Journal of School Psychology45 (2007) 113–116

Editorial

Introduction to the special issue: How canuniversal screening enhance educational

and mental health outcomes?

Academic failure, social–emotional and behavioral difficulties, and mental illness havebecome part of our educational lexicon. The increasing recognition of these difficulties hasresulted in calls for early identification and intervention services as a mechanism forenhancing educational and mental health outcomes. However, there is limited informationavailable to school personnel about the use and utility of universal screening techniques foridentifying children in need of early intervention services and its connection to improvedoutcomes. In recognition of this shortcoming, the Journal of School Psychology hasdedicated this special issue to the role of school-based academic, behavioral, social–emotional, and mental health universal screening. In this special issue, the authors discussuniversal screening with specific procedures that can be utilized to identify children whoare at-risk and need early intervention services. The articles present (a) a conceptualframework for evaluating, selecting, and using universal screening methods to identifystudents in need of early intervention services; (b) specific examples of academic,behavioral, social–emotional, and mental health universal screening procedures; (c) anexample illustrating the integration of universal screening within a response-to-intervention(RTI) model to identify students eligible for early intervention services; and (d) a discussionof needs and next steps for future universal screening development.

Extent of academic, behavioral, social–emotional, and mental health challenges

A significant number of children are at-risk for or experiencing academic failure and/ormental health difficulties. Results from the National Assessment of Educational Process(NAEP; National Center for Education Statistics, 2004) indicate that of fourth grade studentswho participated in the NAEP, 32% performed at or above the proficient level in reading, 32%performed at or above the proficient level in mathematics, and 28% performed at or above theproficient level in writing. Behavioral, social–emotional, and mental health disordersafflicting school-aged children, including internalizing behavior problems (e.g., anxiety,depression, and social withdrawal) or externalizing disorders (e.g., conduct, attention,hyperactive, aggressive, and other behavioral disorders), affect approximately 20% of school-

0022-4405/$ - see front matter © 2006 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.12.002

114 Editorial

aged children (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1999), with only30% of these children receiving mental health services (United States Public Health Service,2000). Although this finding is discouraging, there is emerging evidence that early identi-fication, when combined with early and comprehensive prevention and intervention services,can decrease the likelihood of academic failure and future life difficulties (e.g., Dickson &Bursuck, 1999; Lane & Menzies, 2003; Simmons et al., 2002; Walker & Shinn, 2002).

Universal screening and early intervention

According to the traditional “wait-to-fail” model for service delivery within aneducational setting, students are not provided with services until they have experiencedfailure, distress, or have reached a critical juncture in their schooling or development.Recent alternatives to this traditional model involve identifying students at-risk andproviding prevention and early intervention services to minimize the impact of risk factorsor to inhibit the further development of academic, behavioral, social–emotional, or mentalhealth difficulties. The ability to identify these individuals sufficiently early allows for theprovision of evidence-based prevention and early intervention services delivered through amulti-tiered intervention approach (e.g., Kratochwill, Albers, & Shernoff, 2004).

Policymakers and educational professionals have begun to acknowledge the short-comings of the traditional service-delivery model and the need for universal screening andearly intervention services. For example, the President's Commission on Excellence inSpecial Education (United States Department of Education Office of Special Education andRehabilitative Services, 2002) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; UnitedStates Department of Education, 2001) strongly recommend that early identification (i.e.,screening), prevention, and early intervention programs be implemented to prevent andintervene with young children who have or are at risk for academic and behavioraldifficulties. The U.S. Public Health Service (2000) recommends that early indicators ofmental health problems be identified within existing preschool, childcare, education, health,welfare, juvenile justice, and substance abuse treatment systems. In examining the issue ofminority representation in special education, the National Research Council (NRC;Donovan & Cross, 2002) “…recommends that states adopt a universal screening andmultitier intervention strategy [italics added] in general education to enable earlyidentification and intervention with children at risk for reading problems” (p. 315) andthat research be conducted to “test the plausibility and productivity of universal behaviormanagement interventions, early behavior screening [italics added], and techniques towork with children at risk for behavior problems” (p. 317).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement (2004) (IDEA, 2004) includesprovisions related to early identification, prevention, and early intervention services foraddressing children's learning and behavioral needs. According to IDEA 2004, up to 15%of federal funds allocated for special education services can be utilized to develop andimplement prevention and early intervention services. In addition, pre-referral services,including those provided within an RTI framework, are recommended as a method for(a) serving students with academic and behavioral difficulties, and (b) reducing inappro-priate identification of learning disabilities and referral to special education (also see Fuchs,Mock, Morgan & Young, 2003; Gresham, 2004; Reschley, 2004; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).

