Promote Appropriate Assessment

Promote Appropriate Assessment

JOSEPH H. WEHBY, FRANK J. SYMONS, AND ALEXANDRA HOLLO

Target 5 of the National Agenda for Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance is examined in this

article. Specifically, this target highlights the need for improving assessment practices within the

provision of services for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. Three assessment

areas are reviewed: risk factors, problem behavior, and reintegration of students. Within each of these

areas, current research is reviewed and recommendations for best practices are provided. Implications

for improving appropriate assessment are then considered.

I n their recent National Agenda for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance, the Office

of Special Education Programs painted a dismal picture of the current educa-tional outcomes for students with seri-ous emotional disturbance (SED) and identified seven strategic targets for im-proving educational services. Strategic Target 5, the promotion of appropriate assessment of children with SED, spe-cifically targets the use and develop-ment of appropriate assessment strategies that will (a) identify risk factors con-tributing to the early development of SED, (b) determine the motivation for problem behavior before designing inter-ventions, and (c) recognize the neces-sary skills and supports required for successful reintegration of students with SED into less restrictive environments. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of appropriate assessment for school-age children and youth with SED by selectively reviewing current literature and providing examples of best practices in the assessment of risk, spe-cific problem behavior, and responsible reintegration. Following a discussion of implications for researchers, practi-tioners, and policymakers, we conclude with a brief comment relating Target 5 to the other targets outlined by the Na-tional Agenda and suggest that although numerous approaches exist for assess-ing risk, problem behavior, and reinte-gration, their systematic and successful application continues to be developed.

A few caveats are worth noting re-garding the approach of this article. First, because much of the assessment research has been directed toward externalizing behavior disorders, much of the research cited in our reviews reflects this trend. Accordingly, limited generalizations can be made about the assessment of inter-nalizing behavior problems. We believe, however, that the issues raised regard-ing assessment apply also to internaliz-ing behavior disorders and strongly urge expansion of assessment strategies for those children with less observable behavior problems. Second, we agree with Target 5's encouragement of cul-turally sensitive and fair assessments. As noted by the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders (1990a), defi-ciencies in fairly assessing diverse popu-lations of children are related to the subjective nature of our assessment pro-cedures. We believe that using objec-tive assessment strategies is an integral step toward fairer evaluations. Thus, we should continue to strive for assessment protocols that are linguistically and culturally sensitive, and toward this end we have attempted to focus our review on those strategies that introduce and

maintain objectivity in the assessment process.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS

What We Know About Risk Factors

One of the most pressing concerns in education has been the failure to ac-tively and accurately identify school-age children at risk for developing emotional and behavioral problems. As noted by Kauffman (1993a), traditional assessment procedures for identifying children at risk for developing SED are unsatisfactory. Beginning with Robins (1966), considerable effort has been made to determine predictors of chronic emotional and behavioral difficulties. Several researchers have documented the significance of relations among home, school, and community variables and the later development of antisocial and destructive behavior (e.g., Patterson & Bank, 1986; West & Farrington, 1973). From this research, economic hardship, inadequate parenting behav-ior, and aggressive/disruptive behavior displayed by the child at an early age

JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, SPRING 1997, VOL. 5, NO. 1, PAGES 45-54

have been identified as the major risk factors related to later conduct disorder (Kazdin, 1985, 1987). These predictors are often correlated with later difficul-ties in school, specifically in the area of social relationships with teachers and peers (Kazdin, 1985; Walker et al., 1988). Children who exhibit early ag-gressive and oppositional behavior and who have poor social interactions both at home and at school are at greatest risk for exhibiting later maladjustment (Conduct Disorders Prevention Re-search Group, 1992; Patterson, Re id, & Dishion, 1991). Thus, the earlier the children are identified, the earlier proactive and positive interventions can be applied to prevent later development of destructive behavior problems.

To better understand the formation of emotional and behavioral disorders, a developmental model of the above risk factors has been proposed (Con-duct Disorders Prevention Research Group, 1992; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). It appears that the for-mation of antisocial behavior follows a series of predictable steps beginning with early childhood experiences in the home and continuing through middle child-hood and into late adolescence (Pat-terson et al., 1989; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991). At each point in time, negative experiences with parents, teachers, and peers put children at greater risk for the development of chronic behavior problems, which in turn increase the probability that spe-cial education and related services will be mandated.

Early Childhood. Over the past 30 years, there has been a considerable body of research linking family variables to the early development of emotional and behavioral disorders. Families of young children with SED are characterized by high stress, harsh and inconsistent dis-cipline, poor supervision, low levels of positive stimulation, and high levels of stress (Dodge, Bates, & Petit, 1990; Loeber & Dishion, 1983). A social-interactional view of these factors sug-gests that family members may inad-vertently teach their children to perform aggressive and noncompliant behaviors

(Patterson et al., 1989). When parents acquiesce to aversive behaviors, chil-dren are negatively reinforced, thereby increasing the likelihood that inappro-priate behaviors will recur. This may result in a consistent pattern of antiso-cial behavior that then may generalize to similar circumstances at school (Con-duct Disorders Prevention Research Group, 1992). High-risk children may enter classrooms less ready for social and academic demands. This, in com-bination with a history of aggressive and noncompliant behavior, may re-sult in classrooms quickly becoming inconsistent and highly aversive envi-ronments (Conduct Disorders Preven-tion Research Group, 1992).

