The Check, Connect, and Expect Program: A Targeted, Tier 2 Intervention in the Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Model

Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 152 158, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LCC ISSN: 1045-988X print DOI: 10.1080/10459880903492742 The Check, Connect, and Expect Program: A Targeted, Tier 2 Intervention in the Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support Model Douglas Cheney, Lori Lynass, Andrea Flower, Maryann Waugh, Wendy Iwaszuk, Christine Mielenz, and Leanne Hawken ABSTRACT: The Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support model emphasizes varying levels of supports for students and staff to enhance positive social behavior and decrease problematic behavior among students. The authors present an example of a targeted Tier 2 intervention that has been effective at producing positive social outcomes for students who are at risk of developing emotional or behavioral disabilities. In a Tier 2 intervention, a schoolbased coach works with teachers and students on a daily basis to set social goals, check students progress, provide reinforcement when students meet goals, and communicate students progress to their parents. Students have a daily progress report card to assess their social behavior and receive feedback and ratings from teachers. Additional supports are available in the form of social-skills instruction and problem-solving instruction when students do not meet daily social expectations. Results from the past several years show that this type of intervention can reduce problematic student behavior, reduce referral rates to special education, and enhance students social behavior. KEYWORDS: positive behavior support, Tier 2 behavior intervention CHILDREN WITH EMOTIONAL and behavioral disabilities are at risk have great difficulty succeeding in their public education and often interfere with teachers efforts to educate other children in the classroom. These students are more likely to fail more courses, have higher school dropout rates, are unlikely to attend college, and have great difficulties with social relationships and employment as teenagers and adults (Cheney & Bullis, 2004; Malmgren, Edgar, & Neel, 1998). In urban school settings, the convergence of multiple school and community-based factors (e.g., decreased school funding, difficulty retaining teachers, socioeconomic factors, drug and alcohol abuse) can exacerbate antisocial behavior (McCurdy, Kunsch, & Reibstein, 2007). Educators often find themselves unprepared to develop and implement strategies that identify and proactively serve these at-risk students (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007). However, many techniques, strategies, and system supports are successful with these students. Many teachers have been able to successfully use practices that reduce inappropriate behavior (aggression, disruptions, social withdrawal), improve academic learning (achievement, on task, engagement), and enhance social and interpersonal relations (social skills and language) in the classroom. These practices include reinforcement, clear and specific requests, group contingencies, direct instruction, self-monitoring, modifying antecedents and consequences, and teaching and practicing social skills in school (Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003; Stage & Quiroz, 1997). The three-tiered model of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Support (SWPBS) is consistent with the response to intervention (RTI) continuum, as those students who are responsive within each tier require less support and resources through behavioral or academic intervention (Cheney, Flower, & Templeton, 2008), and both approaches incorporate effective practices for working with students challenging behavior (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008). SWPBS emphasizes the use of schoolwide methods to increase productive behavior while decreasing the problem behaviors of all students at Tier 1, offers targeted interventions for at-risk students at Tier 2, and provides individualized, intensive services for students at Tier 3 (Horner & Sugai, 2005). Across the tiers, educators systematically teach and reinforce socially valued behaviors. Hawken, Address correspondence to Douglas Cheney or Lori Lynass, College of Education, University of Washington, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; dcheney@uw.edu or lynassl@uw.edu (e-mail). 152

Vol 54, No. 3 Cheney et al. 153 MacLeod, and Rawlings (2007) noted that behavior interventions must be efficient and cost effective for schools to consistently use them to enhance studentsí social outcomes. Over the past 20 years, studies have concluded that the quality of students relationships with school staff is connected to student outcomes (McPartland, 1994; Murray & Malmgren, 2005). Thus, the type of interpersonal relationships that teachers and students develop and the types of school activities a student engages in are major factors in a child s positive social development. In addition, children who have interpersonal difficulties with their parents or guardians are likely to have behavioral problems at school (Greenburg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993; Pianta, Steinberg, Rollins, 1995). Poor social relationships are related to classroom adjustment, academic performance, and school failure (Anderson, Christenson & Sinclair, 2004; Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998). To counteract negative social and academic problems, it is important to teach and reinforce desired social behavior to students in prevention programs to decrease problematic behaviors in schools (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; Hawkins, Guo, Hill, Battin-Pearson, & Abbott, 2001; Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). In this article, we aim to describe an evidenced-based, targeted intervention that is implemented within a SWPBS framework