Universal screening for behavior is the use of a measure of social, emotional or behavioral function across an entire population with a goal of preventing future difficulties by intervening with students identified by the screening protocol. Multiple screening procedures have been used, with most including behavior rating scales in the selection process. The purpose of the present research was to investigate two central questions related to the use of universal screeners for behavior in school settings: first, can scores on universal screeners be used as an outcome measure investigating program based interventions, and second, what evidence of teacher bias exists when an external criterion of behavior is included. The purpose of study one was to determine if differences in teacher-rated behavior could be detected between a sample of students that attended public preschool and a nonattending peer group matched for ethnicity, gender, and a gross measure of socioeconomic status (total n= 138). Results of Study One indicated no significant differences between preschool-attending and nonattending groups (p=.61) or between Hispanic and Caucasian participants. Limitations related to sampling and measurement were discussed. In study two, a best-evidence synthesis of peer-reviewed articles investigating teacher bias in behavior ratings of students was conducted. Strict inclusion criteria were chosen to allow for inferential judgment of teacher accuracy. Results of Study Two found a final total of 25 studies of teacher bias that suggested mixed evidence for bias due to student ethnicity or gender and stronger evidence for bias due to expectancies (disability label), teacher culture, unrelated behaviors (halo effects), and teacher training and experience. Limitations, implications for practice and directions of future research were discussed.

This study involves an examination of the neurocognitive correlates of subscales of the Conners' Rating Scale - Revised (CRS-R), an ADHD behavioral rating form, in both a child (n=72) and an adolescent (n=49) sample. While both behavioral rating forms and neuropsychological measures are commonly employed in pediatric clinical evaluations, these two forms of assessment do not generally converge as expected. The purpose of the current research was to examine and compare the abilities of intellectual, academic, attentional, and executive skills to account for variance in parent and teacher ratings of behavior across two pediatric age groups in a clinical setting. Additionally, the study compared the relationships between behavioral ratings and cognition in children versus adolescents. The study found parent and teacher ratings of cognitive problems and inattention to be better accounted for by general cognitive ability than by attention and executive skills in children. Conversely, ratings of child hyperactivity, as completed by both parents and teachers, were better explained by attention and executive skills. General cognitive and academic abilities best accounted for parent ratings of overall ADHD likelihood, whereas teacher ratings of ADHD likelihood were equally accounted for by general cognitive abilities and attentional and executive skills. Neither general cognitive and academic abilities nor attention and executive skills accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in the adolescent sample. Furthermore, results showed that the variance in parent and teacher ratings of behavior was significantly accounted for by neurocognitive test performance across ratings subscales for child, but not adolescent clients. Overall, the results suggest that ADHD behavioral rating form accuracy varies according to subscale, informant, and age group. In child clients, ADHD behavioral ratings converged with theoretically associated cognitive abilities for subscales assessing hyperactive, but not inattentive behaviors. Both parent and teacher informants appear to take children's overall cognitive and academic abilities into consideration more so than attentional and executive skills when rating inattentive behaviors. This suggests either rating form or informant inaccuracy in identifying specific problems in attention and organization. Parents, in particular, appear to be relatively poorer raters of child behavior than teachers as only teacher ratings of overall ADHD likelihood were accounted for by attentional and executive skills. Parent and teacher ratings of behavior appear to be of questionable accuracy across ADHD related behaviors in the assessment of adolescents. As behavioral ratings were not related to cognition in the 11-17-year-old sample, ADHD behavioral rating forms appear to demonstrate poor convergent validity in adolescents. The finding that ratings of behavior were significantly related to cognition in children, but not in adolescents, suggests the presence of age-dependent differences in the presentation of ADHD symptoms or the accuracy of assessment tools between children and adolescents. Clinicians are encouraged to use caution when interpreting ratings of adolescent ADHD behavior and ratings of child inattentive behavior, as these scales may often not assess their purported constructs.

Executive functioning is an umbrella term used to describe abilities that include self-monitoring, goal-setting, planning, organization, attention, and working memory. Broadband behavior rating scales are commonly used by school psychologists and the instruments often now include an executive functioning scale. It is unknown, however, how these scales, based on a few items, compare to more extensive rating scales that solely measure executive functioning. The current study examined the overall consistency between the executive functioning scale on one broadband instrument to another instrument that assesses multiple areas of executive functioning by having teachers complete both instruments at the same point in time. The comparisons revealed statistically significant correlations, but significantly different mean scores between the executive functioning CAB-T score and the overall BRIEF score. Furthermore, classification consistency (i.e., scores from the two scales are both in the average range or clinically significant range) only occurred approximately two-thirds of the time. Thus, concerns were raised about the use of the scale from the broadband instrument as a general measure of executive functioning.

The assessment of children’s social-emotional skills, especially in the preschool years, is essential, as it yields early identification of problems and allows for appropriate interventions to be tried. School psychologists and other professionals use a variety of assessment methods (e.g., observations, interviews, behavior rating scales) to determine a child’s social-emotional abilities. Two popular behavior rating scales used frequently by professionals are the Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition (BASC-3) and the Child Behavior Checklist 1.5-5 (CBCL 1.5-5). The current study examines the consistency of results from the two instruments. Fifty-six Head Start teachers from two regions of the country completed both the BASC-3 and the CBCL 1.5-5 at the same point of time while thinking of a specific student who displays behavioral concerns. The findings revealed that most of similarly named scales from the two instruments correlated significantly. However, 40% of those comparisons resulted in significantly different mean scores. Approximately half of the comparisons resulted in adequate classification consistency (i.e., either average or clinically significant). Overall, the findings imply that the two instruments do not always measure similarly named behavioral constructs in a consistent manner.

