SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
2
School Psychology Consultation, Teacher Efficacy, and Student SocialBehavioral Change
Sally Payson Hays, Ph.D.1, Katherine Kosmos Ed.M., Ed.S.2, Valerie Lopes. Ph.D.3, Ross
Greene, Ph.D.4, Elizabeth Ozer, Ph.D.5
ABSTRACT
This study evaluated a 12-week school-based school-psychologist/teacher
consultation program implemented at twelve schools in the Oakland Unified
School District over a period of three years. Following the Collaborative
Proactive Solutions (CPS)* model (Greene, 2016) this program targeted dyadic
teacher-student relationships through psychologist case consultation as a method
for improving teacher efficacy in addressing the needs of students, and improving
students’ social-behavioral functioning. Pre-post outcomes were compared with
1) a treatment as usual group in which teachers participated in no intervention and
school psychologists taught students social skills in a pull-out program using a
cognitive-behavioral curriculum, and 2) a control group where neither students
nor teachers participated in any intervention. Statistical analyses indicate that both
students and teachers who participated in the CPS program demonstrated more
positive changes on outcome measures when compared with those who were in
treatment as usual or received no intervention. Teacher outcomes indicated
significantly greater improvement in teacher efficacy for teachers in CPS than the
comparison program and controls, and teachers whose students received no
treatment demonstrated a decrease in teacher efficacy. Teacher ratings on the
Behavior Scale for Children-2nd Edition (BASC-2) indicated improved outcomes
regarding student social-emotional functioning for both greater symptom
reduction and increased skills, and statistically significant improvements for
students rated in the high-risk range prior to treatment. Finally, positive changes
for teachers implementing CPS were significantly related to improved student
outcomes, whereas changes in teacher efficacy for participants in the comparison
program and control group were not related to changes in student functioning.
1
Brisbane School District, 2 Holy Names University, 3Oakland Unified School District, 4Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, and Harvard
Medical School, 5 University of California, San Francisco
*Previously known as Collaborative Problem Solving
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
3
Introduction
In an effort to help teachers work more effectively social-behavioral challenges, the
Psychological Services Department in Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) implemented a
Collaborative Proactive Solutions (CPS) program during three consecutive school years (20112015) at twelve school sites across the district. Developed by Dr. Ross Greene, the CPS
program in OUSD was implemented through weekly school psychologist-teacher consultation
over a period of twelve weeks. Primary objectives of the program were to support teachers’
abilities to effectively understand and address the challenging social and emotional behaviors of
students still enrolled in regular education and to alter teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy
as educators. The overall goal was to increase teacher efficacy and as a result reduce negative
student behaviors and symptoms, and improve positive adaptive behavior (as measured by the
teacher form of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition, BASC-2), with the
ultimate goal of reducing student referrals for special education, behavior intervention services,
and disciplinary action.
Collaborative Proactive Solutions: Dr. Greene developed the Collaborative Proactive
Solutions (CPS) model to address limitations of behavioral systems of reward and punishment in
modifying behaviors of children who present with impulsive, explosive, inattentive, oppositional
and defiant behaviors (2004, 2008, 2011, 2016). A central premise of the CPS model is that these
behaviors are a function of a child‘s lagging developmental skills outstripped by situational
demands (2016). Greene cites 30 years of research which demonstrates that students who exhibit
challenging behaviors lack essential skills in the broad domains of flexibility/adaptability,
problem solving, and frustration tolerance (2004, 2008, 2011, 2016). The premise that
behaviorally unsuccessful students suffer from deficits in cognitive and social functioning is
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
4
supported by the research regarding school-based interventions that target students’ socialemotional competencies (Barrett, 1998; Bernard, 2006; Franklin, Moore, and Hopson, 2008;
Gerrity and DeLucia-Waack, 2010; Ghafoori and Tracz, 2001; Macklem, 2011). CPS is a
transactional model of adult-child interaction that removes conflict resolution from a power
struggle in which adults either impose unilateral adult-driven goals upon children (what Greene
describes as Plan A) or give way to child-driven goals (Plan C). Instead, Collaborative Proactive
Solutions provides adults and children an alternative approach to problem solving where they
collaboratively create a mutually agreed upon solution (Plan B) that incorporates the goals of
both children and adults equally (Greene, 2004, 2008). Through the process of successful
problem-solving, adults both model how to use social-behavioral skills, and support children in
developing skills further.
Teacher Efficacy: According to Bandura, personal self-efficacy plays a central role in
determining behavior across diverse domains. Perceived self-efficacy refers to a belief in one’s
capacity to organize and execute specific courses of action and is a strong predictor of behavior,
as people tend to avoid activities that they believe they cannot carry out, and engage in activities
that they judge themselves capable of handling (Ozer and Bandura, 1990; Bandura, 1997).
