Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Children Placed at Risk for Learning

and Behavioral Difficulties:
Implementing a School-Wide System
of Early Ide...
Frank Gresham

Remedial and Special Education

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Reading Int ervent ions Wit h Behavioral and Social Skill Out comes: A Synt hesis of Research
Garret t Robert s, S. Ciullo, Michael Solis

Response-t o-int ervent ion (RT I) as a model t o facilit at e inclusion for st udent s wit h learning and behav…
Robert J Volpe

Formulat ing secondary-level reading int ervent ions

Debra Kamps, C. Greenwood
 Children Placed at Risk for Learning and
Behavioral Difficulties
Implementing a School-Wide System of Early Identification
and Intervention
TA M E . O ’ S H A U G H N E S S Y, K AT H L E E N L . L A N E , F R A N K M . G R E S H A M ,
AND MARGARET E. BEEBE-FRANKENBERGER
ABSTRACT
O ver the past 2 decades, a substantial knowledge
base has accumulated about the fundamentals of young chil-
dren’s learning difficulties and behavioral problems. This informa-
tion provides educators with powerful and practical information
about how to identify children in need of intervention and how to
ensure successful school experiences for all learners. In addition,
a growing body of research is beginning to shed light on how to
effectively incorporate empirically supported approaches into
daily practices. This article describes a school-wide system of early
identification and intervention for children placed at risk for school
success and discusses how schools might implement the recom-
mendations offered in the literature.
W HEN CHILDREN FIRST START SCHOOL THEY
are expected to adapt quickly to their new environment
(Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995;
Walker, McConnell, & Clarke, 1985). They are expected to
learn to follow rules, listen to their teachers, and work inde-
pendently. They are also expected to cooperate with their
classmates, achieve at the same pace as their peers, and estab-
lish positive relationships with their teachers and other stu-
dents (Walker, Irvin, Noell, & Singer, 1992). Children who
are able to develop these important skills are more likely to
be accepted by their teachers and peers and do well in school.
Unfortunately, many children do not form satisfactory inter-
personal relationships with their teachers and classmates and
do not acquire academic skills commensurate with the level
of their peers. This places them at risk for a host of negative
outcomes, including school failure, peer rejection, absence of
close friendships, and school dropout (Hinshaw, 1992; Lyon,
1996; Parker & Asher, 1987; Walker et al., 1995).
Meeting the needs of young children placed at risk for
developing learning and/or behavioral problems is a national
concern shared by policymakers, administrators, educators,
and parents alike (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).
Increasingly, schools are being asked to rethink how they
serve these children and to reform existing service-delivery
systems (Pianta & Cox, 1999; U.S. Department of Education,
2002). This naturally raises the question, How can schools
better assist children who enter school without the necessary
knowledge, skills, or attitudes they need to be successful?
The purpose of this article is to address this question by
describing an empirically supported system of early identifi-
cation and intervention and discussing how schools might
implement the recommendations offered in the literature. Al-
though many elements are familiar, the goal is to describe a
practical system of proactive practices that coordinates school
resources (e.g., general education, special education, reme-
dial services) within the context of individual schools. This
article focuses on children’s early literacy difficulties and dis-
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
27
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003, Pages 27–35
ruptive or aggressive behavior problems because these are
major causes of concern in most schools and are problems
common to most special education categories. In addition,
although previous articles have focused on either literacy dif-
ficulties (e.g., Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Simmons, Kuy-
kendall, King, Cornachione, & Kameenui, 2000) or behavior
problems (e.g., Forness, Kavale, MacMillan, Asarnow, &
Duncan, 1996; Lewis & Sugai, 1999), this article integrates
current research in both areas.
DEFINITIONS AND CONTEXTS
Throughout this article, we refer to children placed “at risk”
for learning difficulties, behavioral problems, or both. The
past 2 decades have been very productive in identifying some
of the key antecedents that are predictive of later academic
and behavioral problems. For example, inefficient phonolog-
ical skills in young children are highly predictive of future
reading difficulties (e.g., Stanovich, 1988; Torgesen & Davis,
1996), and early noncompliance and antisocial behavior pat-
terns are among the best predictors of later disruptive and
aggressive behavior problems (e.g., Hinshaw, Han, Erhardt,
& Huber, 1992; Loeber, Green, Lahey, Frick, & McBurnett,
2000). Based on these findings, our conception of the term at
risk refers to children who experience difficulties in one or
both of these areas.
In addition, we think it is important to consider risk in
terms of dynamic relationships among children, families, and
schools, rather than in terms of unchanging characteristics of
