Early Risk Screening for School-Related Behavior Disorders

Obstacles and Cautions regarding Early Screening

In spite of its relationship to prevention, its potential cost benefits, and the existence of a well-developed technology of early screening and identification for behavior problems and disorders, a number of strong obstacles continue to block the adoption of proactive, universal screening within the school setting. These obstacles include the following: (a) large amount of time and effort involved in proactive screening, (b) potentially damaging effects of singling out and labeling identified students so they can receive needed services, (c) reluctance to identify students for whom services presumably do not exist, and (d) not accepting responsibility for dealing with those students who emerge from the risk-screening process. Potential costs incurred through lawsuits filed by parents under auspices of the IDEA emanating from disputes regarding [Page 1282]provision of satisfactory treatment services have been huge factors in this pervasive reluctance by educators.

Empirical Support for Early Risk Screening

Early screening and detection are essential to the mounting of early intervention efforts for the purpose of addressing problems both early in their trajectory and within the lives of at-risk children. Over the past 15 years, a strong technology of screening identification has been developed in the social-emotionalbehavioral domain. Teacher nominations and ratings have typically served as the first level of screening in models and best practices developed for this purpose. Teachers have been shown to demonstrate acceptable levels of accuracy in screening for emotional-behavioral problems, academic deficits, and peer-relations difficulties. Research also has shown that structured teacher ratings are more effective than ratings by parents in predicting future arrest frequencies. Other research has demonstrated that teacher appraisals are more accurate in certain domains than either parent or peer appraisals. This collective evidence is sufficiently robust to rule out the oft-heard criticism that teachers are either incompetent or unfairly biased in their evaluations of students in their classes.

...