In recent years, autism diagnoses have steadily increased, putting a substantial emphasis on early identification as a crucial component for intervention. Autism diagnoses, however, often require a thorough and comprehensive assessment from a highly trained practitioner. Although ideal, such assessments are often time consuming and expensive, creating a need for a quicker, more simplistic method of screening for autism. Clinicians customarily used behavior rating scales to identify a number of various problem behaviors and/or disorders. The purpose of the present study is to examine the utility of two common behavior rating scales in accurately discriminating between a group of preschoolers with autism and a group of referred preschoolers with autism. Parents/guardians of 74 preschoolers with and without autism, who had been referred to a child development clinic due to behavioral or developmental concerns, completed both behavior rating scales as part of a comprehensive assessment. Although analyses revealed significant differences between the two groups of participants on two of the scales from one of the instruments, these findings demonstrate little clinical value for screening purposes.

The Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2) is a behavior rating scale developed to address the difficulties of assessing social communication in children. It was designed to be completed by a parent rater. However, since it would be helpful to know the extent to which ratings are context-dependent, this study looked at the agreement between parent and teacher ratings on the CCC-2 as well as the percent agreement on the severity of disorder. Twelve parent-teacher pairs completed the CCC-2 for children who had a documented developmental language disorder with specific impairment in social communication. Cohen's kappas, Cohen's weighted kappas, and percent agreement of severity of disorder were calculated. Kappa results ranged from less than chance agreement to fair agreement. When differentiating between scores that represent disorder and no disorder, parent and teacher percent agreement for the CCC-2 10 subscales range from 42% to 75%. Further delineation between no disorder, disorder, or severe disorder yielded percent agreement ranging from 17% to 50%. Overall percent agreement on the general communication composite was 92%. Results indicate that while parents and teachers have poor to fair agreement on the exact nature of a child's social communication strengths and weaknesses, they largely agree when a social communication problem exists. Lack of agreement likely resulted from the parent and teacher seeing the child in different contexts which required a somewhat different set of social communication abilities, or a difference in rater perception of what is within the developmental norms. These findings suggest that the best indication of a child's social communication profile may lie in a holistic assessment of performance in all the important contexts in a child's life, including school and home.

The diagnosis of autism is a comprehensive process that requires trained professionals and is often a time consuming process. Behavior rating scales are common components used by practitioners in evaluations to assess various social, emotional, or behavioral problems. With the rise of awareness, the steady increase of autism diagnoses, and the importance of early identification to increase the effectiveness of intervention, there is a need for screeners to identify the characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorders. The purpose of the present study was to determine if there was a group of items on the Child Behavior Checklist/1.5-5 that reliably distinguished between children with autism and referred, but non-spectrum children. A behavior rating scale was completed by parents and/or guardians of 156 preschool children with autism and without autism. Analyses of the data revealed a grouping of items that were significantly correlated with the diagnosis of autism. Based on predetermined cutoff scores, sensitivity, and specificity; the group of items may be useful in the recommendation of further assessment of autism.

Early identification of autism is important in order to maximize the potential of intervention efforts. However, the identification of autism can require extensive training and experience. Psychologists routinely use behavior rating scales to assess children for various social, emotional, or behavioral problems when completing evaluations in the school or clinical setting. The focus of the current study is to determine whether a behavior rating scale can accurately distinguish between referred preschoolers with autism and referred preschoolers without autism. Parents of 82 preschoolers referred to a nonprofit child development clinic because of behavioral or developmental concerns completed two behavior rating scales as part of the initial evaluation. The findings revealed that while statistically significantly differences were found between the scores for the two groups on a number of scales, the practical implications were unclear. The use of behavior rating scales as screeners for autism in preschoolers would result in a very high false positive rate.

abstract: Many schools have adopted programming designed to promote students' behavioral aptitude. A specific type of programming with this focus is School Wide Positive Behavior Supports (SWPBS), which combines positive behavior techniques with a system wide problem solving model. Aspects of this model are still being developed in the research community, including assessment techniques which aid the decision making process. Tools for screening entire student populations are examples of such assessment interests. Although screening tools which have been described as "empirically validated" and "cost effective" have been around since at least 1991, they have yet to become standard practice (Lane, Gresham, & O'Shaughnessy 2002). The lack of widespread implementation to date raises questions regarding their ecological validity and actual cost-effectiveness, leaving the development of useful tools for screening an ongoing project for many researchers. It may be beneficial for educators to expand the range of measurement to include tools which measure the symptoms at the root of the problematic behaviors. Lane, Grasham, and O'Shaughnessy (2002) note the possibility that factors from within a student, including those that are cognitive in nature, may influence not only his or her academic performance, but also aspects of behavior. A line of logic follows wherein measurement of those factors may aid the early identification of students at risk for developing disorders with related symptoms. The validity and practicality of various tools available for screening in SWPBS were investigated, including brief behavior rating scales completed by parents and teachers, as well as performance tasks borrowed from the field of neuropsychology. All instruments showed an ability to predict children's behavior, although not to equal extents. A discussion of practicality and predictive utility of each instrument follows. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Educational Psychology 2012

Psychology / M.A. (Psychology)