RESUMEN

While disruptions to typical education, special education, and psycho-educational service delivery practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have dissipated, their impact magnified educational systems' overreliance on evaluations to determine eligibility for special education and related services. Given that the potential for future disruptions is now ever-present, it is imperative that service providers learn from these recent experiences to improve typical policies, procedures, and practices under normal service delivery circumstances as well as to respond efficiently and effectively to any future disruptions, should they arise. To this end, this work presents several reminders and considerations for multidisciplinary teams related to assessment, testing, special education evaluations, and closely related processes exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESUMEN

The present study explores the convergent and predictive validity for several widely used measures of teaching quality from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2009-2011). Specifically, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta, Hamre, & Mintz, 2012), the Framework for Teaching (FFT; Danielson Group, 2013), and the Tripod Student Perceptions Scale (Tripod; Ferguson, 2008) were examined. Correlations among measures were assessed by developmental level and content area (elementary mathematics N = 70; elementary English language arts N = 101; middle school mathematics N = 291, middle school English language arts N = 280). Both average scores and score variability (i.e., coefficient of variation) for the CLASS, FFT, and Tripod were used to predict value-added models (VAM), a high-stakes measure of students' academic growth. For elementary mathematics and ELA, findings indicated the CLASS and FFT exhibited moderate convergent validity while divergent validity was found between the Tripod and the CLASS and FFT. Across content areas in middle school grades, the CLASS, FFT, and Tripod exhibited moderate to high-moderate convergent validity. Average student and observer scores were positively related to VAM scores, whereas variability in scores demonstrated negative relations to VAM scores. Implications of findings for teacher evaluation and professional development are discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The purpose of this diagnostic accuracy study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity (among other indicators) of three universal screening approaches, including the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS), a SAEBRS-based teacher nomination tool, and a multiple gating procedure (MGP). Each screening approach was compared to the BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS), which served as a criterion indicator of student social-emotional and behavioral risk. All data were collected in a concurrent fashion. Participants included 704 students (47.7% female) from four elementary schools within the Midwestern United States (21.6% were at risk per the BESS). Findings yielded support for the SAEBRS, with sensitivity = .93 (95% confidence interval [.89-.97]), specificity = .91 (.89-.93), and correct classification = .92. Findings further supported the MGP, which yielded sensitivity = .81 (.74-.87), specificity = .93 (.91-.95), and correct classification = .91. In contrast, the teacher nomination tool yielded questionable levels of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity = .86 [.80-.91], specificity = .74 [.70-.78], and correct classification = .76). Overall, findings were particularly supportive of SAEBRS diagnostic accuracy, suggesting the MGP might also serve as an acceptable approach to universal screening. Other implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)