Nathaniel von der Embse , Sonja Winter , Wes Bonifay , Stephen Kilgus , Carly Oddleifson , Katie Eklund , Shannon Suldo , Joseph Latimer
{"title":"Reconciling discrepant universal screening data to improve decision-making: A Bayesian logistic regression approach","authors":"Nathaniel von der Embse , Sonja Winter , Wes Bonifay , Stephen Kilgus , Carly Oddleifson , Katie Eklund , Shannon Suldo , Joseph Latimer","doi":"10.1016/j.jsp.2025.101461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There are a substantial number of students with mental health needs who do not receive timely support. Universal screening is a promising practice for facilitating early intervention services. Multi-informant assessment is noted as a best practice for valid decision-making. However, this practice has not yet been applied to universal screening data. Universal screening utilizing a single rater (teacher) likely results in a significant number of students not being identified for support. This study (1) employed a Bayesian statistical model to incorporate students' background information (e.g., demographic variables; disciplinary referrals; social, academic, and emotional risk statuses) to generate estimates of academic risk, (2) used this background information to generate cut scores in a training sample and validate them in a test sample, and (3) identified the unique value of adding teacher and student self-reports with regard to sensitivity and specificity. Results demonstrated the promise of incorporating background information in the accurate identification of students with low, medium, and high risk for mental health needs. Implications for research and practice are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of School Psychology","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 101461"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440525000342","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
There are a substantial number of students with mental health needs who do not receive timely support. Universal screening is a promising practice for facilitating early intervention services. Multi-informant assessment is noted as a best practice for valid decision-making. However, this practice has not yet been applied to universal screening data. Universal screening utilizing a single rater (teacher) likely results in a significant number of students not being identified for support. This study (1) employed a Bayesian statistical model to incorporate students' background information (e.g., demographic variables; disciplinary referrals; social, academic, and emotional risk statuses) to generate estimates of academic risk, (2) used this background information to generate cut scores in a training sample and validate them in a test sample, and (3) identified the unique value of adding teacher and student self-reports with regard to sensitivity and specificity. Results demonstrated the promise of incorporating background information in the accurate identification of students with low, medium, and high risk for mental health needs. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of School Psychology publishes original empirical articles and critical reviews of the literature on research and practices relevant to psychological and behavioral processes in school settings. JSP presents research on intervention mechanisms and approaches; schooling effects on the development of social, cognitive, mental-health, and achievement-related outcomes; assessment; and consultation. Submissions from a variety of disciplines are encouraged. All manuscripts are read by the Editor and one or more editorial consultants with the intent of providing appropriate and constructive written reviews.