a child, a family, or a school (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Pianta & Walsh, 1996). From this perspective, positive changes
are expected to occur, given appropriate support, and the
responsibility for the healthy development of any child is
shared among the major persons in the child’s life.
IMPLEMENTING A SCHOOL-WIDE SYSTEM OF
EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND INTERVENTION
Over the past 20 years, a substantial body of knowledge has
accumulated about the fundamentals of young children’s
learning and behavioral difficulties. This information pro-
vides educators with powerful and practical information
about how to ensure successful school experiences for all
learners. For example, it is now widely accepted that quality
early literacy instruction and intervention balances system-
atic instruction in word recognition and fluency with frequent
experiences reading connected text (e.g., Adams, 1990;
National Research Council, 1998). The National Research
Council’s (1998) landmark report, “Preventing Reading Dif-
ficulties in Young Children,” synthesizes the research on early
literacy and describes the critical components of effective
early literacy instruction. These instructional elements are the
28 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003
same whether the goal is prevention or intervention; however,
they need to be made more explicit, intensive, and compre-
hensive for children who have difficulty learning to read
(Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). In addition, numerous research-
based literacy intervention programs are available (e.g., Pho-
nological Awareness Training for Reading, Road to the Code).
Similarly, the literature on preventing emotional and
behavioral problems has been integrated, and promising pro-
grams have been developed and evaluated (McMahon et al.,
1999; Walker et al., 1998). For example, First Step to Success
(Walker et al., 1998) is an early intervention program de-
signed for kindergarten children (and their families) who
show the early signs of emerging antisocial behavior patterns
(e.g., aggression toward others, oppositional behavior). In
addition, current research has demonstrated that behavior
intervention is most effective when it is based on individual-
ized and systematic assessment of the function of behavior
(Carr et al., 1999; Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer,
2000). Function-based intervention is a process for identify-
ing the conditions that reliably prompt and maintain problem
behavior in order to determine the most effective behavior
supports (Sugai & Horner, 2000). Quality intervention, how-
ever, requires much more than simply knowing what to assess
or teach or possessing an off-the-shelf research-based pro-
gram. It requires a deep understanding of how to implement
research-proven procedures and why these procedures pro-
mote effective learning and social environments.
The school-wide system of early identification and
intervention described in this article integrates practices and
procedures drawn from the literature. The underlying
assumption of this system is that educators (e.g., administra-
tors, general and special education teachers, prereferral inter-
vention teams, remedial instructors, school psychologists,
counselors) can better serve children with learning difficul-
ties and behavior problems if they possess knowledge of
empirically supported identification and intervention strate-
gies and apply this knowledge in a coordinated, systemic
manner. The major recommendations identified in the litera-
ture are provided in Figure 1 as a guideline for educators who
want to improve educational practice. The central recommen-
dation is that schools establish a coordinated, school-wide
system of early identification and intervention (e.g., Bullis &
Walker, 1994; Forness et al., 1996; Simmons et al., 2000).
A coordinated system of proactive practices increases
the likelihood of improving the outcomes of children vulner-
able to learning and behavioral problems because it enables
educators to respond in a timely manner to children who are
experiencing difficulties meeting the social and academic
demands of school (e.g., Bullis & Walker, 1994; Simmons
et al., 2000). As depicted in Figure 1 by means of bidirec-
tional arrows, the process of creating and sustaining such a
system is nonlinear, ongoing, and recursive. Each major ac-
tivity (e.g., early screening) undergoes continuous review and
refinement and informs the others. In the following sections,
each key activity and its purpose are described.
 FIGURE 1. Major recommendations for implementing a school-wide system of early identification and intervention.
Evaluate Existing Theory, Knowledge,
and Practice
Over time, converging research findings add to the knowl-
edge base about how children learn and how to provide effec-
tive learning environments. Thus, it is essential for educators
to periodically evaluate existing theory and knowledge that
guides school practices. This enables school personnel to
reflect on their practices (e.g., how services are organized,
how and what they are teaching) and to compare them with
empirically supported guidelines. It also allows educators to
consider their individual and collective professional develop-
ment needs. In some cases, teachers’ knowledge and beliefs
may not be congruent with current knowledge. For example,
many primary-grade teachers have been taught a whole lan-
guage approach to reading instruction during their university