with students who are at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. The Check, Connect, and Expect Program (CCE): Prevention and Intervention for Behavioral Problems The CCE is considered a Tier 2 intervention in the SWPBS model. The CCE is based on 15 years of research and practice from Check and Connect (C&C; Sinclair et al., 1998), the Behavior Education Program (BEP; Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004), and literature on using daily progress reports (DPRs) to improve social behavior (e.g., Davies & McLaughlin, 1989; Fairchild, 1987; Long & Edwards, 1994). C&C and the BEP rely on positive and caring adults who provide daily interactions and structured supervision with students who have behavioral problems. These positive, caring adults are referred to as coaches in the CCE program. The coach frequently checks in with students and provides them with feedback on their academic and social progress. The coach helps students set daily social goals for success and provides students with reinforcement when they meet their goals. In addition to supervising the daily progress of students, the coach helps students to overcome social difficulties and acquire new social skills to be successful in school. Students are taught to self-monitor their behavior before graduating from the program. The coach is responsible for providing these services and serves as a positive role model for students with behavioral problems that interfere with students school success. A Practitioner s Guide to Using the CCE Program The CCE program comprises several critical structures and strategies that include (a) the coach implementing the program; (b) daily positive interactions among the coach, students, and teachers; (c) supervision and monitoring of students social performance; (d) social skill instruction; (e) positive reinforcement for students meeting daily and weekly goals; and (f) involvement of parents through daily home notes. Coach Training The CCE program differs from other Tier 2 targeted interventions because it requires a full-time coach to administer the program at the school. The coach is a district-employed paraprofessional who has participated in training to learn how to implement the intervention. Coach training includes an initial a two-day summer workshop to address coach dispositions and job responsibilities, and follow-up trainings provided throughout the year. The primary disposition that is discussed by the CCE trainer or facilitator with coaches and practiced at the workshop is the importance of positive and unconditional caring for students with challenging behavior. The program mantra is for coaches to encourage students daily success, emphasize students potential, and become a positive, dependable role model. At the summer workshop, coaches learn the three primary program phases of CCE: basic, basic plus, and self-monitoring. Coaches typically work with 20 25 students at a time. The coaches need approximately three hours per day to implement the basic program. This three-hour time frame includes time to complete morning check-in, enter data into the Web site for progress monitoring, and complete afternoon check-out. An additional three hours per day are needed for coaches to implement the basic-plus phase with students, which include delivery of social skills and problem-solving lessons. Coaches coordinate services with the school team, work with teachers in classrooms to provide student feedback, and help students and teachers with self-monitoring. Coaches spend any remaining time informally interacting with students and teachers and reviewing student data. In the CCE program, a behavior specialist also coordinates the program districtwide, across different schools. The behavior specialist typically has a background in special education or school psychology and the behavioral expertise to assist the coach in decision making and program recommendations. The behavior specialist also attends the coaches two-day summer workshop and have quarterly training and supervision days with the CCE program staff. Principals at each school supervise the coach, but the district-level behavior specialist works with the coach on a weekly basis to assure program implementation, program evaluation, and professional development.

154 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 3 Student Selection Since 2005, the CCE program has been systematically implemented in 18 urban elementary schools in the Seattle metropolitan area. The schools are located in three different districts, average approximately 500 students per school, have an average racial composition of 55% Caucasian and 45% other racial ethnic groups (14% were African American, 15% were Asian American, 15% were Latino, and 1% were others, which included Pacific Islanders, African, Asian, or Middle Eastern immigrants), and more than half (51%) of the students across the schools also receive free or reduced lunch. Because the CCE program is considered to be a Tier 2 intervention, the goal is to identify students who are at risk of school failure early, on the basis of their behavioral problems. For the past 4 years, the first two gates of the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) has been used to identify students for the CCE program. The SSBD requires teachers to nominate students and rate their behaviors to determine whether they are at risk for behavioral failure. In the first stage, teachers rank all of their students for externalizing (e.g., aggression, defiance) or internalizing (e.g., shy, anxious, withdrawn) behavioral characteristics, as defined and explained in the SSBD. In the second stage, teachers complete rating scales on critical events, maladaptive, and adaptive behaviors on the three highest ranked internalizing and externalizing students. Students are compared with a national normative sample, and those who meet criteria are considered at risk for behavioral failure and, with parental consent, become eligible for