Universal Screening in Early Childhood Populations: A Systematic Review

Early childhood is an important period for the development of social, emotional and behavioral (SEB) skills. Deficits in these skills often lead to negative outcomes; thus, early identification is essential for the provision of services. Unfortunately, only a fraction of students with deficits are identified and receive services. One cause of this is the methods used to identify students, such as teacher nominations which do not identify all students in need (Dowdy et al., 2013). Proactive practices, such as universal screening, are a more systematic way of identification. The purpose of this review was to examine commonly used early childhood screeners and their evidence base, effectiveness, and the feasibility and accessibility of their use in early childhood settings. This critical review analysed 18 screeners using Southam-Gerow & Prinstein’s (2014) review criteria for evidence-based treatments and a technical adequacy rubric based on Glover and Albers’ (2007) considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Of the 18 screening tools reviewed, four screeners are highly recommended based on their technical adequacy and usability within early childhood settings. These results highlight the need for further research in the evaluation of early childhood universal screeners

Stress, Wellbeing, and Support for Students & School Staff

Stress is a naturally occurring physical and psychological response from the accumulation of short- or long-term demands placed on individuals. Physically, the body will react to stress-induced hormones by increasing heart rate, respiration, and muscle tension. Psychologically, stress will prompt the body to respond with heightened alertness and attention to what caused the stress. Stress that is appropriately managed through effective coping mechanisms contributes to well-being, but prolonged stress can lead to chronic conditions: high blood pressure, compromised immune systems, and brain changes (e.g., anxiety, depression, and addiction). In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, there has been a disruption of typical school activities and an increase of social and emotional distress on educators, caregivers, and students alike. The level of stress has been heightened during the COVID-19 crisis by increased anxiety and uncertainty from months of isolation, abrupt changes of daily routines, and worry about health

Supporting the Social-Emotional Wellbeing of Students During a Time of Stress

There is a strong connection between students’ social- emotional health and academic success. Students with strong social-emotional skills have been shown to possess increased capacity to learn, improved life outcomes, and decreased risk for mental health problems. Currently, almost 25% of children are estimated to experience a mental or behavioral health problem in a given year. If left untreated, these issues are often exacerbated and can increase in severity, leading to worsened outcomes for children. Schools are increasingly becoming the central location for children to access mental health services due to barriers that interfere with families receiving support from community-based mental health providers. Thus, it is essential that schools have the capacity to meet the social-emotional and behavioral health needs of students. This is increasingly relevant in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, which has resulted in many students experiencing uncertainty, fear, and rapid change. The effects of isolation and uncertainty -have resulted in an increase of students experiencing mental health problems. For example, over 20% of children in China have experienced anxiety/depression after one month in quarantine. With the return of students to school in the fall, whether that be in hybrid, staggered, fully face-to face, or fully online format, there is an urgency for educators to be prepared to meet the social-emotional needs of students

Accountability Policies & Educator Wellbeing

Since the publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983, educators have lived with an increasingly comprehensive set of test-based accountability policies. Framing global competitiveness in student academic success as an increasingly important component of a broader economic and national security agenda , both federal and state departments of educationmoved to establish an ‘accountability era’ by mandating test-based educational accountability legislation including No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Race to the Top (RTTT), Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), as well as various state-level policy initiatives that evolved from including various district, school, and student accountability measures, and more recently; teacher evaluation systems (e.g., value-add measures). In their framing language, NCLB and ESSA were intended to increase federal oversight in holding schools accountable for academic progress of all students, improve equity and protections for America’s disadvantaged and high-need students, increase transparency with annual statewide assessments that measure students’ progress, and require high academic standards for all students. Ample research has shown high- stakes testing may be stressful for teachers — von der Embse and colleagues reported nearly 30% of teachers experienced clinically significant anxiety specific to test-based accountability policies. Paired with the increased levels of anxiety there has been a noted increased pressure to engage in counterproductive teaching practices due to the constant demand for improvement of student achievement (e.g., “teaching to the test”). This will be outlined in more depth later in this policy brief. In addition, the Obama administration introduced the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative in 2009 intended to provide funding to states and school districts willing to complete systemic reform around four identified areas: 1) development of rigorous standards and better assessments, 2) adoption of better data systems to provide schools, teachers, and parents with information about student progress, 3) support for teachers and school leaders to become more effective, and 4) increased emphasis and resources for the rigorous interventions needed to turn around the lowest-performing schools. All of these policy initiatives, as well as aligned support from foundations (such as the Gates foundation, amongst others) have led to the widespread adoption of teacher evaluation policies in a number of states–including Florida