Middle Childhood. As children move into school, other factors begin to influence the development of emo-tional and behavioral disorders. Chil-dren who exhibit aggressive behavior are quickly rejected by their peers (Ladd, Price, & Hart, 1990). Patterns of peer rejection eventually escalate, resulting in aggressive children becoming the targets for peer-initiated aggression. Likewise, the noncompliant and disrup-tive behavior of high-risk children may result in rejection by teachers (Dodge, Coie, &. Brakke, 1982; Dodge, Petit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986), who in turn only initiate contact when these children are off task (not engaged in ongoing activities) or disruptive (Slate & Saudargas, 1986; Wehby, Dodge, Valente, and Conduct Disorders Pre-vention Research Group, 1993). Seri-ous deficits in academic behavior are also notable during middle childhood (Walker, Shinn, O'Neill, & Ramsey, 1987).

Adolescence. By the time children reach early adolescence, a history of antisocial behavior, rejection by peers, and rejection by adults has been estab-lished. During adolescence, the devel-opment of emotional and behavioral disorders is influenced heavily by a de-viant peer group, one with similar behavioral patterns and reinforcement histories (Dishion & Loeber, 1985). It is in this peer group that the major

training for delinquency and substance abuse takes place (Dishion & Loeber, 1985). As noted by the Conduct Disor-ders Prevention Research Group (1992), attitudes toward family and schools as institutions during early adolescence may also be related to the development and maintenance of emotional and behavioral disorders.

What We Know About Assessing Risk Factors

The ambiguous and subjective nature of current methods of assessment has led to underidentification of children at risk for SED (Kauffman, 1993a). To recognize these children more accurately and efficiently, Loeber, Dishion, and Patterson (1984) advocated the use of a multiple-gating assessment procedure. Multiple gating is a procedure that con-sists of a series of progressively more precise assessments that provide for the sequential assessment of risk factors by different informants (Walker et al., 1988). During the assessment process, children who meet the criterion for risk at one stage move ahead to the next stage. Students who meet the criterion at each stage of assessment are consid-ered at highest risk for the develop-ment of problem behavior.

The use of a multiple-gating assess-ment procedure to identify children at risk for conduct disorders has been used by Patterson and his colleagues at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Using a multiple-gating assessment of family characteristics, Patterson and Bank (1986) identified and placed two cohorts of fourth-grade boys into at-risk or nor-mative control samples. Subsequent assessment of school environments sug-gested that the multiple-gating proce-dure identified two distinct groups of children. Fewer appropriate academic behaviors and more negative behaviors were observed for the at-risk group. In addition, a review of records indicated that the risk sample had more serious disciplinary problems than the norma-tive control sample (Walker et al., 1988). Patterson, Capaldi, and Bank (1991) noted that a significant number of boys may begin their antisocial behav-

46 JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, SPRING 1997, VOL. 5, NO. 1

iors even earlier. These "early starters" are more likely to be identified as prob-lem children in the early elementary grades and are probably most at risk for adult psychopathology. Recent research suggests that differences between risk and nonrisk groups can be observed in teacher-pupil interactions and peer relations as early as first grade (Wehby et al., 1993).

Best Practices in Assessing Risk Factors

At this time, the multiple-gating ap-proach for screening young children at risk for developing SED is emerging as a best practice in assessment. Imple-menting a school-based multiple-gating assessment procedure may be a system-atic and cost-effective approach for early identification and prevention of the development of severe behavior dis-orders (Forness, Kavale, MacMillan, Asarnow, & Duncan, 1996).

One example of a multiple-gating approach is the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1990). The SSBD incor-porates a three-stage assessment pro-cess for identifying children at risk for developing both externalizing and in-ternalizing behavior problems. The SSBD initially screens for at-risk chil-dren by having teachers rank the stu-dents in their classrooms according to behavior patterns corresponding to ex-ternalizing and internalizing behavior profiles (Stage 1). Teachers choose those children whose typical behavior pat-terns best fit a given profile and rate each student's status on behavioral de-scriptors of externalizing and internal-izing behavioral dimensions (Stage 2). Students who exceed normative crite-ria at the second stage move to Stage 3, in which behavioral observations in the classroom and playground are compared with both generic and locally referenced observational data on same-sex and grade-level peers. The SSBD is a well-developed package based on extensive research and classroom testing. The package can be implemented easily by practitioners (Walker & Severson, 1990; Walker et al., 1990) and may represent

JOURNAL OF

a "user-friendly" approach for identify-ing children at risk for developing emo-tional and behavioral problems.

A S S E S S M E N T OF SPECIFIC

PROBLEM B E H A V I O R S

What We Know About the Occurrence of Specific Problem Behaviors

Aggressive and disruptive behaviors often characterize children with SED and set them apart from children with other primary disabling conditions. Still, relatively little information is available regarding the frequency with which these specific behaviors occur during typical classroom conditions. Current estimates, based on few reports, suggest that the actual number of aggressive instances may be relatively infrequent on a day-to-day basis. Wehby, Symons, and Shores (1995) sampled a number of special education classrooms for chil-dren with SED and found that extremely high-rate aggressors displayed approxi-mately six times as many aggressive behaviors per hour compared with low aggressors. The absolute rate of aggres-sion for high aggressors, however, aver-aged approximately one act of peer-directed physical aggression per hour and less than one act of teacher-directed physical aggression per school day. Overall, low rates of aggressive or dis-ruptive behaviors have been reported for both children labeled as SED (e.g., Shores et al., 1993) and children iden-tified as at risk for the development of SED (e.g., Wehby et al , 1993). Thus, the opportunity to observe in detail the classroom conditions and events sur-rounding specific instances of problem behavior may be rare.

A comprehensive understanding of the factors that maintain both the ex-ternalizing and internalizing behaviors characteristic of the SED population has eluded researchers and practitioners alike. Failure to fully comprehend the stimuli that occasion and maintain these behaviors has led to treatments with limited promise for positive, long-lasting outcomes (Kazdin, 1985). Low base rates notwithstanding, additional factors have

EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDE

contributed to our lack of knowledge about effectively assessing and treating specific externalizing problem behav-iors. The use of comparative behavior rating scales and checklists is pervasive in the identification of children with psychopathology. As noted in the pre-vious section, the use of this type of information is important in identifying who is deviant from normative samples of children. As McConaughy (1993) noted, however, these assessment de-vices provide little information regard-ing the specific causes of the problem behavior (i.e., why a child hit the teacher on this particular day at this particular time). The problem remains for researchers and practitioners to de-termine the most effective and efficient means for assessing externalizing behav-ior that is low rate, yet extremely prob-lematic (Wehby et al., 1995).

