Multi-tiered problem-solving models that focus on promoting positive outcomes for student behavior continue to be emphasized within educational research. Although substantial work has been conducted to support systems-level implementation and intervention for behavior, concomitant advances in behavior assessment have been limited. This is despite the central role that data derived from behavior assessment methods must play in making defensible multi-tiered decisions such as those for screening and progress monitoring. In this commentary, the role of assessment in the evidence-based practice movement is described, alongside necessary features of behavior assessment methods utilized in multi-tiered systems. The relevance of these features to articles in this special issue is described. Finally, observations and suggestions for future directions regarding the current state of behavior assessment in educational research are offered.
AlbersC. A.GloverT. A.KratochwillT. R. (2007). Introduction to the special issue: How can universal screening enhance educational and mental health outcomes?Journal of School Psychology, 45, 113–116.
2.
BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C., & Contributors. (2016). Direct behavior rating: Linking assessment, communication and intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
3.
ChafouleasS. M. (2011). Direct behavior rating: A review of the issues and research in its development. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 4.
4.
ChristT. J.Riley-TillmanT. C.ChafouleasS. M. (2009). Foundation for the development and use of direct behavior rating (DBR) to assess and evaluate student behavior. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 201–213.
5.
DenoS. L. (2005). Problem solving assessment. In Brown-ChidseyR. (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 10–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
FilterK. J.SytsmaM. R.McIntoshK. (2016). A Brief Measure of Staff Commitment to Implement School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 18–31.
7.
GloverT. A.AlbersC. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 117–135.
8.
GreshamF. M. (2008). Best practices in diagnosis in a multitier problem-solving approach. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 281–294). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
9.
HagopianL. P.FisherW. W.ThompsonR. H.Owen-DeSchryverJ.IwataB. A.WackerD. P. (1997). Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 313–326.
10.
HoagwoodK.ErwinH. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based mental health services for children: A 10-year research review. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 435–451.
11.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
12.
KaneM. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.
13.
KilgusS. P.SimsW. A.von der EmbseN. P.TaylorC. N. (2016). Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 46–59.
14.
TurriM. G.MercerS. H.McIntoshK.NeseR. N. T.Strickland-CohenM. K.HoseltonR. (2016). Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 6–17.
15.
OsiusE.RosenthalJ. (2009). The National Research Council/Institute of Medicine’s Adolescent Health Services: Highlights and considerations for state health policymakers. Retrieved from http://www.nashp.org/sites/default/files/AdolHealth.pdf
ReinkeW. M.HermanK. C. (2016). Bridging the Gap: Using the Brief Student–Teacher Classroom Interaction Observation to Inform Classroom Practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 43–45.
18.
ReinkeW. M.HermanK. C.NewcomerL. (2016). The Brief Student–Teacher Classroom Interaction Observation: Using Dynamic Indicators of Behaviors in the Classroom to Predict Outcomes and Inform Practice. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 32–42.
19.
Riley-TillmanT. C.BurnsM. K.GibbonsK. (2013). Response to intervention applications Volume 2: Assessment, design and decision making. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
20.
RoseL. C.GallupA. M. (2005). The 37th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 41–57.
21.
SeversonH. H.WalkerH. M.Hope-DoolittleJ.KratochwillT. R.GreshamF. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193–223.
22.
SilvaF. (1993). Psychometric foundations and behavioral assessment. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
23.
StormontM. A.ThompsonA. M.HermanK. C.ReinkeW. M. (2017). The Social and Emotional Dimensions of a Single Item Overall School Readiness Screener and its Relation to Academic Outcomes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 42, 67–76.
24.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