Teachers Use of Fear Appeals and Timing Reminders Prior to High-Stakes Examinations: Pressure from Above, Below, and Within

Teachers often communicate to students the consequences of success and failure (fear appeals) and the timing (timing reminders) of forthcoming examinations. Prior research has examined how fear appeals and teaching reminders are evaluated by students and how they relate to educational outcomes such as engagement. Few studies have addressed the use of these behaviours from a teacher’s perspective. We examined teacher use of consequence and timing reminders, used prior to examinations, and its relation to perceived accountability pressure, teacher self-efficacy, perceived importance of tested outcomes, and the belief that students would interpret such messages as threatening. Data were collected from 854 English primary and secondary school teachers. Results showed that fear appeals and timing reminders were used more frequently when teachers believed that tested outcomes were important, when they had lower self-efficacy to engage students, and when they believed that students would interpret messages as threatening. Timing reminders, but not fear appeals, were used more frequently when perceived accountability pressure was greater. These findings help to understand why teachers are using such behaviours. In this study it was pressures from above, below, and within

Confirmation of models for interpretation and use of the Social and Academic Behavior Risk Screener (SABRS).

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the models for interpretation and use that serve as the foundation of an interpretation/use argument for the Social and Academic Behavior Risk Screener (SABRS). The SABRS was completed by 34 teachers with regard to 488 students in a Midwestern high school during the winter portion of the academic year. Confirmatory factor analysis supported interpretation of SABRS data, suggesting the fit of a bifactor model specifying 1 broad factor (General Behavior) and 2 narrow factors (Social Behavior [SB] and Academic Behavior [AB]). The interpretive model was further supported by analyses indicative of the internal consistency and interrater reliability of scores from each factor. In addition, latent profile analyses indicated the adequate fit of the proposed 4-profile SABRS model for use. When cross-referenced with SABRS cut scores identified via previous work, results revealed students could be categorized as (a) not at-risk on both SB and AB, (b) at-risk on SB but not on AB, (c) at-risk on AB but not on SB, or (d) at-risk on both SB and AB. Taken together, results contribute to growing evidence supporting the SABRS within universal screening. Limitations, implications for practice, and future directions for research are discussed herein

Psychometric defensibility of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS) Teacher Rating Scale and multiple gating procedure within elementary and middle school samples.

The primary purposes of this investigation were to (a) continue a line of research examining the psychometric defensibility of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener - Teacher Rating Scale (SAEBRS-TRS), and (b) develop and preliminarily evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a novel multiple gating procedure based on teacher nomination and the SAEBRS-TRS. Two studies were conducted with elementary and middle school student samples across two separate geographic locations. Study 1 (n=864 students) results supported SAEBRS-TRS defensibility, revealing acceptable to optimal levels of internal consistency reliability, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Findings were promising for a combined multiple gating procedure, which demonstrated acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity. Study 2 (n=1534 students), which replicated Study 1 procedures, further supported the SAEBRS-TRS' psychometric defensibility in terms of reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Despite the incorporation of revisions intended to promote sensitivity levels, the combined multiple gating procedure's diagnostic accuracy was similar to that found in Study 1. Taken together, results build upon prior research in support of the applied use of the SAEBRS-TRS, as well as justify future research regarding a SAEBRS-based multiple gating procedure. Implications for practice and study limitations are discussed