What We Know About Assessing the Function of Specific Problem Behaviors

Over the last 10 years, there has been an expanding behavioral literature de-scribing several methods for isolating the causes of aberrant behavior. As de-scribed by Dunlap et al. (1993), two of these approaches can be categorized broadly either as functional assessments or functional analyses. Functional as-sessment relies on the identification of apparent associations between specific problem behaviors and environmental variables to develop testable causal hypotheses about classroom or social conditions leading to or maintaining problem behavior. Functional assess-ment becomes an analysis when environmental variables are directly ma-nipulated to determine their effect and relation to specific problem behaviors. For the purpose of this article, we use the term functional assessment to denote descriptive assessments or experimen-tal analyses conducted specifically to determine the operant function of prob-lem behavior (e.g., escape motivated, attention motivated).

Approaches for conducting func-tional assessments have ranged from gathering narrative information from

RS, SPRING 1997, VOL. 5, NO. 1 Al

teachers, parents, and others involved with the child (e.g., O'Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1990) to experimental analyses of problem be-havior under highly controlled analogue conditions (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Rich-man, 1982). Functional assessment re-search findings have identified specific antecedent behaviors and consequent events that reliably increase the prob-ability of future antisocial behavior.

Despite the renewed emphasis on assessment conducted to determine the function or purpose of specific problem behaviors, the applicability of typical functional assessment methodology is just beginning to be explored for stu-dents with SED. Several recent appli-cations of functional assessment meth-odology for children identified as SED have incorporated both descriptive and experimental approaches in order to develop and test hypotheses about the function of their problem behavior. For example, Gunter, Jack, et al. (1993) conducted a functional assessment by using direct observation to describe the antecedents and consequences for the disruptive behavior of two students with SED. In separate studies, hypoth-eses were developed based on a sequen-tial analysis of baseline observational data. Results suggested that teacher at-tention maintained disruptive behav-ior. Increasing teacher attention for appropriate behavior (e.g., handrais-ing) and eliminating attention for dis-ruptive behavior decreased the rate of observed disruptive behavior. Other researchers have incorporated descrip-tive analyses as the initial step in conducting a functional assessment. Dunlap et al. (1993) used information from interviews, behavior ratings, and direct observation to develop hypoth-eses regarding the undesirable behavior of five students identified as SED and then tested the hypotheses during on-going instructional activities within the classroom. Lewis and Sugai (1995a, 1995b) further expanded functional as-sessment technology by implementing assessment procedures in general edu-cation settings for a range of problem behaviors.

AQ JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND

Best Practices in Assessing Specific Problem Behaviors

The application of functional assessment strategies for children with SED is in-creasing. Although the findings regard-ing functional assessments with SED populations are only emerging, several apparent consistencies in the recent lit-erature may provide information regard-ing how best to implement functional assessments within an applied treatment context for children with SED. Like assessment in other areas, functional assessment of problem behavior should follow a multistage, multi-informant approach (Wehby, 1993). Such an ap-proach draws on different assessment sources (interview, direct observation, and behavioral ratings) from significant persons within the child's environment (teachers, parents, peers, and child) that are to be analyzed in a systematic decision-making structure. From these data, in-terventions should be developed. Such a multimethod approach follows the functional assessment protocol outlined by O'Neill et al. (1990) and has been implemented successfully with children who have emotional and behavioral problems (e.g., Dunlap et al., 1993; Lewis & Sugai, 1995b).

A multimethod assessment approach involves three basic stages. First, verbal reports of possible motivating factors are obtained from teachers and others within the child's environment. This information is gathered during an in-terview (e.g., the Functional Analysis Interview Form; O'Neill et al., 1990), which leads to the generation of hy-potheses regarding the function of the problem behavior. Next, hypotheses are supported or clarified through the use of descriptive observational strategies. The descriptive observations follow the antecedent-behavior-consequence for-mat outlined by Bijou, Peterson, and Auit (1968) and may be collected through paper-and-pencil format (e.g., O'Neill et al., 1990) or with laptop computers (e.g., Gunter, Jack, DePaepe, Reed, & Harrison, 1994). Finally, a typi-cal functional assessment protocol is completed with the experimental ma-nipulation of identified independent

EHAVIORAL DISORDERS, SPRING 1997,

variables to determine their effect on the problem behavior (Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata et al., 1982).

Although some of these experiments have been conducted within classroom settings (e.g., Dunlap et al., 1993), they most often occur in highly structured analogue settings. Increasingly, research-ers have begun hypothesis testing within the context of the natural environment and through the implementation of treatments based on the previously gath-ered descriptive assessment data (e.g., Gunter, Jack, et al., 1993). Lewis and Sugai (1995b) suggested further that it may be more reasonable for profession-als within classrooms to focus on the use of interviews and descriptive data when designing specific classroom in-terventions rather than conducting the rigorous experimental analyses compo-nent of a functional assessment.

ASSESSMENT FOR REINTEGRATION

What We Know About Reintegration

Students with SED are more likely to receive services in restrictive place-ments than any other disability group-ing. Of these students, 30-50% receive special education services in either self-contained classrooms or residential fa-cilities designed for children with SED (Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress, 1994). The majority of the remaining students spend a portion of their time in resource classrooms wherein segre-gation also occurs. Thus, an important and necessary component of their edu-cational programming is the provision and development of a comprehensive reintegration plan. Yet, there is little, if any, evidence that successful main-streaming strategies exist for children with SED (Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, 1990a; Kauff-mann, 1993b).

