The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare two behavior screening instruments—the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System and the Behavior Screening Checklist. The sample consisted of 492 elementary school children from the southeastern United States. The psychometric properties of the screening instruments were evaluated in terms of intra-rater agreement, concurrent validity, and predictive validity of academic and behavioral outcomes. Results revealed that both screeners were significantly correlated with behavioral and academic variables. Consumers of screening instruments are encouraged to select an instrument that has sound psychometric properties and is practical for use in applied settingsC.
AchenbachT. M.RescorlaL. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington: Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families, University of Vermont.
2.
DonovanM. S.CrossC. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
DrummondT. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Grants Pass, OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program.
4.
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2008). DIBELS 6th edition technical adequacy information (Tech. Rep. No. 6). Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://dibels.org/pubs.html
5.
EpsteinM. H.SharmaJ. M. (1998). Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: A strength-based approach to assessment: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
6.
Georgia Department of Education. (2008). Validity and reliability for the 2008 CRCT. Atlanta, GA: Assessment Research and Development Division.
7.
GloverT. A.AlbersC. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117-135.
HoweK. B.ShinnM. M. (2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement: A manual describing development and technical features. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
11.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a Response to Intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582-600.
12.
KamphausR. W.ReynoldsC. R. (2007). BASC-2: Behavioral and Emotional Screening System manual. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.
13.
KamphausR. W.ThorpeJ. S.WinsorA. P.KronckeA. P.DowdyE. T.VanDeventerM. C. (2007). Development and predictive validity of a teacher screener for child behavioral and emotional problems at school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 342-356.
14.
KavaleK. A.KaufmanA. S.NaglieriJ. A.HaleJ. B. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psycholgist, 59, 16-25.
15.
KingK.ReschlyA. L.AppletonJ. J. (2012). An examination of the validity of the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System in a rural elementary school validity of the BESS. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 527-538.
16.
LaneK. L.KalbergJ. R.MenziesH.BruhnA.EisnerS.CrnoboriM. (2011). Using systematic screening data to assess risk and identify students for targeted supports: Illustrations across the K-12 continuum. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 39-54.
17.
LaneK. L.KalbergJ. R.MenziesH. M. (2009). Developing schoolwide programs to prevent and manage problem behaviors: A step-by-step approach. New York: Guilford Press.
18.
LaneK. L.KalbergJ. R.ParksR. J.CarterE. W. (2008). Student Risk Screening Scale initial evidence for score reliability and validity at the high school level. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 178-190.
19.
LaneK. L.ParksR. J.KalbergJ. R.CarterE. W. (2007). Systematic screening at the middle school level: Score reliability and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 209-222.
20.
McIntoshK.FrankJ. L.SpauldingS. A. (2010). Establishing research-based trajectories of office discipline referrals for individual students. School Psychology Review, 39, 380-394.
21.
MuyskensP.MarstonD.ReschlyA. L. (2007). The use of Response to Intervention practices for behavior: An examination of the validity of a screening instrument. The California School Psychologist, 12, 31-45.
22.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 427-469.
23.
ReschlyD. J.BergstromM. K. (2009). Response to Intervention. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 434-460). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
24.
ReynoldsC. R.KamphausR. W. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
25.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26.
SpragueJ.WalkerH.GollyA.WhiteK.MyersD.ShannonT. (2001). Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on key indicators of school safety and discipline. Education & Treatment of Children, 24, 495-512.
27.
SugaiG.HornerR. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23-50.
28.
SugaiG.HornerR. H.GreshamF. M.ShinnM. R.WalkerH. M.StonerG. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In ShinnM.R.WalkerH.M.StonerG. (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315-350). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
29.
TorgesenJ. K. (2000). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7-26.
30.
WalkerH. M.SeversonH. H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
31.
ZirkelP. A. (2011, May). State laws and guidelines for RTI: Additional implementation features. Communiqué, 39, 30-32.