training (Moats, 1994). However, several recent syntheses of
the reading research have shown that a balanced approach
(i.e., weaving together explicit skills instruction with mean-
ingful reading and writing experiences) is the optimal approach
for the vast majority of children (Adams, 1990; National
Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998). Sim-
ilarly, most schools do not have a staff that is trained in
prevention of maladaptive behaviors, function-based inter-
ventions, and adaptive behavior instruction (Crone & Horner,
2000). Knowledge and skills in these areas are essential to
improving schools’ capacity to provide school-wide positive
behavioral support and a stable social climate (Taylor-Greene
& Kartub, 2000; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). With an
understanding of current school practices as well as empiri-
cally supported approaches, educators can focus on acquiring
any new knowledge and skills they need and integrating these
into daily practice.
Provide Ongoing Professional Development
Research on effective professional development indicates that
educational change is a long process that requires ongoing
programs. It takes time for educators to reflect on their prac-
tices, learn new approaches, and merge innovative concepts
into their work with students (e.g., Malouf & Schiller, 1995).
Studies have also shown that people learn best when they are
actively involved in the process and feel a part of a commu-
nity of learners (Gersten & Brengelman, 1996; Gersten,
Chard, & Baker, 2000; Meyers, Valentino, Meyers, Boretti, &
Brent, 1996). When stakeholders work together to identify
gaps in their own knowledge and skills, discuss empirically
supported approaches, and confer about ways to integrate
research-based methods into existing practices, they are more
committed to the process and more likely to internalize new
approaches (e.g., Meyers et al., 1996). Last, when new meth-
ods are practiced, educators need to be observed by, and
receive immediate feedback from, a knowledgeable mentor
until new skills are mastered (Cruickshank, 1985).
Establish a School-Wide System
of Early Identification
Research has clearly demonstrated the importance of early
identification. The longer children go without informed inter-
vention, the more likely it is that their difficulties will in-
crease in scope and severity. For example, most children who
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
29
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003
have not learned to read by the third grade continue to have
reading problems throughout school and later life (e.g., Bruck,
1992). In addition, it is not uncommon for children with per-
sistent reading difficulties to experience coexisting behav-
ioral problems (Bruck, 1986; Bryan, 1991; Gresham, 1986;
Hinshaw, 1992; Kavale & Forness, 1998; Lyons, 1996). Sim-
ilarly, most children who have not developed prosocial skills
by about third grade continue to display some degree of anti-
social behavior throughout their lives (Bullis & Walker, 1994;
Kazdin, 1987; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). In
this case, too, it is not unusual for children with behavioral
problems to experience co-occurring learning difficulties, par-
ticularly in reading (Hinshaw, 1992; Kavale & Forness, 1998;
Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992).
Based on current knowledge, it is recommended that
proactive screening of young children at risk for learning and
emotional or behavioral problems take place in preschool and
kindergarten as well as in later grades to ensure ongoing iden-
tification of those in need (Patterson et al., 1992; Walker
et al., 1995). At the same time, however, great care should be
taken to reduce the well-documented negative effects of
labeling learners and ability grouping (e.g., Oakes, 1985). To
accomplish this, intervention groups should be adjusted con-
tinuously based on individual student progress. In addition, a
variety of different grouping practices are supported by the
literature (e.g., same- and cross-age peer tutoring, small
learning groups, combined grouping formats) and should be
used in addition to whole-class instruction to maximize stu-
dent learning (e.g., Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999;
Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Schumm, 2000; D.
Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Swanson &
Hoskyns, 1998).
Table 1 provides several early screening assessment
tools that can be used to identify young children who would
benefit from intervention. This list is meant not to be com-
prehensive but to merely highlight a few of the current assess-
ment instruments available. These early screening approaches
include both norm-referenced instruments and alternative
assessment strategies. Norm-referenced assessment uses
standardized instruments in which student performance is
compared with national norms, whereas alternative assess-
ment uses procedures in which student progress is typically
compared to well-established developmental benchmarks. In
addition, the alternative assessment approaches go beyond
traditional assessment methods in that they can be directly
linked to intervention and used to regularly monitor individ-
ual student progress (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Kaminski &
Good, 1996). These features enable teachers to modify
instruction to match a child’s current instructional level and
to use a child’s responsiveness to intervention as a means of