Reintegrating students with SED into general education classrooms has proved to be a complex and arduous task (Lan-drum & Kauffman, 1992). Students with SED are most often removed from main-stream education because of their be-

OL. 5, NO. 1

havioral excesses (e.g., aggression, hyperactivity) or their behavioral defi-cits (e.g., lack of social skills, low aca-demic achievement). We have a sub-stantial research base suggesting that we know something of remediating defi-cits and excesses in controlled or segre-gated settings for at least some length of time (Kazdin, 1985). It has been dif-ficult, however, to determine the most effective method or methods for reinte-grating the student with SED back into the mainstream of general education.

Numerous barriers continue to pre-vent the responsible reintegration of students with SED, including teacher attitudes toward student placement and level of administrative support. Specific factors contributing to teacher attitudes about reintegration involve philosophi-cally or ideologically different perspec-tives of inclusion, the characteristic behavior problems of students with SED, the teacher's perception of his or her competence to teach children with SED, lack of knowledge and preparation re-garding classroom management strate-gies, and the academic and social needs of students with SED (Gable, Laycock, Maroney, & Smith, 1991).

In a recent synthesis describing teacher perceptions of mainstreaming, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1995) reported that the degree of support for reinte-gration among teachers depended on the student's disability. Of teachers sur-veyed, 68% supported the concept of mainstreaming, but only half that num-ber supported the mainstreaming of stu-dents with SED. In addition, rein-tegration of students with SED often means reintegration from segregated environments (e.g., special day school, residential facility) to less segregated, but still restrictive, environments (e.g., self-contained class within a regular school). Thus, the extent to which the following literature is applicable for mainstreaming to general education settings is unknown.

Responsible reintegration of students with SED into less restrictive environ-ments has been characterized as a mul-tifaceted, complex process, one that is often not conducted very efficiently or effectively. Reintegration practices, par-

ticularly for students with SED, tend to cluster around the characteristics of either the teacher or the child (Landrum & Kauffman, 1992; Rock, Rosenberg, & Carran, 1994). A teacher focus to reintegration suggests that successful reintegration requires identifying com-petent teachers who are willing to ac-commodate students with SED and the associated behavioral disabilities in their classrooms. The child-characteristic approach assumes that remediating the student's identified excesses or deficits by teaching the requisite academic and social skills within the special educa-tion environment is necessary for the student to function in a general educa-tion classroom. It is most likely, how-ever, that successful reintegration re-quires both teacher competencies and student remediation of behavioral ex-cesses and deficits.

What We Know About Assessing for Reintegration

As noted by Walker (1986), "conflicts between the behavioral expectations and tolerance levels of teachers in main-stream settings and the social behavior deficits and excesses of handicapped children continue to be a major ob-stacle to mainstreaming" (p. 62). From two general orientations, teacher- and child-centered, it follows that assess-ment for reintegration also centers around child and teacher variables. First, the identification and selection of gen-eral education teachers who support (or at least do not resist) mainstreaming children with SED is noted as being critical to successful reintegration. Sec-ond, behavioral and ecological assess-ment of the less restrictive environment is required to match performance ex-pectations within the least restrictive environment to the student's skills (Gable et al., 1991; Walker & Rankin, 1983).

Assessment for Teacher-Centered Practices. It has been noted that the general education classroom is a hos-tile and unfriendly place for students with SED (Kauffman, Braaten, Pols-grove, & Nelson, 1988). In addition to

the peer rejection generally faced by children with SED, students who are reintegrated are likely to face teachers who have low tolerance for misbehav-ior, who have not been sufficiently trained in behavior management, and who might perceive themselves as un-qualified to work with these children (Braaten et al., 1988; Landrum & Kauffman, 1992). Also, students typi-cally will be exposed to instructional formats much different and far less ac-commodating than those they experi-enced in special education classrooms. Given this multitude of difficulties fac-ing mainstreamed SED students, there has been some effort in developing as-sessment protocols whose purpose is to identify the receiving teacher's standards and expectations for academic and be-havioral performance that the target student must meet in the general class-room. This is typically a somewhat in-formal process, often dictated by district policy as well as recruitment by the special education teacher.

There has been, however, some re-cent systematic inquiry in this area. Much of the work has been conducted by Walker and his colleagues (Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988; Walker, 1986; Walker & Rankin, 1983) in their de-velopment of the Social Behavior Sur-vival (SBS) Inventory. This protocol uses four self-report scales to measure (a) teachers' expressed tolerance for maladaptive behavior, (b) their resis-tance to children who display certain behavioral characteristics, (c) their ex-pectations for behavior within the class-room, and (d) their perceived need for assistance in dealing with certain be-havior problems. The profiles from these inventories provide a description of a teacher's standards and expectations that can be recorded to benefit the re-integration process.

Assessment for Child-Centered Practices. Researchers have shown that the behaviors taught within spe-cial education classrooms may not gen-eralize to a less restrictive environment (Fuchs, Fuchs, Fernstrom, & Hohn, 1991). This failure to generalize is prob-ably compounded by several factors,

JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS, SPRING 1997, VOL. 5, NO. 1

including the absence of generalization programming, curriculum differences, and changes in reinforcement densities between the two environments (Down-ing, Simpson, & Myles, 1990; Stokes & Baer, 1977). Therefore, in addition to the assessment of teachers' expecta-tions and attitudes, some measure of typical student performance within the reintegration setting is needed. This information may be used as a standard to which the child with SED can be compared, to design interventions that will increase the student's performance in specific skills, and to alert the stu-dent (and the teacher) to differences between the two settings.