Support for focusing interventions at the teacher level can be found in the research on perceived
teacher-efficacy, especially in how it relates to teacher willingness to maintain students with
social-behavioral challenges in regular education settings rather than referring them for more
restrictive environments. Well-established research indicates that teachers' perceived selfefficacy is a factor in higher referral rates for both disciplinary action and special education
services (Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993, 1996; Meijer, & Foster, 1988;
Maniadaki, 2006; Tejada-Delgado, 2009). Some researchers have found direct correlations
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
5
between referral rates and teacher efficacy—with the more efficacious less likely to refer
students both for discipline and special education evaluation (Meijer and Foster, 1988; Soodak &
Podell, 1993; Egyed and Short, 2006). Maniadaki (2006) found evidence that referral rates for
assessment of ADHD related strongly to teacher-efficacy, especially for male students. Brownell
& Pajares (1996) found that teacher efficacy has a strong influence on teacher’s willingness to
work with behaviorally challenging and learning disabled students as well as on the subsequent
perceived success of those students (both by teachers and the students themselves). Soodak &
Podell (1996) found that when teachers view students’ emotional states as factors beyond their
control, that they may not feel equipped to address student social emotional difficulties
regardless of whether or not this is true. According to Soodak & Podell, this sense of
powerlessness may lead regular education teachers to refer children (to resource specialists,
behaviorists, or school psychologists) because they do not feel equipped to address student
social-behavioral needs.
Consultation Model: The model for implementation was based on research regarding the
locus of intervention (teacher-focused versus student-focused), as well as models of delivery for
teacher training (Domitrovich, Bradshaw, Poduska, Hoagwood, Buckley, Olin, and Romanelli,
2008; Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009), and the role of school psychologists as
behavioral consultants in schools (Caplan and Caplan, 1993, 1999; Meyers, 1995; Erchul and
Martens, 2002). According to psychologists who advocate the use of consultation, teacherfocused interventions have potential to address a variety of student academic and social
behavioral issues at both a primary and secondary prevention level that maximizes school
resources. School psychologists long have provided secondary and tertiary prevention via direct
pull-out services to address social-emotional needs of students, including: psycho-education,
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
6
social skills training, individual counseling, and group counseling (Domitrovich, et al., 2008;
Macklem, 2011). Historically in OUSD, if psychological services were provided to address
social-behavioral issues, these primarily consisted of pull-out one-on-one counseling and more
often group therapy with a social-skills focus. By their very nature, direct pull-out services such
as these are not only expensive, but they reach a limited number of students, and must be
replicated continually as students graduate and new students enroll. Moreover, students may not
transfer to the classroom skills which are taught in social skills training. Finally, if student
behavior problems arise not only from student skill deficits but from teacher lack of training in
responding to such deficits, focus on the student portion of the equation addresses only half of
the problem.
Since school psychologists are not in direct contact with the majority of students in any
given school, and it is prohibitively costly to design interventions that rely solely on
psychologists to pull out and “fix” problem students, the consultation model was developed to
enable psychologists to have a maximum impact by supporting faculty in their work with
students (Caplan and Caplan, 1993). In a multiple-role capacity, school psychologists who use
consultation in their practice work collaboratively as individuals and in teams of psychologists
with school staff to address student issues (Erchul and Martens, 2002). The consultation model
presupposes that, in their position at the front-line of public education, teachers have the greatest
impact upon students, even if they may not be experts in psychology or even in behavior. School
psychologists long have provided successful indirect intervention to students by collaborating
with their teachers to enhance their classroom behavior management skills, conducting error and
task-analysis as it relates to student skill level and functioning, and providing support for
student-focused problem-solving (Meyers, 1995; Erchul and Martens, 2002). Therefore, it makes
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
7
sense to explore which model of service delivery, teacher-targeted versus student-targeted
(historically the treatment as usual at OUSD), is most effective in changing how teachers
perceive their efficacy addressing the psychosocial needs of students, as well as teacher ratings
of students’ social-behavior change.
Studies evaluating teacher referral rates for discipline and special education also support
focusing interventions at the teacher level. In a study of thirty-one Maryland public elementary
schools, Pas, Bradshaw, Hershfeldt, and Leaf (2010) found that after controlling for other
independent factors students in classes with historically high referral rates for discipline in
comparison to students from classes with low referral rates, were significantly more likely to be
referred themselves (Pas, et al., 2010). These findings indicate that teachers play a role in rates of
referral independent of student factors. If, as this research suggests, causes of student
misbehavior are not solely due to student characteristics but are also a product of educator
factors, teacher training may offer one way to improve student social-behavioral functioning and
reduce referral rates for discipline (Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, and Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw,
Buckley, and Ialongo 2008; Caplan, 1993, 1999; Erchul and Marten, 2002; Greene, 2011; Pas,
Bradshaw, and Mitchell, 2011).
Research Hypotheses
The primary hypothesis evaluated in this study is that measurable changes in teacher
efficacy regarding their confidence to successfully address behaviors of challenging students will
differ according to participation in the following: teacher-focused Collaborative Proactive
Solutions; student-focused Treatment as Usual CBT Skills group; and no treatment at all.