TABLE 1. Examples of Early Screening Instruments

Assessment tool Description Administration/scoring Primary uses

Behavioral measures

Early Screening Project
(Walker, Severson, & Feil,
1995)
Assesses externalizing and inter-
nalizing behavior problems in
structured and unstructured
settings
Group-administered
Nationally normed
Criterion-referenced scores
Pre-K to K
Identifying students at risk for exter-
nalizing or internalizing behavior
problems
Monitoring progress
Evaluating intervention effectiveness

Systematic Screening for
Behavioral Disorders
(Walker & Severson, 1990)
Assesses externalizing and inter-
nalizing behavior problems in
structured and unstructured
settings
Group-administered
Nationally normed
Criterion-referenced scores
Grades 1–6
Identifying students at risk for exter-
nalizing or internalizing behavior
problems
Monitoring progress
Evaluating intervention effectiveness

Literacy and literacy related measures

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Assesses fluency of phonologi- Individually administered Identifying students at risk for learn-
Early Literacy Skills cal awareness, knowledge of Criterion-referenced scores ing to read
(Kaminsky & Good, 1996) letter names, and word attack Pre-K to 2nd grade Monitoring progress
Evaluating intervention effectiveness

Curriculum-Based Assesses fluency of oral reading Individually administered Identifying students at risk for learn-
Measurement Criterion-referenced scores ing to read
(Deno, 1985) Grades 7–12 Monitoring progress
Evaluating intervention effectiveness

30 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003

modifying the focus and intensity of instruction (Torgesen &
Wagner, 1998; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1998).
The Early Screening Project (ESP; Walker, Severson, &
Feil, 1994) and Systematic Screening for Behavioral Dis-
orders (SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1990) are assessment
procedures that can be used to screen students in preschool
(i.e., ESP) and elementary school (i.e., SSBD) and identify
those most at risk for either externalizing (e.g., disruptive or
aggressive behaviors) or internalizing (e.g., depression, anxi-
ety, social avoidance) behavior problems. ESP and SSBD
involve sequential stages of assessment (teacher nominations,
teacher ratings, and direct observations), with fewer and
fewer students assessed at each stage. These instruments are
based on studies showing that aggressive and noncompliant
patterns of behavior in early childhood are highly predictive
of later conduct problems and antisocial behaviors and that
multimethod assessment increases the predictive accuracy of
identifying high-risk children (Loeber, Dishion, & Patterson,
1984; Walker & Severson, 1990).
Similarly, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS; Kaminski & Good, 1996) and Curriculum-
Based Measurement of Oral Reading Fluency (CBM-Oral
Reading Fluency; Deno, 1985) can be used to screen large
numbers of young children to identify those most at risk for
learning to read (i.e., children with underdeveloped phono-
logical awareness, knowledge of letter shapes and names, and
decoding skills). DIBELS provides brief measures of fluency
on several key indicators of early literacy and can be used in
Grades K–2. CBM-Oral Reading Fluency measures a child’s
ability to read words in connected text rapidly and accurately
beginning in the middle of first grade. Both measures can be
used to not only screen students but also monitor individual
student progress and evaluate the effectiveness of interven-
tion.
Create a School-Wide System of
Progressive Intervention
Once a child’s current level of academic and behavioral
development (i.e., a child’s strengths and weaknesses) has
been determined, appropriate intervention can be planned.
The concept of progressive intervention is used to differenti-
ate intervention levels that provide increasing levels of sup-
port. These intervention levels are referred to by various
names, including benchmark, strategic, and intensive inter-
vention (Simmons et al., 2000); primary, secondary, and ter-
tiary intervention (Forness, Kavale, MacMillan, Asarnow, &
Duncan, 1996); and primary prevention, risk reduction, early
intervention, and treatment (Meyers & Nastasi, 1999). In this
article, we have adopted the terms benchmark, strategic, and
intensive interventions.
Establishing a system of progressive intervention levels
provides an effective and practical way for schools to coordi-
nate resources (general, special, and remedial educators),
provide intervention that ensures a match between instruction
and a child’s current developmental level, and adjust inter-
vention based on individual progress. In addition, progressive
intervention levels share a comprehensive approach to deal-
ing with academic and behavior problems in that they (a) em-
phasize teaching appropriate behaviors and basic skills rather
than punishing unwanted behavior or waiting for academic
skills to emerge, (b) allocate intervention resources based on
the academic and/or behavioral needs of the child, and (c) in-
tegrate multiple systems to intervene with the full range of
academic and behavior difficulties (Consortium on the School-
Based Promotion of Social Competence, 1994).
As shown in Table 2, at the first level, low intensity,
benchmark intervention is aimed at preventing learning and
behavioral problems. This level of intervention is received by
all children and includes activities such as balanced school-
wide early literacy instruction, social skills lessons, and con-
flict resolution curricula. Work by Colvin, Sugai, and Kameenui
(1993) and Hall (1997) has suggested that of the total student
body in an elementary or middle school, about 80% will
respond favorably to benchmark instruction.
At the second level, more intensive, strategic interven-
tion is provided to children identified as being at risk for
learning and/or behavioral problems. Strategic interventions
are provided to children who are less responsive to bench-
mark instruction than their peers. These are more focused and
intensive interventions and involve fewer children. Examples
of strategic interventions include small-group instruction in
social problem solving, anger management, and reading. Re-
search suggests that approximately 10% to 15% of students
will require these more intensive, strategic intervention sup-
ports (Gresham, Sugai, Horner, Quinn, & McInerney, 1998;
Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999; Vellutino et al., 1996).
Last, intensive intervention is highly concentrated,
small-group, or individualized instruction for children with
severe difficulties and includes special education placement
and community agency involvement (e.g., social worker,
family counseling) when appropriate. Examples of intensive
intervention include individualized literacy tutoring, self-
monitoring instruction, and prosocial skills lessons. Current
evidence indicates that about 1% to 7% of students will expe-
rience chronic patterns of disruptive or destructive behav-
iors and/or learning difficulties, almost invariably in reading
(Gresham et al., 1998; Hinshaw, 1992; Kameenui & Darch,
1995).
Additional Elements of Effective Intervention
The magnitude of intervention outcomes is influenced by
several additional elements, including (a) family involvement,
(b) evaluation of treatment integrity, (c) monitoring of student
progress, and (d) assessment of social validity. Each of these
is described in the following sections.
Family Involvement. Although schools provide an im-
portant context for intervening with children who have be-
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
31
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003
 TABLE 2. Progressive Intervention Levels

