Determining the Presence of a Problem: Comparing Two Approaches for Detecting Youth Behavioral Risk

Autor/inn/en	Kamphaus, R. W.; DiStefano, Christine; Dowdy, Erin; Eklund, Katie; Dunn, Alnita Rettig
Titel	Determining the Presence of a Problem: Comparing Two Approaches for Detecting Youth Behavioral Risk
Quelle	In: School Psychology Review, 39 (2010) 3, S.395-407 (13 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0279-6015
Schlagwörter	Academic Achievement; Validity; At Risk Students; Achievement Tests; Classification; Inferences; Teaching Methods; Elementary Schools; Screening Tests; Problem Solving; Children; Data Analysis; Scores; Grades (Scholastic); Student Behavior + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Schulleistung; Gültigkeit; Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Inference; Inferenz; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Elementary school; Grundschule; Volksschule; Screening-Verfahren; Problemlösen; Child; Kind; Kinder; Auswertung; Notenspiegel; Student behaviour; Schülerverhalten
Abstract	Universal screening has been routinely advised for determining the presence of problems for initiating problem-solving processes and models. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of two screener development methods on the validity of score inferences for two teacher screeners of child behavioral and emotional risk. The reliability and validity indices associated with screener scores were compared by analyzing data for 472 children from 20 elementary schools who were screened for behavioral and emotional risk. Screener scores from both instruments were significantly related to academic achievement test scores, grades, and classification of at-risk students. Although there was evidence that specificity of risk classification was better for one screener, both instruments identified risk with good reliability and validity. A research agenda and practice implications are discussed. (Contains 5 tables.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	National Association of School Psychologists. 4340 East West Highway Suite 402, Bethesda, MD 20814. Tel: 301-657-0270; Fax: 301-657-0275; e-mail: publications@naspweb.org; Web site: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10