The number of systematic approaches for assessing and establishing perfor-mance "norms" within less restrictive settings is limited. Although systems like the SBS Inventory may provide infor-mation about what type of behaviors teachers say they expect from their stu-dents, this may differ somewhat from the behavior actually exhibited by typi-cal students in less segregated settings. Determining a performance standard within the reintegration settings is most easily assessed using direct observation techniques. Specifically, students within the reintegration site are observed to obtain estimates of important classroom behaviors such as percentage of time engaged, level of participation, or fre-quency of social contacts. For example, Fuchs et al. (1991) sampled the behav-ior of randomly selected students in targeted reintegration classrooms and compared it with the behavior exhib-ited by the reintegration candidate in order to help with the transition from a segregated school for children with SED. In this study, observational data were used to help determine behavioral goals before reintegration.

Other Reintegration Issues* It should be noted that additional vari-ables exist that are associated with the reintegration process. For instance, we know little about the system- or district-level factors leading to successful inte-gration and how they influence the decision to reintegrate a student into a less restrictive setting in the first place. Rock et al. (1994) addressed this issue

by isolating factors possibly influencing the initial reintegration decision as it relates to students with SED. Program variables associated with the rate of reintegration included the orientation of the special education program, the demographics of the special education program, and the teachers' experiences and training in mainstreaming proce-dures. More specifically, among the best predictors of reintegration were (a) the ability of the special education teacher to select the classroom, (b) the prox-imity of the special education program to the reintegration site, and (c) past mainstreaming experience.

Best Practices in Assessment for Reintegration

Given the paucity of systematic inquir-ies related to the reintegration of students with SED, it is difficult to determine the best assessment practices. Some combination of the teacher-centered and child-centered approaches described is necessary to successfully assess reintegration sites. Some successes have been documented (for a review, see Lewis, Chard, & Scott, 1994), but implementation data are scarce. Thus, full-scale inclusion of students with SED is not a realistic goal at this time. Given the heterogeneity of the SED popula-tion, a case-by-case approach should be implemented (Braaten et al., 1988). Assessment for reintegration should be sensitive and flexible enough to reflect differences in individual children and their needs as well as differences in mainstreaming sites.

One promising model of reintegra-tion is called Transenvironmental Pro-gramming (TP) (Anderson-Inman, 1986; Anderson-Inman, Walker, & Purcell, 1984). In this model, the teach-ers from mainstream and special set-tings work together to assess the minimal behavioral and academic skills neces-sary for future success in the least re-strictive environment. By obtaining information from multiple sources and then sharing that information, the teachers can write objectives and devise instructional procedures that might enhance the prospect of successful entry into new classrooms. The Peabody Re-

integration Projeet^seeFuchs, Dempsey, Roberts, & Kintsch, 1995) expanded on this model by incorporating more structured collaboration between the mainstream and special education teach-ers. In addition, they used curriculum-based measurement to evaluate the academic work of low-achieving stu-dents in the less restrictive classroom and to target minimal academic goals that the child with SED should achieve before reintegration. Both the TP and the Peabody Reintegration Project models also stress the importance of post-mainstreaming evaluation to ensure that the student maintains an acceptable level of success in the new placement.

It should be clear that responsibly reintegrating students with SED requires that we draw from multiple perspec-tives and disciplines. Successful reinte-gration is a function of both the student's academic and social competence and the proposition that general educators can successfully instruct and manage students who exhibit problem behav-iors if they are given reasonable sup-port (Gable et al., 1991). Best practices would incorporate a thorough assess-ment of student and teacher character-istics to promote the most effective reintegration into the least restrictive environment that best meets the needs of each individual child with SED.

IMPLICATIONS FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

Implications for Assessing Risk Factors

Improvements in risk assessment and early identification have long been needed in the area of SED. Efforts to identify children who might be at risk for developing problem behavior often have been biased, subjective, and in-consistent at best (McGinnis, Kiraly, & Smith, 1984). Recent advances in our at-risk assessment tools are promis-ing, and as more and more children grow up in risk-saturated environments, it is becoming increasingly important to identify and treat early those chil-dren whose developmental course may result in antisocial outcomes. Some re-searchers, for example, have recently


implemented the SSBD with preschool populations (Feil & Becker, 1993; Sinclair, Dd'Homine, & Gonzalez, 1993). Continued efforts of this nature are needed. Future research should also focus on developing assessment strate-gies for those children who are identi-fied as SED at an older age. Currently, little is known about these "late start-ers" (McMahon, 1994), although several models are being developed (e.g., Moffit, 1993; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1991).

In the area of teacher education, preservice general and special educa-tion teachers should be trained to rec-ognize known risk factors. Periodic screenings, in some form, could become an integral part of teaching repertoires, especially for those teachers who have children coming from high-risk family environments. To accomplish this, uni-versity faculties should adapt their teacher preparation curriculum to em-phasize classroom assessment strategies for identifying and preventing the de-velopment of emotional and behavioral difficulties.

Finally, at the policy level, federal, state, and local agencies should increase their support in the area of risk assess-ment. By mandating increased resources, both in staffing and allotted finances, the poor prognosis associated with SED might be altered. This may be wishful thinking, however, given the present political climate. Perhaps a more real-istic approach would be to mandate specific training in the area of SED. School districts could promote aware-ness of risk factors and how to identify them early in the school year, in par-ticular for those students matriculating into the early elementary grades. Until this is done, we will continue to under-identify those students in need of ser-vices and persist in our present cycle of reactive programming for these children.