Intervention
level Students served Purpose Example Duration & frequency

Benchmark All students Prevention of learning School-wide literacy instruction that 2 hours of literacy instruction
(100% of student and behavioral prob- builds phonemic awareness, decod- 5 days a week, with activi-
body) lems by ensuring ing skills, fluent word recognition, ties reinforcing and inte-
that all students vocabulary, construction of mean- grating skills throughout
develop the funda- ing, and writing skills each day
mental skills to suc-
ceed in school School-wide positive behavior support Throughout the school day
that establishes clear behavioral
expectations, rewards prosocial
behaviors, and redirects or punishes
inappropriate behavior

Strategic Students placed at Focused intervention Small-group or one-to-one instruction 45 minutes of supplemental
risk for learning to further develop that is more explicit, intensive, and literacy intervention 5 days
and/or behavioral students’ academic comprehensive than typical class- per week
problems skills, adaptive room instruction and that continues
(10%–15% of stu- behaviors, and inde- to build the critical elements of lit-
dent body) pendence as learners eracy

Small-group or one-to-one function- 45 minutes of supplemental

based intervention that builds posi-
tive behaviors while reducing or
extinguishing inappropriate behav-
iors
adaptive behavior instruc-
tion 5 days a week, with
activities reinforcing and
integrating skills through-
out each day

Intensive Students placed at Intensive interventions Small-group or one-to-one instruction 11⁄2 hours of supplemental lit-
risk for persistent to further develop that is even more explicit, intensive, eracy intervention 5 days
learning and/or students’ academic and comprehensive than strategic per week, plus home sup-
behavioral prob- skills, adaptive interventions port and involvement
lems behaviors, and inde-
(1%–7% of student pendence as learners Small-group or one-to-one function- 11⁄2 hours of supplemental
body) based intervention that is more adaptive behavior instruc-
intensive and comprehensive than tion 5 days per week,with
strategic intervention activities reinforcing and
integrating skills through-
out each day, plus home
support and involvement

havioral and/or learning problems, children frequently need
intervention that extends to the home (Adams, 1990; Forness
et al., 1996; Walker et al., 1995). Research on family involve-
ment has indicated that interventions that involve parents/
caregivers as partners are more effective in developing chil-
dren’s academic skills and adaptive behaviors and build
important connections between families and schools (Ascher
& Schwartz, 1987; Christenson, Rounds, & Gorney, 1992;
Christenson, Sinclair, Evelo, & Thurlow, 1995). It is impor-
tant to recognize that parents from all backgrounds want their
children to be successful in school. However, many parents
report that they need more guidance from educators about
how to help their children accomplish this, and many would
like to have more information about how to support their
child’s academic and social development at home (Christen-
son, 1995).
Evaluation of Treatment Integrity. At each level of
intervention, it is important to monitor treatment integrity.
This ensures that an intervention is implemented as it was
designed (Gresham, 1989) and is a powerful means of pro-
viding feedback to teachers. For example, when a teacher is

