in body weight.)
3. Is self-abusive, e.g., biting, cutting or bruising self, head banging, etc.
4. Exhibits cruelty to animals.
5. Vomits after eating.
6. Exhibits thought disorders or gets lost in own thoughts.
Adaptive
1. Initiates positive social interactions with peers.
2. Follows established classroom rules.
3. Expresses anger appropriately, e.g., reacts to situation without being violent or destructive.
Maladaptive
1. Child tests or challenges teacher-imposed limits, e.g., classroom rules.
2. Manipulates other children and/or situations to get his/her own way.
3. Requires punishment (or threat of same) before s/he will terminate an inappropriate activity or behavior.
Appendix B:
Definition of AET and PSB Code Categories
Classroom Observations
Academic Engagement (AET) means that the student is appropriately engaged in working on assigned academic material that is geared to her or his ability and skill levels. While academically engaged, the student is (a) attending to the material and the task, (b) making appropriate motor responses (e.g., writing, computing) and (c) asking for assistance (where appropriate) in an acceptable manner. Interacting with the teacher or classmates about academic matters or listening to teacher instructions and directions are also examples of AET. Nonexamples of AET would include such things as not attending to or working on the assigned task, breaking classroom rules (out of seat, talking out, disturbing others, etc.), or daydreaming.
Peer Social Behavior (PSB) Observations
Social Engagement (SE) refers to an exchange of social signals that involves verbal interaction between two or more children.
Social engagement is coded when the target child is physically oriented toward another child (or children), is exchanging social signals of a reciprocal, purposeful nature with them, and produces verbal behavior in some form during the recording interval.
The key is that some talking with peers occurs by the target student during the interval. Simple proximity without talking is not defined as SE.