Implications for Assessing Specific Problem Behaviors

Teachers and other practitioners may benefit from detailed information re-garding their classroom instructional behavior, the physical and social ar-rangement of students within the class-

JOURNAL OF

room, and the degree to which these factors affect their students* problem behaviors. By identifying the function of the problem behavior, we then know exactly where to target and how to de-velop our intervention or remediation efforts. Simply put, a functional per-spective provides a pragmatic platform from which teaching professionals can begin to understand and effectively change their students' problem behav-ior. Because a functional assessment approach may result in many of the aberrant behaviors characterizing chil-dren and youth being understood as purposeful, intervention approaches that are educational may be designed and applied alone or in combination with more traditional reductive strategies. For example, if assessment suggests that most instances of peer-directed aggression follow peer taunting, then our inter-vention efforts could be threefold: pro-vide the target student with planned aversive consequences for aggression, teach the target student a socially ap-propriate behavior to terminate peer taunting, and intervene directly with the peer or peers responsible for the taunting.

For researchers, it is important that functional assessment procedures con-tinue to be refined, validated, and made more applicable in less restrictive set-tings for students with SED. As men-tioned previously, most of our eviden-tiary base from which recommendations for using functionally based assessments are made comes from research with stu-dents with severe and profound devel-opmental disabilities. If functional assessments continue to be used and validated as a basis for designing effec-tive and socially acceptable interven-tions to reduce problem behavior for students with SED, then we must strive toward the development of user-friendly assessment packages for classroom imple-mentation. In addition, the infrequent nature of many problem behaviors asso-ciated with SED may force researchers to consider alternative dependent mea-sures in order to maximize the gather-ing of information during the moments in which problem behavior actually occurs (Wehby & Symons, in press). Finally, an expansion of functional as-


sessment technology to address inter-nalizing behavior problems is needed.

For teachers to better understand students with SED, provisions should be made in teacher education programs for explicit instruction on the nature of problem behavior and the opportunity to practice effective assessment in the context of ongoing classroom routines. Furthermore, ample instructional and practicum time should be allocated to learn how to translate assessment results into classroom-based interventions. Ig-noring this aspect of preservice teacher preparation ensures that teachers will continue to apply behavioral technol-ogy without understanding why many problem behaviors occur in the class-room.

At the policy level, school districts may benefit from incorporating func-tional assessment procedures within their stated disciplinary plans for re-ducing problem behavior. As noted by the Council for Children with Behav-ior Disorders (1990b), assessment pro-cedures should be a required component of all behavior reduction packages or disciplinary procedures. Unless support for functional procedures is provided, it is unlikely that teachers and other per-sonnel within school systems will in-corporate these types of assessment strategies into their behavior manage-ment plans.

Implications for Reintegration Assessment

Successful mainstreaming is predicated upon good assessments within the rein-tegration site. These assessments need to include measures of teacher expecta-tions and attitudes, as well as objective estimates of acceptable levels of aca-demic and social behaviors. Practition-ers could begin the process simply by sharing information with special edu-cation teachers about instructional strat-egies, curriculum materials, and social expectations within their classrooms. Rather than trying to change general education teachers' attitudes and ex-pectations toward students with SED initially, it may be far more simple and productive to encourage general and special education teachers to commu-

S, SPRING 1997, VOL. 5, NO. 1 CI

nicate honestly with one another . Preservice teacher training should pre-pare general and special educators to work cooperatively and collaboratively (Gable, McLaughlin, Sindelar, & Kil-gore, 1993), especially before reintegra-tion. This could be accomplished by establishing a common professional core of classes and field experiences at the university level in which general and special educators complete coursework together (Gable et al., 1993).

Researchers must also continue work-ing toward the development of accu-rate and practical assessments within reintegration models. As noted in the above review, we know what to assess but not how to assess comprehensively and systematically. The TP and Peabody Reintegration Project models are a start in this direction. Finally, at the policy level, support needs to be provided for reintegration. Without continued ad-ministrative support within school dis-tricts and individual schools, main-streaming of students with SED will not take place. As shown by Rock et al. (1994), several factors at the adminis-trative level influence whether or not reintegration strategies are initiated, including proximity of the less restric-tive sites to special education classrooms, written reintegration policies, and train-ing for teachers. Providing teachers with the opportunity to reintegrate students with SED is the first step toward a suc-cessful policy of reintroducing those students to more inclusive settings.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Our interventions are only as strong as the assessments on which they are based. The purpose of this article was to review current multifaceted approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in assessing some of the risk factors and specific problem behaviors associated with SED, as well as critical variables worth considering when assessing for reintegration. Several cautions and con-clusions are in order. First, different methods of assessing students with SED and problem behavior can be biased and misleading under different circum-stances. That is, no one perspective or

CO JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND B

approach to assessment can be applied uniformly to all forms of behavior prob-lems for students with SED with un-equivocal results. Rather, appropriate assessment must be carefully tailored to fit each student's situation, taking a variety of factors into account (e.g., the frequency of exposure to risk factors, the function of a behavior problem, and the ecology of the classroom into which the student is to be reintegrated). Al-though several logical or sequential decision-making frameworks are avail-able to guide research and practice, in-dividualizing a particular assessment to fit the student's current circumstance still requires a great deal of knowledge, skill, and thought on the part of pro-gram planners. Logical frameworks pro-vide useful cornerstones from which to build individualized intervention and reintegration plans, but their applica-tion in no way ensures that potentially important variables have not been over-looked. This should serve as a caution against narrowly adopting an all-or-none approach to understanding the com-plexities in assessing the risk factors and the social and behavioral problems as-sociated with SED.

A multiplicity of approaches for as-sessing risk factors, specific problem behavior, and reintegration are being actively explored. As our assessments increase in sophistication, so too should our ability to confidently and carefully apply the results to improving the lives of students with SED. Thus, the extent to which the strategic targets from the National Agenda (e.g., expanding posi-tive learning opportunities, fostering family collaboration, and supporting and promoting skill development) are truly interdependent depends, in part, on the degree to which the initial assessment has been appropriately conducted and made functionally relevant for the student's current and future placement.