32 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003

implementing a new strategy or intervention, it is beneficial
for another, more knowledgeable educator to observe and
record whether the key elements of instruction are being
delivered as they were intended. This can be done with a
checklist of essential instructional components, which also
includes a rating scale to determine the caliber of instruction.
Quality instruction requires not only that the appropriate cur-
ricular elements are presented and practiced but also that the
teacher matches instruction to the needs of each child, mod-
els each new skill or behavior, scaffolds initial learning expe-
riences, and ensures that each student is actively engaged in
learning (Ysseldyke & Christenson, 1987). It is also impor-
tant to provide a teacher with feedback about the quality of
her or his instruction shortly after a learning activity or lesson
has concluded so that the experience is still fresh in mind.
Monitoring of Progress. Monitoring individual stu-
dent progress enables teachers to continuously evaluate a
child’s progress toward meaningful goals. It also allows them
to modify the focus and intensity of intervention based on
individual needs and to continuously adjust intervention
groups based on individual student growth (e.g., Kaminski &
Good, 1996).
Studies have shown that teachers who monitor indi-
vidual student progress (a) set more specific achievement/
behavioral objectives, (b) establish more realistic goals, and
(c) modify instruction more frequently (e.g., L. S. Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Stecker, 1989). Finally, monitoring student growth
often serves to motivate students. Students who have knowl-
edge of how they are doing tend to be more actively engaged
in learning and involved in their progress toward meaningful
outcomes (e.g., L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992).
Assessment of Social Validity. Assessing social valid-
ity ensures that intervention goals are significant, interven-
tion procedures are acceptable, and intervention outcomes are
important (e.g., Wolf, 1978). Because these factors directly
affect the likelihood of teachers and other school personnel
implementing quality intervention, students actively engag-
ing in learning activities, and caregivers supporting interven-
tion goals at home, it is important to assess social validity
from teacher, student, and parent perspectives (Lane, Um-
breit, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 1999; O’Shaughnessy, Chris-
tenson, Draper, Militch, & Waldbart, 2002).
As schools become increasingly diverse—representing
many different cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic groups—
it becomes increasingly important to consider the contextual
factors that make intervention programs acceptable to those
involved so that effective practices are sustained and institu-
tionalized (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2002). One of the most
effective ways of achieving this is to involve teachers and
caregivers at the outset in developing, implementing, and
evaluating interventions (e.g., Henning-Stout, 1994; Meyers,
1989).
DISCUSSION
The past 2 decades have been very productive in revealing
many of the characteristics, causes, and consequences of chil-
dren’s learning and behavioral difficulties. Although there is
much left to learn, we now know a great deal about how to
identify children deemed at risk for school failure and how to
effectively intervene. As schools struggle to find more effec-
tive ways to meet the needs of these children, it is imperative
that reform efforts rest on empirically supported, systemic
practices. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized.
An extensive body of research has clearly demonstrated that
such systems prevent the occurrence of learning and behav-
ioral difficulties in many children and reduce the severity of
difficulties in many others. It is our hope that this article pro-
vides a practical framework for educators interested in sys-
tems change at a school-wide level. ■
TAM E. O’SHAUGHNESSY, PhD, is associate professor of school psy-
chology at San Diego State University. She conducts school-based interven-
tion research on early literacy and school adjustment with students at risk for
school failure and students with disabilities. KATHLEEN L. LANE, PhD,
is assistant professor of special education at Peabody College of Vanderbilt
University. She conducts applied research with children with or at risk for
emotional and behavioral disorders to explore the relationship between aca-
demic underachievement and externalizing behavior patterns. FRANK M.
GRESHAM, PhD, is a Distinguished Professor and director of the School
Psychology Program at the University of California–Riverside. His research
interests include social skills assessment and intervention, behavioral con-
sultation, and applied behavior analysis. MARGARET E. BEEBE-
FRANKENBERGER, PhD, is a research specialist and lecturer in the
Graduate School of Education at the University of California–Riverside.
Address: Tam E. O’Shaughnessy, c/o Department of Counseling & School
Psychology, College of Education, San Diego State University, 5500 Cam-
panile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-1179; email: toshaugh@mail.sdsu.edu
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ascher, C., & Schwartz, W. (1987). Keeping track of at-risk students. New
York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED285961)
Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R., & Tangel, D. M. (2000). Road to the
code: A phonological awareness program for young children. Baltimore,
MD: Brooks/Cole.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experi-
ments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruck, M. (1986). Social and emotional adjustments of learning disabled
children: A review of the issues. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cog-
nitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities
(pp. 230–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 874–886.
Bryan, T. (1991). Social problems in learning disabilities. In B. L. Wong
(Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 195–226). New York:
Academic Press.
Bullis, M., & Walker, H. M. (1994). Comprehensive school-based systems
for troubled youth. Eugene: University of Oregon, Center on Human
Development.