the CCE program. The Basic CCE Program Check-In All students in the CCE program begin by participating in the basic phase, which follows most of the prescribed steps that were developed in the BEP (Crone et al., 2004). Students check in with their coach every day for an 8 week period, the minimum time allowed for students to benefit from the CCE program s instruction, supervision, and reinforcement on social expectations. A check-in occurs before school, lasts 2 3 min, and assures that students are ready and have their school materials, reviews their daily goals, gives students verbal encouragement to meet their goals, and checks for parent signatures on the previous day s DPR. At check-in, students receive their DPR card. The DPR was modified from the BEP intervention (Crone et al.) and lists the schoolwide expectations (e.g., respect, responsibility, safety) for at least three grading periods to rate student progress on the expectations. This card establishes clear student expectations and provides a rubric for the teacher to rate the student s behavior during the school day. The card is designed to prompt the teachers to provide students with positively worded feedback about their behavior and specific behavior they need to improve to be successful in the classroom. Figure 1 provides an example of one school s DPR. Teacher Rating After check-in, the student takes the DPR to class and teachers use it to rate the student s ability to meet social expectations on a four-point Likert-type scale, ranging 1 4, at defined periods throughout the day (e.g., after an academic period, during natural breaks in the teaching schedule). During these periods, the teacher briefly meets with the student to discuss his or her classroom and school performance on the DPR. The teacher gives the student a high rating and positive verbal feedback when he or she meets social expectations and provides redirection when the student has difficulties. At the end of the school day, students take the DPR to check out with the coach. Check-Out Check-out provides another time for students and the coach to build rapport as the coach calculate the points that students earned on the DPR. The coach verbally praises and reinforces students as they meet their goals. When students do not meet their goals, the coach talks with them about how they can improve the next day. If necessary, the coach schedules a brief problem-solving session with the student. The students take home one copy of the DPR to share with their parents. At home, students receive additional positive support about their behavior. In the CCE program, students need to demonstrate consistent success by meeting their social goals across a minimum 8 week period before they move to the self-monitoring level. A student is considered successful in the CCE program if he or she earns more than 75% of points daily for more than 80% of the days in the 8 week period. Students who have consistent difficulty reaching their daily point goal move to the basic-plus phase. Basic-Plus Phase When students do not consistently meet their daily goals across the 8 week basic phase, they begin the basic-plus phase. The basic-plus phase provides the same check-in and check-out procedures as does the basic phase but increases opportunities for social problem-solving and social-skills instruction. Social problem-solving sessions are scheduled for 15-min periods, and coaches use the problem-solving approach and social-skills instruction lessons from The Stop and Think Social Skills Program (Knoff, 2001). Socialskills instruction is similar to many commercial programs in which one, two, or three students meet the coach and receive explicit instruction on the 15 major skills in the

Vol 54, No. 3 Cheney et al. 155 FIGURE 1. A daily progress report card. program. The problem-solving approach is used when students have a very low score on points earned or when they receive a discipline referral. The coach reviews the problem, discusses alternative choices to make, identifies good and bad choices, and then has the student practice the social skill in a good choice. Students then commit to using the more productive social skill during the school day. This curriculum has been used with elementary-aged students throughout the United States and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency recently identified The Stop and Think Social Skills Program as an evidence-based practice in schools. 1 Once students are successful at earning at least 75% of their daily points on average across another 8 weeks in the basic-plus phase, they move back to the basic phase. Students are expected to be successful in the basic phase for another 4 weeks before moving to self-monitoring. If a student is unable to make progress in the basic-plus phase, the school team may choose to conduct a functional assessment or take advantage of additional school supports, such as a prereferral program. Self-Monitoring There are two steps in the basic-plus phase: Self- Monitoring 1 (SM1) and Self-Monitoring 2 (SM2). These steps help students show that they can meet classroom social expectations and that they can track their own progress on the expectations on the DPR form. In SM1, students continue to receive the same checkin and out procedures as Basic. They then rate their own performance on expectations and compare their selfscores with their teacher s scores. The goal is for students to accurately evaluate their own behavior by scoring themselves within one point of their teacher. Students are reinforced for both meeting expectations and agreement with their teacher on the DPR rating scores. Once the student and teacher reach an agreement on at least 10 of the 15 days, and the student is meeting his or her daily goal, the student moves to SM2. When a student is unsuccessful in self-monitoring, the coach holds at least one problem-solving session to help the student, and the coach may suggest the student return to the basic phase for one or 2 weeks.