About the Authors

JOSEPH H. WEHBY, PhD, is a research assis-tant professor of special education at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. FRANK J. SYMONS, is a research assistant in the John F. Kennedy Center at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. ALEXANDRA HOLLO is a teacher at Greer Chimney School in

EHAVIORAL DISORDERS, SPRING 1997, ,

Brewster, New York. Address: Joseph H. Wehby, Department of Special Education, Box 328, Peabody College, Vanderbilt Uni-versity, Nashville, TN 37203.

Authors9 Notes

1. Preparation of this article was funded in part by the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Educa-tion (Grant H023N30025). Portions also were written while the second author was supported by the Medical Research Council of Canada. The article does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the funding agency, and no official endorsement by them should be inferred.

2. The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of Kim Dennis and three anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

Anderson-Inman, L. (1986). Bridging the gap: Student-centered strategies for pro-moting the transfer of learning. Except tional Children, 52, 562-572.

Anderson-Inman, L., Walker, H. M., & Purceli, J. (1984). Promoting the transfer of skills across settings: Transenviron-mental programming for handicapped stu-dents in the mainstream. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in educa-tion (pp. 17-35). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Auk, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descrip-tive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, I, 175— 191.

Braaten, S., Kauffman, J. M., Braaten, B., Polsgrove, L , & Nelson, C. M. (1988). The regular education initiative: Patent medicine for behavioral disorders. Excep-tional Children, 55, 21-27.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Re-ducing behavior problems through func-tional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.

Conduct Disorders Prevention Research Group. (1992). A developmental and clinical model for the preventing of con-duct disorders. The FAST Track program. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 509-527.

Council for Children with Behavioral Dis-orders. (1990a). Position paper on the provision of service to children with con-duct disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 15, 180-189.

OL. 5, NO. 1

Council for Children with Behavioral Dis-orders. (1990b). Position paper on the use of behavior reduction strategies with children with behavioral disorders. Be-havioral Disorders, 15, 180-189.

Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Ado-lescent marijuana and alcohol use: The role of parents and peers revisited. Amer-ican Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11-25.

Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit, G. S. (1990, December 21). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683.

Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Brakke, N. P. (1982). Behavior patterns of socially re-jected and neglected preadolescents: The role of social approach and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 389-410.

Dodge, K. A., Petit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L, & Brown, M. (1986). Social competence in children. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 51 (Serial No. 213, No. 2).

Downing, J. A., Simpson, R. L., <St Myles, B. S. (1990). Regular and special educa-tor perceptions of nonacademic skills needed by mainstreamed students with behavioral disorders and learning disabili-ties. Behavioral Disorders, 15, 217-226.

Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clark, S., Childs, K. E., White, R., & Falk, G. D. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275-291.

Feil, E. G., & Becker, W. C. (1993). Inves-tigation of a multiple-gated screening system for preschool behavior problems. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 44-53.

Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Dis-abilities Act. (1994). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 058)

Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., MacMillan, D. L., Asarnow, J. R., & Duncan, B. B. (1996). Early detection and prevention of emotional and behavioral disorders: Developmental aspects of systems of care. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 226-240.

Fuchs, D., Dempsey, S., Roberts, H., & Kintsch, A. (1995). Best practices in school reintegration. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psy-chology 111 (pp. 879-891). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psy-chologists.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Fernstrom, P., & Hohn, M. (1991). Toward a responsible integration of behaviorally disordered stu-dents. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 133-147.

JOURNAL OF

Gable, R. A., Laycock, V. L., Maroney, S. A., & Smith, C. R. (1991). Preparing to integrate students with behavioral disor-ders. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 333 658)

Gable, R. A., McLaughlin, V. C , Sindelar, P., & Kilgore, K. (1993). Unifying general and special education teacher prepara-tion: Some cautions along the road to educational reform. Preventing School Fail-ure, 37, 5-10.

Gersten, R., Walker, H., & Darch, C. (1988). Relationship between teachers' effective-ness and their tolerance for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 433-438.

Gunter, P. L, Denny, R. K., Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., & Nelson, C. M. (1993). Aversive stimuli in academic interactions between students with serious emotional disturbance and their teachers. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 265-274.

Gunter, P. L, Jack, S. L, DePaepe, P., Reed, T. M., & Harrison, J. (1994). Effects of challenging behaviors of students with EBD on teacher instructional behavior. Preventing School Failure, 38(3), 35-39.

Gunter, P. L., Jack, S. L., Shores, R. E., Carrell, D. E., & Flowers, J. (1993). Lag sequential analysis as a tool for functional analysis of student disruptive behavior in classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behav-ioral Disorders, I, 138-148.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982).. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Develop-mental Disabilities, 2, 3-20.

Kauffman, J. M. (1993a). Characteristics of behavior disabilities of children and youth (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Kauffman, J. M. (1993b). How we might achieve the radical reform of special edu-cation. Exceptional Children, 60, 6-16.

Kazdin, A. E. (1985). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Home-wood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1987). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ladd, G. W., Price, J. M., & Hart, C. H. (1990). Preschoolers' behavioral orienta-tions and patterns of peer conduct: Pre-dictive of peer status? In S. R. Asher & J. E. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in child-hood (pp. 90-115). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Landrum, T. J., & Kauffman, J. M. (1992). Characteristics of general education teach-ers perceived as effective by their peers: Implications for inclusion of children with learning and behavioral disorders. Excep-


tionality, 3, 147-163. Lewis, T. J., Chard, D., & Scott, T. M.

(1994). Full inclusion and the education of children and youth with emotional disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 277— 293.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1995a). Descrip-tive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the use of assess-ment based intervention to improve the pro-social behavior of a student in a gen-eral education setting. Journal of Behav-ioral Education, 6, 7-24.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1995b). Func-tional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investigation of the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer social attention on students in general education settings. School Psychology Quar-terly, 11, 1-19.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.