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
33
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003
Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., McLaughlin,
D. M., McAtee, M. L., et al. (1999). Positive behavior support for peo-
ple with developmental disabilities: A research synthesis. Washington,
DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools: What is the role of the
school psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10(2), 118–132.
Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and stu-
dent achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. School Psy-
chology Quarterly, 7(3), 178–206.
Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M., Evelo, D., & Thurlow, M. (1995). Tip the
balance: Practices and policies that influence school engagement for
youth at high risk for dropping out. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota, College of Education and Human Development, Institute on
Community Integration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED398673)
Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Kameenui, E. (1993). Proactive school-wide disci-
pline: Implementation manual. Eugene: University of Oregon, College
of Education.
Consortium on School-Based Promotion of Social Competence. (1994).
Social competence. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rut-
ter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents
(pp. 143–186). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2000). Contextual, conceptual, and empirical
foundations of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Exception-
ality, 8(3), 161–172.
Cruikshank, D. R. (1985). Use and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, 66, 704–706.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: The emerging alternative.
Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (1999). Grouping
practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Excep-
tional Children, 65, 399–415.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (2000).
How reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to
instructional grouping formats: A meta-analytic review. In R. Gersten,
E. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education re-
search (pp. 105–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and
small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learn-
ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203–212.
Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., MacMillan, D. L., Asarnow, J. R., & Duncan,
B. B. (1996). Early detection and prevention of emotional or behavioral
disorders: Developmental aspects of systems of care. Behavioral Disor-
ders, 21, 226–240.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-
assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to aca-
demic diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring stu-
dent reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45–52.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for
reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Stecker, P. M. (1989). The effects of curriculum-
based measurement on teachers’ instructional planning. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 51–59.
Gersten, R., & Brengelman, S. U. (1996). The quest to translate research into
practice: The emerging knowledge base. Remedial and Special Educa-
tion, 17, 67–74.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use
of research-based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 33, 445–457.
Gresham, F. M. (1986). Conceptual issues in the assessment of social com-
petence in children. In P. Strain, M. Guralink, & H. Walker (Eds.),
Children’s social behavior: Development, assessment, and modification
(pp. 143–186). New York: Academic Press.
34 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003
Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consul-
tation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18,
37–50.
Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., Horner, R., Quinn, M., & McInerney, M. (1998).
Classroom and schoolwide practices that support students’ social com-
petence: A synthesis of research. Washington, DC: Office of Special
Education Programs.
Hall, S. (1997). A descriptive analysis of discipline referrals in six elemen-
tary and middle schools (1994–1995). Unpublished master’s thesis, Uni-
versity of Oregon, Eugene.
Henning-Stout, M. (1994). Responsive assessment: A new way of thinking
about learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hinshaw, S. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic under-
achievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and
underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127–155.
Hinshaw, S., Han, S., Erhardt, D., & Huber, A. (1992). Internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems in preschool children: Correspondence
among parent and teacher ratings and behavior observations. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 143–150.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2000). Elements
of behavior support plans: A technical brief. Exceptionality, 8, 205–215.
Kameenui, E., & Darch, D. (1995). Instructional classroom management: A
proactive approach to behavior management. White Plains, NY: Long-
man.
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing
basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). Covariance in learning disability and
behavior disorder: An examination of classification and placement
issues. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learn-
ing and behavioral disabilities (pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kazdin, A. (1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: Current sta-
tus and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 187–203.
Lane, K. L., Umbreit, J., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (1999). Functional
assessment research on students with or at risk for EBD: 1990 to the
present. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 101–111.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavioral support: A systems
approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 31(6), 1–24.
Loeber, R., Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1984). Multiple-gating: A
multistage assessment procedure for identifying youths at risk for delin-
quency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 7–32.
Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., Frick, P. J., & McBurnett, K. (2000).
Findings on disruptive behavior disorders from the first decade of the
developmental trends study. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 3, 37–59.
Lyon, G. R. (1996). Learning disabilities. In E. Marsh & R. Barkley (Eds.),
Child psychopathology (pp. 390–434). New York: Guilford Press.
Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and research in special edu-
cation. Exceptional Children, 61, 414–424.
McMahon, R. J., Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg,
M. T., Lochman, J. E., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (1999). Initial impact of
the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk
sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 631–647.
Meyers, J. (1989). The practice of psychology in the schools for the primary
prevention of learning and adjustment problems in children: A perspec-
tive from the field of education. In L. A. Bond & B. E. Copas (Eds.), Pri-
mary prevention and promotion in the schools (pp. 391–422). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Meyers, J., & Nastasi, B. (1999). Primary prevention in school settings. In
C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology
(pp. 764–799). New York: Wiley.
Meyers, B., Valentino, C., Meyers, J., Boretti, M., & Brent, D. (1996). Imple-
menting prereferral intervention teams as an approach to school based
consultation in an urban school setting. Journal of Educational and Psy-
chological Consultation, 7, 119–149.
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowl-
edge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dys-
lexia, 44, 81–102.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
O’Shaughnessy, T. E., Christenson, S. L., Draper, K., Miltich, A., & Wald-
bart, A. (2002). Project early literacy-school engagement: Check and
connect for kindergarten children at risk for learning to read. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment:
Are low accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–
389.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental
perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: A
social interactional approach (Vol. 4). Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (Eds.). (1999). The transition to kindergarten.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Pianta, R. C., & Walsh, D. J. (1996). High-risk children in schools: Con-
structing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.
Simmons, D. C., Kuykendall, K., King, K., Cornachione, C., & Kameenui,
E. J. (2000). Implementation of a schoolwide reading improvement
model: “No one ever told us it would be this hard.” Learning Disabili-
ties Research & Practice, 15, 92–100.
Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and
the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological core variable differ-
ence model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–604.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2000). Including the functional behavioral
assessment technology in schools. Exceptionality, 8, 145–148.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyns, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research
on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment out-
comes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–231.
Taylor-Greene, S. J., & Kartub, D. T. (2000). Durable implementation of
school-wide behavior support: The high five program. Journal of Posi-
tive Behavior Interventions, 2, 233–235.
Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1994). Phonological Awareness Training
for Reading. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Torgesen, J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference variables that pre-
dict response to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 63, 1–21.
Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches
for specific developmental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 13, 220–232.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Prevention and
remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Sci-
entific Studies of Reading, 1, 217–234.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Office of Educational Research and
Improvement request for proposals. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Con-
gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
tion Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-
remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a
vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits
as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 601–638.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for early
intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School
Psychology, 36, 367–397.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in
school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H. M., Irvin, L. K., Noell, J., & Singer, G. H. S. (1992). A construct
score approach to the assessment of social competence: Rationale, tech-
nological considerations, and anticipated outcomes. Behavior Modifica-
tion, 16, 448–474.
Walker, H. M., Kavanaugh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H., &
Feil, E. (1998). First step to success: An early intervention approach for
preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behav-
ioral Disorders, 6, 66–80.
Walker, H. M., McConnell, S. R., & Clarke, J. Y. (1985). Social skills train-
ing in school settings: A model for the social integration of handicapped
children into less restrictive settings. In R. McMahon & R. D. Peters
(Eds.), Childhood disorders: Behavioral-developmental approaches
(pp. 140–168). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1990). Systematic Screening for Behav-
ior Disorders (SSBD): User’s guide and technical manual. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1994). The Early Screening
Project: A proven child-find process. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or
how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (1987). Evaluating students’ instruc-
tional environments. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 17–24.
Received May 3, 2000
Revision received January 3, 2001
Initial acceptance January 31, 2001
Final acceptance April 11, 2002
R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
35
Volume 24, Number 1, January/February 2003