School Building Administrator Reports of Screening Practices across Academic, Behavioral, and Health Domains

Autor/inn/en	Briesch, Amy M.; Chafouleas, Sandra M.; Dineen, Jennifer N.; McCoach, D. Betsy; Donaldson, Aberdine
Titel	School Building Administrator Reports of Screening Practices across Academic, Behavioral, and Health Domains
Quelle	(2021), (33 Seiten) PDF als Volltext (1); PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei (2) Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Elementary Secondary Education; School Districts; Screening Tests; Administrator Role; Best Practices; Behavior Problems; Emotional Problems; Interpersonal Competence; Health; Academic Achievement; Educational Practices; At Risk Students; Data Use; Intervention; Students with Disabilities; Disability Identification; Incidence; Measurement Techniques; Special Education; Principals; Assistant Principals + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? School district; Schulbezirk; Screening-Verfahren; Interpersonale Kompetenz; Gesundheit; Schulleistung; Bildungspraxis; Student; Students; Disability; Disabilities; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin; Behinderung; Vorkommen; Messtechnik; Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen; Principal; Schulleiter; Principals; Stellvertretende Schulleitung
Abstract	Research conducted to date provides a limited understanding of the landscape of school-based screening practices across academic, behavioral, and health domains, thus providing impetus for the current survey study. A total of 475 K-12 school building administrators representing 409 unique school districts across the United States completed an online survey, which assessed current school-based screening practices across domains from the point of data collection to intervention selection. Whereas 70% to 81% of respondents reported the use of universal screening across health and academic domains respectively, only 9% of respondents endorsed the use of universal social, emotional, and behavioral screening. Additionally, discrepancies were identified across domains with regard to such factors as (a) who reviews screening data, (b) how screening data are used to determine student risk, and (c) how interventions are designed for those students demonstrating risk. The lack of consensus in practice calls for dissemination concerning best practices in the implementation of social, emotional, and behavioral screening, risk identification, and Tier 1 intervention. [This paper will be published in "Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions."] (As Provided).
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01