156 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 3 During SM2, students are gradually phased off the intervention. They are not required to check in or check out, and the use of the DPR is gradually decreased across a 1-month period. Coaches are available to meet with the student for discussion or problem-solving sessions to help the student graduate from the program. Graduation When students successfully meet their goal in SM2 for 2 4 weeks, they may graduate from the CCE program. A celebration is held and coaches classify the student an alumni of the program. Some graduates serve as mentors for incoming students. As mentors, they orient new students to the program and may help younger students by escorting them to and assisting them with check-in or check-out. During the school year, graduates complete one DPR per month to assess their maintenance of behavioral progress. Data-Based Decision Making A hallmark of SWPBS is the emphasis on data-based decision making. In the CCE program, coaches collect the DPR daily and enter the teacher ratings on the card into the CCE Web site, which summarizes the data in tables and graphs. These data can then be easily analyzed to assure that the students are meeting their set program goal of 75%. However, the goal can be adjusted lower to allow a student who is not able to meet a 75% criterion to experience success at a criteria level challenging for him or her and then this can slowly be adjusted back to 75%. The system can also notate days when a student received social-skills instruction or problem-solving instruction, and when a student or teacher was absent, or data were not available other reasons. Through weekly reviews of the charts and office discipline referral information, the behavior specialist and coach can make data-based decisions about how best to support the student. These decisions may include moving between program phases, adjusting criteria or reinforcement, or implementing services such as problem-solving instruction or social-skills instruction. These decisions can be shared with the SWPBS team. Figure 2 shows a chart that was produced on the CCE Web site. CCE Program Effectiveness The CCE and BEP are promising Tier 2 interventions for students with behavioral problems and are considered as RTI approaches for social behavior. Typically, 70% of students in the intervention improve their social behavior and do not develop emotional and behavioral disabilities. An additional 10 15% benefit from the additional support in the basic-plus phase. Table 1 presents information regarding the number of students who have been in each phase of the program and how they have succeeded or not in these phases. Across 2 years of using the CCE program with students having numerous behavioral risk factors, only 20 of 104 (19%) of students were referred to or identified for special education (Cheney, Flower, & Templeton, 2008). This suggests that the intervention was helpful in preventing emotional or behavioral disorders. Finally, students who graduate from the CCE program have been found to improve their social skills (SSRs) and to make more significant decreases on measures of problem behaviors (TRF and SSRs) when compared with nongraduates or with students in comparison schools (Cheney, Stage, Hawken, Lynass, Mielenez, & Waugh, 2009). It is equally important that teachers have stated they appreciate the program and would recommend it to other teachers. This type of social-validity information has been replicated across several studies of the BEP and CCE (e.g., Cheney, Waugh, Lynass, & Mielenz, 2008; Hawken, 2006; Hawken et al., 2007) and results suggest that teachers and coaches can both easily learn and use the programs. Regarding fidelity measures, 90% of teachers who were observed over time used the program correctly, and 95% of coaches use the program as it was designed. Behavior specialists and research assistants who used fidelity checklists that listed the program components collected these data. Coaches were observed to accurately implement the daily tasks of assuring the student had his or her DPR, reviewing daily social and behavioral goals, sending students to the classroom on time, reviewing the DPR at day s end, praising students for meeting their daily goals, and exciting students at the end of the day. Teachers were also observed in their classrooms by CCE staff and behavior specialists. They were also very adept at implementing the program by providing positive feedback at the end of designated DPR periods, reviewing problems by providing positive feedback at the end of designated DPR periods, reviewing problems with meeting expectations, giving points consistent with the established DPR rubric, and encouraging students to succeed in subsequent time periods (Cheney et al.). Results from the CCE and BEP suggest that these are efficient and effective prevention programs for students with challenging behavior. Program materials for the BEP are commercially available (Crone et al., 2004). 2 These Tier 2 programs appear to hold much promise for the illusive and long-standing problem of preventing serious behavior and mental health problems in schools. Summary In this article, we reviewed a practical, efficient, and effective Tier 2 practice for elementary-aged students who are at risk of school failure because of their behavior. The approach has been evaluated in 18 urban schools with a diverse population of students and found to be effective with more than 84% of students across

Vol 54, No. 3 Cheney et al. 157 FIGURE 2. A progress monitoring chart for a student in the basic and self-monitoring phases. TABLE 1. Number of Students in Various Stages of the Check, Connect, and Expect Program 2005 2006 2006-2007 Program phase Description A B C D Basic and successful Met criteria in basic and progressed to 114 58 99 71 self-monitoring, graduation, or both Basic plus and successful Met criteria in basic plus and progressed to basic, 42 21 26 18 self-monitoring, graduation, or a combination of the three Variable or unsuccessful Did not meet criteria in basic or basic plus and was 38 19 15 11 referred for more intensive services No data Moved or left before 4 weeks of data collection 4 2 0 0 Note. For 2005 2006, N 198; for 2006 2007, N 140. a 2-year period during which the basic and basic-plus phases have been used. The basic program of checking students in and out is consistent with the approaches recommended in the BEP and C&C programs that have been established over the past 15 years. The CCE program expands these approaches by employing a trained paraprofessional to support students who need additional social-skills instruction and problem solving in the basic plus phase to improve daily outcomes for students who have difficulty meeting classroom social expectations. The use of a paraprofessional appears to be a cost-effective approach compared with either the higher cost of Tier 3 intensive interventions or the related increased costs of special education. Used in the three-tiered approach of SWPBS or RTI, the CCE program should be a helpful approach for ameliorating

