This study used item response theory (IRT) methods to investigate group differences in responses to the 12-item Student Risk Screening Scale–Internalizing and Externalizing (SRSS-IE12) in a sample of 3,837 U.S. elementary school students. Using factor analysis and graded response models from IRT methods, we examined the factor structure and the item and test functioning of the SRSS-IE12. The SRSS-IE12 internalizing and externalizing factors reflected the hypothesized two-factor model. IRT analyses indicated that SRSS-IE12 items and tests measure internalizing and externalizing traits similarly across students from different race, ethnicity, gender, and elementary level (K–Grade 2 vs. Grades 3–5) groups. Moreover, the mostly negligible differential item functioning (DIF) and differential test functioning (DTF) observed suggest these scales render equitable trait ratings. Collectively, the results provide further support for the SRSS-IE12 for universal screening in racially diverse elementary schools.
AchenbachT. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
2.
AroraP. G.CollinsT. A.DartE. H.HernándezS.FettermanH.DollB. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for school-based mental health: A systematic review of depression interventions. School Mental Health, 11(2), 240–264.
3.
BakerF. (2001). The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Maryland.
4.
BargerB.RiceC.SimmonsC. A.WolfR. (2018). A systematic review of Part C early identification studies. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 38(1), 4–16.
5.
BradshawC. P.BuckleyJ. A.IalongoN. S. (2008). School-based service utilization among urban children with early onset educational and mental health problems: The squeaky wheel phenomenon. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.2.169
6.
BradshawC. P.MitchellM. M.O’BrennanL. M.LeafP. J. (2010). Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the overrepresentation of black students in office disciplinary referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 508–520.
7.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(48), 13678–13683.
8.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29.
9.
ChinJ. K.DowdyE.QuirkM. P. (2013). Universal screening in middle school: Examining the behavioral and emotional screening system. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 53–60.
10.
ClarkP. C.LaHuisD. M. (2012). An examination of power and type I errors for two differential item functioning indices using the graded response model. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 229–246.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Effect sizes: Power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CookC. R.VolpeR. J.LivanisA. (2010). Constructing a roadmap for future universal screening research beyond academics. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(4), 197–205.
13.
DowdyE.FurlongM.RainesT. C.BoveryB.KauffmanB.KamphausR. W.. . . MurdockJ. (2015). Enhancing school-based mental health services with a preventive and promotive approach to universal screening for complete mental health. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 178–197.
14.
DrummondT. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Josephine County Mental Health Program.
15.
ElliottS. N.GreshamF. (2017). Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS)—Social emotional learning. PsychCorp Pearson Education.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22–28.
17.
GloverT. A.AlbersC. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessment. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005
18.
GoodmanR. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586.
19.
IkedaM. J.NeesenE.WittJ. C. (2008). Best practices in universal screening. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 103–114). National Association of School Psychologists.
20.
JonesC.GraybillE.BargerB.RoachA. T. (2020). Examining the predictive validity of behavior screeners across measures and respondents. Psychology in the Schools, 57(6), 923–936.
21.
KamphausR. W.ReynoldsC. R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BASC-2 BESS). Pearson.
22.
KimE. K.FurlongM. J.DowdyE.FelixE. D. (2014). Exploring the relative contributions of the strength and distress components of dual-factor complete mental health screening. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 29(2), 127–140.
23.
KimS. H.CohenA. S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 345–355.
24.
LaneK. L.MenziesH. M. (2009). Student Risk Screening Scale for early internalizing and externalizing behavior (SRSS-IE)(Screening scale). Retrieved from Ci3t. org/screening
25.
LaneK. L.KalbergJ. R.LambertE. W.CrnoboriM.BruhnA. L. (2010). A comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders: A replication. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(2), 100–112.
26.
LaneK. L.LittleM. A.CaseyA. M.LambertW.WehbyJ.WeisenbachJ. L.PhillipsA. (2009). A comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17(2), 93–105.
27.
LaneK. L.MenziesH. M.OakesW. P.LambertW.CoxM.HankinsK. (2012). A Validation of the student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Patterns in rural and urban elementary schools. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 244–270.
28.
LaneK. L.OakesW. P.CantwellE. D.SchatschneiderC.MenziesH.CrittendenM.MessengerM. (2016). Student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Preliminary cut scores to support data-informed decision making in middle and high schools. Behavioral Disorders, 42(1), 271–284.
29.
LaneK. L.OakesW. P.CommonE. A.BrunstingN.ZorigianK.HicksT.LaneN. A. (2019). A comparison between SRSS-IE and BASC-2 BESS scores at the middle school level. Behavioral Disorders, 44(3), 162–174.
30.
LaneK. L.OakesW. P.HarrisP. J.MenziesH. M.CoxM.LambertW. (2012). Initial Evidence for the reliability and validity of the student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behaviors at the elementary level. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2), 99–122.
31.
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(4), 209–222.
32.
LaneK. L.Richards-TutorC.OakesW. P.ConnorK. (2014). Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the student risk screening scale with elementary age English learners. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(4), 219–232.
33.
LiC. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.
34.
McIntoshK.FrankJ. L.SpauldingS. A. (2010). Establishing research-based trajectories of office discipline referrals for individual students. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 380–394.
35.
MeadeA. W. (2010). A taxonomy of effect size measures for the differential functioning of items and scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 728–743.
36.
MeadeA. W.WrightN. A. (2012). Solving the measurement invariance anchor item problem in item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1016–1031.
37.
OakesW. P.LaneK. L.CoxM. L.MessengerM. (2014). Logistics of behavior screenings: How and why do we conduct behavior screenings at our school?Preventing School Failure, 58(3), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.895572
38.
OdgersC. L. (2015). Income inequality and the developing child: Is it all relative?American Psychologist, 70(8), 722–731.
39.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
40.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34, 1–97.
41.
SchatschneiderC.LaneK. L.OakesW. P.KalbergJ. R. (2014). The student risk screening scale: Exploring dimensionality and differential item functioning. Educational Assessment, 19(3), 185–203.
42.
SchreiberJ. B.NoraA.StageF. K.BarlowE. A.KingJ. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.
43.
SkibaR. J.HornerR. H.ChungC. G.RauschM. K.MayS. L.TobinT. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.
44.
StarkS.ChernyshenkoO. S.DrasgowF. (2004). Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: When are statistically significant effects practically important?Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 497–508.
45.
ThissenD.SteinbergL.GerrardM. (1986). Beyond group-mean differences: The concept of item bias. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 118–128.
46.
WalkerH. M.SeversonH. H.FeilE. G. (1995). ESP: Early screening project: A proven child find process. Sopris West.
47.
WalkerH. M.SeversonH. H.FeilE. G. (2014). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD) (2nd ed.). Pacific Northwest Publishing.
48.
WeistM. D.RubinM.MooreE.AdelsheimS.WrobelG. (2007). Mental health screening in schools. Journal of School Health, 77(2), 53–58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
