the benefits of effective behaviour screening for children ... · displaying some degree of...
TRANSCRIPT
The benefits of effective behaviour screening for children in schools
Gaye Tyler-Merrick & John Church
School of Educational Studies & Human Development
University of Canterbury
Symposium on Assessment and Learner Outcomes
1-3 September 2011
Wellington
22
Abstract
Early intervention for children with behaviour difficulties can be effective in schools. Intervening early can save a child from long-term outcomes such as school failure, peer rejection and later offending. However, in terms of accurate assessment of children‘s behavioural difficulties, there is disparity between what the research suggest as best practice and what actually occurs in schools. This paper challenges current thinking about the timing of behavioural assessments and describes the elements of an effective screening procedure for these children. The authors' own behaviour screening tool is described. The implications of using a universal screening procedure for school children is discussed as is teacher reticence to do this.
3
Introduction
Children who present with early onset antisocial development are at the greatest risk for adverse outcomes during adolescence and adulthood.
Non-compliance, defiance, aggression and coercive behaviours can lead to…
truancy, peer/teacher rejection, low academic achievement, early involvement with drugs/alcohol
early school drop out and lifelong dependence on welfare.
4
Introduction
Antisocial children will create the greatest social cost over their lifetime with repeated contact with specialist educational services, CYFS, Police, Justice system, medical services and benefit payments.
Current practice
A man places himself at the bottom of a waterfall, pulling children out of the churning water before the river plunges into a deep, rocky ravine. He hauls them out, nurses their wounds, and calls to others along the riverbank to help. It occurs to him that if he could go to the top of the waterfall, he might be able to keep children out of the dangerous waters in the first place. But, he thinks, who will save the children who get pulled over the waterfall while I’m climbing to the top of the cliff? Unable to answer that question, he remains –working feverishly – at the bottom of the waterfall saving the children most in danger.
5
The importance of accurate identification / screening
Early intervention is absolutely critical. Children who have not learned appropriate, non-coercive ways of interacting socially by around 8 years of age will likely continue displaying some degree of antisocial behaviour throughout their lives.
The longer such children go without access to effective early intervention services the more resistant to change their behaviour problems will become and the more expensive it will be to induce change.
6
Aim of project
We developed and field tested a culture-fair, multiple-gating procedure for identifying children who are showing signs of life-course persistent antisocial development. The research was motivated by the observation that New Zealand has no standardised screening procedure for identifying antisocial development in children and youth.
7
Technical challenges
We aimed to produce a procedure which:
1.Sensitive to children growing and acquiring new forms of antisocial behaviour
2.Recognised that some behaviours are more predictive of antisocial development than others
3.Measured degree/level of antisocial development
8
Technical challenges cont...
4. Controlled for context effects
5. Measured prosocial as well as antisocial behaviours
6. Demonstrated both sensitivity and specificity
7. Was culture fair
9
10
Method
The procedure was a multi-gating assessment procedure.
Gate 1- Teacher Nomination/Referral form
Gate 2 – A Teacher Rating Scale (Social Development Scale)
Gate 3 – Direct observation of classroom behaviour
11
Method
Piloting of the procedures
• Recruitment and sample size
• Information brochures/consents
• Observer training procedures
• Design and procedures
12
Results – Table 1
The accuracy of the nominations of the Pilot Study teachers
Criterion: Criterion:
Antisocial Not antisocial _____________________________________
Identified by the teacher Positive
as antisocial 114 18 predictive power 0.86
Selected by the classroom teacher Negative
as a control child using a random predictive power
selection procedure __2____ 129 0.98______
Sensitivity Specificity Hit rate
0.98 0.88 0.92
_____________________________________________________
N= 263, Chi-Square = 191.95, p<.001
13
Table 2
The discriminant validity of the Social Development Scales
Criterion: Criterion:
Antisocial Not antisocial______________________________________________
Number of students below Positive
the 50th percentile on the predictive power SDS 115 13 0.898
Number of students above Negative
the 50th percentile on the SDS 1 134 predictive power
____________________0.992 ________
Sensitivity Specificity Hit rate
0.991 0.912 0.947______________________________________________________ N = 263, Chi-Square = 211.60, p<.001
Positive predictive power corrected for a base rate for antisocial behaviour of 10% = 0.494
14
Discussion
False negatives
Failing to identify children as early onset AD deprives them access to early intervention - social cost involved (2 of 263 missed).
False positives
High SDS score still present with high behaviour concerns may still require RTLB intervention/ functional assessment.
15
Current research
Under investigation is a direct observation procedure that teachers can use to support Gates 1 and 2 so that an accurate (and early) assessment can be made for children developing on an antisocial trajectory.
•Gate 3: Direct observation by teachers
• Teachers are self-recording compliance to instructions
• 10 instructions or 30 minutes per day x 3 days
• Teachers to select time/activity (demand situations)
Teacher reticence
A compelling case can be made for screening (children, parents & teachers) but...
Teacher training (in-service and professional development)
Time – ‘fit in with other commitments’
Whose role is it?
Accuracy of recordings
16
1717
Questions to address…
Is the role of teacher to teach social behaviour and if it is, are they sufficiently trained to do this?
If classroom teachers can successfully undertake all three assessments (Gates 1,2,3), what are the implications for schools, teachers, early intervention, RTLB and special education services?
Questions to address…
Once these children are accurately identified, what are the implications for the servicing and resourcing of the required intervention programmes?
18
References
Church, R. J. (2003) The definition, diagnosis and treatment of children and youth with severe behaviour difficulties: A review of research. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education. University of Canterbury: School of Education.
Church, R. J., Tyler-Merrick, G. & Hayward, H. (2006) Identifying antisocial development in New Zealand children. Phase 1: Development of the screening procedure. Final Report to the Ministry of Education. University of Canterbury: School of Education.
Feil, E. G., & Becker, W. C. (1993). Investigation of a multiple-gated screening system for preschool behavior problems. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 44-55.
Feil, E. G., Walker, H., Severson, H., & Ball, A. (2000). Proactive screening for emotional/behavioral concerns in Head Start preschools: Promising practices and challenges in applied research. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 13-25.
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2004). Show me the child at seven: The consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 837-849.
Foster, E. M., Jones, D. E., & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2005). The high costs of aggression: Public expenditures resulting from conduct disorder. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1767-1772.
McMahon, R. J., Wells, K. C., & Kotler, J. S. (2006). Conduct problems. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of childhood disorders (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press.
19
References
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). A social interactional approach Vol 4: Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia
Snyder, J., & Stooolmiller, M. (2002). Reinforcement and coercion mechanisms in the development of antisocial behaviour: The family. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder, J. Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp 65-100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G. & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H.M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F.M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school. Evidence based practices. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992a). Systematic screening for behavior disorders: Users guide and administration manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992b). Systematic screening for behavior disorders: Technical manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1995). The Early Screening Project: A proven child-find process. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
20
21
Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
Ministry of Education for funding the 2005/6 pilot project.
The schools and teachers who kindly agreed to trial the 2005 and the current procedures.
The parents and children who kindly consented to be part of the project.
Colleagues who gave their time to critique our work.
Contact
Gaye Tyler-Merrick
John Church
22