158 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 3 behavioral problems of students and improving their daily behavior in classrooms. NOTES 1. For more information, visit http://www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov/. 2. The CCE program is accessible at http://www.uwbrc.org/. AUTHOR NOTES Douglas Cheney is professor of special education, Lori Lynass is a research scientist, Andrea Flower is an assistant professor at University of Texas, Austin; Maryann Waugh, Wendy Iwaszuk, and Christine Mielenz are doctoral students at University of Washington, Seattle, WA; and Leanne Hawken is an associate professor at the University of Utah. REFERENCES Abbott, R. D., O Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Hill, K. G., Kosterman, R., & Catalano, R. F. (1998). Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 532 542. Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., & Sinclair, M. F. (2004). Check & connect: The importance of relationships for promoting school engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 95 113. Cheney, D., & Bullis, M. (2004). Research findings and issues in the school-to-community transition of adolescents with emotional or behavioral disorders. In R. Rutherford, M. Quinn, & S. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional or behavioral disorders (pp. 369 384). New York: Guilford. Cheney, D., Flower, A. L., & Templeton, T. (2008). Applying response to intervention metrics in the social domain for students at risk of developing emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 42, 108 126. Cheney, D., Stage, S., Hawken, L., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C., & Waugh, M. (2009). A two-year outcome study of the check, connect, and expect intervention for students at-risk of severe behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 226 243. Cheney, D., Waugh, M., Lynass, L., & Mielenz, C. (2008). Properties of a Tier 2 intervention: Findings regarding fidelity of implementation, accuracy of data entry, and social validity. Unpublished Manuscript: University of Washington, Seattle. Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken L. S. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program. New York: Guildford. Davies, D. E., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1989). Effects of a daily report card on disruptive behaviour in primary students. BC Journal of Special Education, 13, 173 181. Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288 310. Fairchild, T. N. (1987). The daily report card. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19, 72 73. Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3 35. Greenberg, M., Speltz, M., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early development of disruptive behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 191 213. Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, S. K., & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects of the behavior education program (BEP) on office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 94 101. Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportunities Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 213 225. Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. (2001). Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development Interventions on school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 225 236. Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2005). School-wide positive behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.) Positive behavior support (pp. 359 390). New York: Guilford. Knoff, H. M. (2001). The stop and think social skills program teacher s manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Landrum, T. J., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2003). What is special about special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders? Journal of Special Education, 37, 148 156. Long, N., & Edwards, M. (1994). The use of a daily report card to address children s school behavior problems. Contemporary Education, 65, 152 155. Malmgren, K., Edgar, E., & Neel, R. (1998). Postschool status of youths with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 257 263. McCurdy B. L., Kunsch, C., & Reibstein, S. (2007). Secondary prevention in the urban school: Implementing the behavior education program. Preventing School Failure, 51, 12 19. McPartland, J. M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk (pp. 255 276). New York: Teachers College Press. Murray, C., & Malmgren, K. (2005) Implementing a teacher student relationship program in a high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic adjustment and lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 137 152. Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher child relationships and deflections in children s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 297 312. Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Dropout prevention for high-risk youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65, 7 21. Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333 368. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency. (n.d.). Model programs. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www. modelprograms.samhsa.gov/ Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315 350). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1992). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD): User s guide and administration manual. Longmont, Colo: Sopris West.

Copyright of Preventing School Failure is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.