archives@tulane.edu / Early social, emotional, and behavioral skills have been shown to be predictive of academic achievement and future success. With early intervention, effects of skill deficits can be mitigated (Albers, Glover & Kratochwill, 2007). However, less than half of the 10% to 20% of students who are thought to be at-risk receive the interventions they need (Bradshaw et al., 2008; Gresham, 2007). Schools are uniquely positioned to identify and provide interventions for students. As a result, administrators have begun to shift toward data-based decision-making models that include universal screeners, as initial steps for identifying and providing interventions for at-risk students. Selection of a screener is determined by the availability of resources, student demographics, and predictive validity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, a social, emotional, and behavioral screener. Specifically, the study investigated the relationship between at-risk scores and behavior problems in schools. Study participants are 433 students in grades K to 4 attending an elementary charter school serving a predominantly low-income African American student body. Beginning-of-the year SDQ total difficulty scores and end-of-the year ODRs were analyzed using both correlational and regression analyses, to establish relationship and predictive ability of the screener. Both correlational and regression analyses confirmed a statistically significant relationship between SDQ total difficulty scores and end-of-the year ODRs. Therefore, universal screening provides schools with valuable baseline information about student social, emotional and behavioral functioning. / 1 / Raquel Gutierrez

Internalizing disorders, specifically depression and anxiety, affect up to 18% and 33% of youth, respectively (Costello, Egger, & Angold, 2005b). Schools have become a major provider of mental health services to children, primarily in attempts to overcome barriers to receiving community services (Farmer, Burns, Philip, Angold, & Costello, 2003). As such, it is important that schools have effective mechanisms in place to accurately identify students who may be in need of such services. The current study examined the accuracy of one such method, educator nominations (including from both teachers and school-based mental health professionals) in identifying students who self-report elevated levels of anxiety and/or depression. Participants were 238 fourth and fifth grade students within a large, urban school district in a southeastern state; 26 classroom teachers of these youth; and 7 mental health professionals who served the two schools that the student participants attended. Regarding sensitivity, teachers identified 40.74% and 50% of students who repeatedly reported clinically elevated levels of anxiety and depression, respectively. Teachers falsely identified as symptomatic 17.54% and 16.2% of students with typical levels of anxiety and depression, respectively. As a team, school-based mental health professionals identified 66.67% of students with elevated anxiety symptoms, and 45.45% of children who self-reported depressive symptoms. The team misidentified 31% and 35% of students as depressed and anxious, respectively. Individual school-based mental health professionals were less accurate (as compared to ix the team as a whole) in identifying students who self-reported symptoms of depression. Taken together, findings suggest educators can accurately identify approximately half to two-thirds of youth who experience clinical levels of anxiety and children, but substantial misidentification rates underscore the need for further follow-up assessment of students identified during educational nomination procedures. Implications for practice, contributions to the literature, and future directions for research are discussed.

Math skills are essential to daily life, impacting a person?s ability to function at home, work, and in the community. Although reading has been the focus in recent years, many students struggle in math. The inability to master math calculation and problem solving has contributed to the rising incidence of student failure, referrals for special education evaluations, and dropout rates. Studies have shown that curriculum based measurement (CBM) is a well-established tool for formative assessment, and could potentially be used for other purposes such as a prediction of state standards test scores, however to date there are limited validity studies between mathematics CBM and standard-based assessment. This research examined a brief assessment that reported to be aligned to national curriculum standards in order to predict student performance on state standards-based mathematics curriculum, identify students at-risk of failure, and plan instruction. Evidence was gathered on the System to Enhance Educational Performance Grade 3 Focal Mathematics Assessment Instrument (STEEP3M) as a formative, universal screener. Using a sample of 337 students and 22 instructional staff, four qualities of the STEEP3M were examined: a) internal consistency and criterion related validity (concurrent); b) screening students for a multi-tiered decision-making process; c) utility for instructional planning and intervention recommendations; and d) efficiency of administration, scoring, and reporting results which were the basis of the four research questions for this study. Several optimized solutions were generated from Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) statistical analysis; however none demonstrated that the STEEP3M maximized either sensitivity or specificity. In semi-structured interviews teachers reported that they would consider using the STEEP3M, however only as a part of a decision-making rubric along with other measures. Further, teachers indicated that lessons are developed before the school year starts, more in response to the sequence of the state standards than to students? needs. While the STEEP3M was sufficiently long enough for high-stakes or criterion-referenced decisions, this study found that the test does not provide sufficient diagnostic information for multi-tiered decision-making for intervention or instructional planning. Although practical and efficient to administer, the conclusions of this study show the test does not provide sufficient information on the content domain and does not accurately classify students in need of assistance.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to explore a possible relationship between remote learning with 1:1 devices and reading performance for third graders in a school district in Tennessee by comparing differences between universal screener reading data from fall 2020 and universal screener reading data from both fall 2018 and fall 2019. Star Reading universal screener Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) data from fall 2018, fall 2019, and fall 2020 from three elementary schools were used for the study. Results indicated that the third-grade students’ fall 2020 Star Reading universal screener NCEs were significantly lower than their fall 2018 first grade and fall 2019 second grade universal screener NCEs. The fall 2020 third-grade NCEs were not significantly different from the third-grade fall 2018 and fall 2019 NCEs. There were significant differences in reading performance by gender. The third-grade female students scored significantly lower on their fall 2020 Star Reading universal screener than on their first-grade fall 2018 and second-grade fall 2019 Star Reading universal screener. There were no significant differences in the Star Reading universal screener NCEs for the third-grade male students. Implications for practice and recommendations for further research are discussed.