115Editorial

Contents of the special issue

Contributions within this special issue focus on the importance of universal screeningand early identification in guiding service delivery to enhance educational, behavioral,social–emotional, and mental health outcomes. In the first article, Glover and Albersprovide a framework to assist school psychologists and educators in examining, selecting,and implementing universal screening procedures. The authors discuss indicators of theappropriateness, technical adequacy, and usability of various screeners, and provide ageneral assessment of the current state of science related to universal screening.

In the second article, Elliott, Huai, and Roach provide a conceptual framework ofacademic target behavior and skills, including academic enabling behaviors, in key contentareas. They examine the use of teacher rating scales and curriculum-based measurement asmethods of universal screening and introduce the Brief Academic Competence EvaluationScreening System (BACESS) as a potential tool for identifying students in need of earlyinterventions for academic skills difficulties or concerns with various academic enablingbehaviors. Elliott et al. conclude with a discussion of future directions for academicscreening, including the need for a downward extension of current approaches to includepreschool-aged students.

Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, and Gresham provide a synopsis andcritical analysis of current practices and tools used in school-based universal screening forbehaviorally at-risk students. They summarize an expert panel review, funded by the U.S.Department of Education Office of Special Education Research, of the behavioral screeningand assessment literature. In addition, they provide an overview of current best practices,the training implications, and recommendations for future research related to behavioralscreening.

Levitt, Saka, Romanelli, and Hoagwood examine the status of universal screeningdesigned both to identify mental health concerns and to guide intervention in a schoolsetting. The authors highlight ethical and practical implications related to school-basedmental health treatment and provide a framework for integrating mental health screeninginto a continuum of services.

VanDerHeyden, Witt, and Gilbertson provide a conceptual basis for understanding theintegration of universal screening within an RTI framework. The authors explore outcomesassociated with the application of a specific model, the System to Enhance EducationalPerformance (Witt, Daly, & Noell, 2000), in identifying and serving students academicallyat risk or with learning disabilities.

Finally, in the concluding article, Albers, Glover, and Kratochwill provide a synopsis ofthe state of science related to universal screening and the early identification of individualsat-risk. The authors discuss (a) strengths and weaknesses of screening approaches; (b) thepotential contribution of universal screening to improved academic, behavior, andemotional outcomes; and (c) the need for future research.

References

Dickson, S. V., & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Implementing a model for preventing reading failure: A report from thefield. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 191−202.

116 Editorial

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions,evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,18(3), 157−171.

Gresham, F. M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. SchoolPsychology Review, 33, 326−343.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647.Kratochwill, T. R., Albers, C. A., & Shernoff, E. (2004). School-based interventions. Child and Adolescent

Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 885−903.Lane, K. L., & Menzies, H. M. (2003). A school-wide intervention with primary and secondary levels of support

for elementary students: Outcomes and considerations. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 431−451.National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

education.Reschley, D. J. (2004). Commentary: Paradigm shift, outcomes criteria, and behavioral interventions: Foundations

for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 408−416.Simmons, D. C., Kameenui, E. J., Good, R. H., Harn, B. A., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2002). Building,

implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading improvement model: Lessons learned school by school. InM. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II:Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 537−569). Bethesda, MD: NASP.

United States Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind. Retrieved August 21, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/titlepage.html

United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A newera: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental Health: A Report of the SurgeonGeneral. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

United States Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's MentalHealth: A national action agenda. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: Thepromise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137−146.

Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated primary,secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G.Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventative and remedial approaches(pp. 1−25). Bethesda, MD: NASP.

Witt, J. C., Daly, E., & Noell, G. (2000). Functional assessments. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Craig A. Albersa,*Todd A. Gloverb

Thomas R. KratochwillaaUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, 316E Educational Sciences,1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706, United States

bNebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools,University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: caalbers@wisc.edu.