Loeber, R., Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1984). Multiple gating: A multi-stage assessment procedure for identify-ing youths at risk for delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 7-32.

McConaughy, S. H. (1993). Advances in empirically based assessment of children's behavioral and emotional problems. School Psychology Review, 2, 285-307.

McGinnis, K., Kiraly, J., Jr., & Smith, C. (1984). The types of data used in identi-fying public school students as behavior-ally disordered. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 239-246.

McMahon, R. J. (1994). Diagnosis, assess-ment, and treatment of externalizing prob-lems in children: The role of longitudinal data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 901-917.

Moffit, T. E. (1993). "Adolescence-limited" and "life-course persistent" antisocial be-havior: A developmental taxonomy. Psy-chological Review, 100, 674-701.

O'Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1990). Func-tional analysis of problem behavior: A prac-tical assessment guide. Sycamore, IL: Syca-more.

Patterson, G. R., & Bank, L. (1986). Boot-strapping your way through the nomo-logical thicket. Behavioral Assessment, 8, 49-73.

Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for pre-dicting delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139— 168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

S, SPRING 1997, VOL. 5, NO. 1 C7

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental per* spective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1991). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grow-up: A sociological and psychiatric study of sociopathic personality. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

Rock, E. E., Rosenberg, M. S., & Carran, D. T. (1994). Variables affecting the re-integration rate of students with serious emotional disturbance. Exceptional Chil-dren, 61, 254-268.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming: A re-search synthesis. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University.

Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Gunter, P. L., Ellis, D. N., DeBriere, T. J., & Wehby, ]. H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, I, 27-39.

Sinclair, E., Dd'Homine, M , & Gonzalez, M. (1993). Systematic screening for pre-school behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 177-188.

Slate, J. R., & Saudargas, R. A. (1986). Differences in the classroom behaviors of

behaviorally disordered and regular class children. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 45-53.

Stokes, T., & Baer, D. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.

Walker, H. M. (1986). The assessment for integration into mainstream settings (AIMS) assessment system: Rationale, instruments, procedures, and outcomes. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 55-63.

Walker, H. M., & Rankin, R. (1983). As-sessing the behavioral expectations and demands of less restrictive settings. School Psychology Review, 12, 274-284.

Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1990). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD): A multiple gating procedure. Long' mont, CO: Sopris West.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., Stiller, B., Williams, G., Haring, N., Shinn, M., & Toddis, B. (1988). Systematic screening of pupils in the elementary age range at risk for behavior disorders: Development and trial testing of a multiple gating model. Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 8-20.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., Todis, B. J., Block-Pedego, A. E., Williams, G. J., Haring, N. G., & Barckley, M. (1990). Systematic screening for behavior dis-orders (SSBD): Further validation, rep-

lication, and normative data. Remedial and Special Education, J 1(2), 32-46.

Walker, H. M., Shinn, M. R., O'Neill, R. E., & Ramsey, E. (1987). A longitudinal as-sessment of the development of antisocial behavior in boys: Rationale, methodol-ogy, and first year results. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 7-16.

Wehby, ] . H. (1993). Analysis of peer inter-actions in classrooms for children with be-havior disorders. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Child and Adolescents with Emotional or Behav-ioral Disorders, Virginia Beach, VA.

Wehby, J. H., Dodge, K. A., Valente, E., & Conduct Disorders Prevention Research Group. (1993). School behavior of first grade children identified as at-risk for development of conduct problems. Be-havioral Disorders, 19, 67-78.

Wehby, J. H., & Symons, F. ]. (in press). Revisiting conceptual issues in the mea-surement of aggressive behavior. Behav-ioral Disorders.

Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. ]., & Shores, R. E. (1995). A descriptive analysis of aggres-sive behavior in classrooms for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 87-105.

West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? New York: Crane, Russak.

(continued from p. 44)

agency collaboration for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Stroul, B., & Friedman, R. (1986). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotional disturbances (Rev. ed.). Wash-ington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.

Soderlund, ] . , Epstein, M., Quinn, K., Cumblad, C , & Petersen, S. (1995). Parental perspectives on comprehensive services for children and youth with emo-tional and behavioral disorders. Behav-ioral Disorders, 20, 157-170.

Swap, S. M. (1992). Parent involvement and success for all children: What we know now. In S. L. Christenson & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), Home-school collaboration: Enhanc-ing children's academic and social competence (pp. 87-105). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Boyd, K., & Hamby, D. W. (1996). Family-oriented program models, helpgiving practices, and parental control appraisals. Exceptional Children, 62, 237-248.

Upham, D., Cheney, D., & Manning, B. (in press). What teachers and parents want in their communication process: A quali-tative study. Middle School Journal.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Six-teenth annual report to Congress on the imple-mentation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). School linked comprehensive services for children and families: What we know and what we need to know. Washington, DC-Author.

Weiss, H. (1988). Family support and edu-cation programs: Working through eco-logical theories of human development. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.),

Evaluating family programs (pp. 3-36). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Weiss, H., & Jacobs, F. (1988). Evaluating family programs. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Welkowitz, J., Hamilton, R. W., Topper, K., & Inatsuka, L. (1993). Perceptions of parent regarding their involvement and experience with collaborative educational teams for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The sixth annual re-search conference proceedings: A system of care for children s mental health: Expanding the research base (pp. 269-276). Tampa: University of South Florida, Florida Men-tal Health Institute, Research and Train-ing Center for Children's Mental Health.

West, J. F., & Cannon, G. S. (1988). Essen-tial collaborative consultation competen-cies for regular and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 56-63.


Copyright of Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders is the property of Sage Publications Inc. 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.

Documents

Promote Appropriate Assessment