Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments

By Todd A. Glover, Craig A Albers. 2007

502 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c8a157f3dab4a107fc4d23ea11abd930959e6ddc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Service Delivery for Response to Intervention: Core Components and Directions for Future Research (2007, methodology): “In addition to investigations of CBM, research on universal academic and behavioral screening has focused on the use of brief academic indicators, rating scales, and/or observations to identify students at risk (e.g., Albers et al., 2007; Glover & Albers, 2007).”
How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments? (2009, background): “Frameworks to evaluate and monitor screening procedures can provide the necessary feedback to improve and adjust screening procedures (Glover & Albers, 2007; Jenk-ins, 2003).”
Proactive, Early Screening to Detect Behaviorally At-Risk Students: Issues, Approaches, Emerging Innovations, and Professional Practices. (2007, background): “There seems to be broad agreement that behavioral screening approaches should be cost efficient and accurate, display acceptable degrees of specificity and sensitivity, and incorporate multiple methods and informants (see Glover & Albers, 2007).”
Early Identification of Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Youth: Universal Screening versus Teacher-Referral Identification (2009, background): “A key feature of early identification is a focus on assessments that are useful for identifying progressive levels of risk among all students, not only among those with profound difficulties or problems (Glover & Albers, 2007).”
A Comparison of Teacher Nomination and Screening to Identify Behavioral and Emotional Risk Within a Sample of Underrepresented Students (2013, background): “…for emotional and behavioral disorders as a critical first step in providing targeted prevention and early intervention services (Dickson & Bursuck, 1999; Glover & Albers, 2007; Lane & Menzies, 2003; H. M. Walker & Shinn, 2002), it remains unclear how to best identify students at risk.”
Toward a Blueprint for Trauma-Informed Service Delivery in Schools (2016, background): “Irrespective of the particular context, it is important to remember that chosen assessments should be (a) appropriate for their intended use, (b) capable of producing psychometrically defensible data, and (c) usable by their intended stakeholders (Glover & Albers, 2007).”
Long-Term Diagnostic Accuracy of Curriculum-Based Measures in Reading and Mathematics (2008, background): “…of the degree to which the selected CBM cut scores used to differentiate low-risk from some or at-risk levels aligns with outcomes of statewide as well as other large-scale achievement tests (often the key outcomes for accountability purposes) is clearly very important (Glover & Albers, 2007).”
Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities (2009, background): “Universal screening to identify students at risk for school failure or psychological or behavioral problems is increasingly recognized as an important professional practice (Burns and Hoagwood, 2002; Glover and Albers, 2007; Levitt, Saka, et al., 2007).”
Direct Behavior Rating: A Review of the Issues and Research in Its Development (2011, background): “For example, in recent discussion about challenges to establish universal screening procedures, Glover and Albers (2007) noted the general lack of available assessment procedures that meet the requirements of being contextually relevant, technically defensible, and usable.”