A secondary research hypothesis was that the treatment would differentially affect
student social-emotional and behavioral functioning as reflected by pre-post teacher ratings of
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
8
students using the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2; Kamphaus, Reynolds,
and Hatcher, 1999). Group difference outcomes were evaluated both for all students, as well as
for a sub-group of those rated by their teachers as demonstrating at-risk, or clinically significant
social-behavioral weaknesses prior to treatment.
Finally, a third hypothesis was that the changes in teacher efficacy according to the
different treatment outcomes would be correlated with changes in student social-emotional and
behavioral functioning.
Program Design
Collaborative Proactive Solutions: Prior to program implementation, ten school
psychologists were trained in CPS by Dr. Ross Greene in a four-day seminar, and two
psychologists joined the program after the first year and were trained in a two-day seminar.
During program implementation, ongoing monthly phone meetings to support program fidelity
were provided to psychologists implementing the program (22 sessions over the course of two
school years, with each psychologist participating in a minimum of 16 sessions with Dr. Greene
(range = 16-20). In these phone sessions, psychologists presented cases and Dr. Greene critiqued
previously recorded and reviewed teacher-student sessions mediated by the psychologist
implementing the training program. Not all psychologists participated in all of the phone
trainings, as some psychologists mastered the intervention sooner than others (according to a
rubric determined by Dr. Greene who has trained hundreds, if not thousands of clinicians in his
approach). Dr. Greene was responsible for monitoring psychologists’ development and
supporting their implementation of CPS with their teachers. By the end of their second year of
participation, all psychologists in the program were considered by Dr. Greene able to provide
CPS intervention in OUSD under his supervision with fidelity. One psychologist participated in
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
9
the program only one year, discontinuing participation after year one. Two psychologists joined
the program after the second year of implementation, and one psychologist participated in the
program the first year and the third year taking a leave of absence in between. The rest of
psychologists (N = 9) participated in the program for all three years.
Subsequent to initial training and during ongoing case-consultation and coaching from
Dr. Greene, the participating twelve psychologists recruited 2-5 teachers at their school sites to
participate in weekly groups as a part of ongoing professional development. At all school sites
in OUSD, teachers participate in Professional Communities; CPS was one of the options
provided to teachers at the schools where participating psychologists were working. Participation
on the part of the teachers was voluntary. From psychologists, CPS teachers received a
combination of didactic training followed by case-consultation, and psychologists worked to first
model the program, and then record teachers independently implementing it with targeted
students. The first 4-5 group sessions consisted of school psychologists providing didactic
training regarding the CPS model, presenting student cases using the model, and introducing
tools for assessment and evaluation. Additionally, the teachers read Dr. Greene’s book, Lost at
School (2008). Once teachers became familiar with the model, they applied the CPS techniques
with two or more of their more challenging students meeting as a group for the remaining 7-8
sessions, and with the psychologist and targeted student as the teacher gradually became more
independent using the model. With ongoing support, group discussion, and consultation with the
psychologist (supported simultaneously by Dr. Greene reviewing recorded psychologist coaching
of student-teacher interactions) teachers participated in guided discussions regarding identifying
needs of their students, developing plans for implementing CPS, and ongoing implementation.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
10
Treatment As Usual Skills Groups: In order to support students whose teachers were not
participating in CPS, OUSD Psychological Services provided an equal number of students in the
first year of the program with intervention through Treatment as Usual (TAU) skills groups using
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This pull-out program also spanned 12-weeks and was
conducted by each site’s school psychologist directly with groups of 2-4 students for one hour
per week. Using a highly-scripted curriculum available for use by all psychologists in the
district, psychologists trained TAU skills groups to use emotional self-regulation techniques and
social-behavioral skills as alternatives to acting-out behavior (the most common reason for
discipline referral in the OUSD). This intervention was provided as a part of the repertoire of
support typically provided by psychologists at OUSD. Although both programs focused on
behavioral intervention, redefinition/reframing of problems, and task-specific problem-solving,
the primary difference between CPS and TAU skills groups is the theoretical locus of the
problem and target of intervention: CPS targeted teachers and focused on building dyadic
relationship skills between them and their students; the TAU skills group targeted students’
cognitive-behavioral functioning with a focus on self-soothing, self-understanding, and selfregulation. The second difference is that CPS is designed to be completely individualized to
specific students, whereas TAU skills group followed a scripted procedure that is the same for all
students. The rationale for implementing these programs simultaneously was to determine the
extent to which perceived teacher-efficacy was affected by participation in a teacher-targeted
approach as opposed to the more standard of care student-targeted intervention traditionally
provided through group social skills training available at OUSD. It should be noted that all of the
participating school psychologists had had training in group therapy as a part of their education
to become school psychologists, and they all rated themselves as capable of providing this
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
11
support prior to program participation. After the first year pilot analysis indicating that the TAU
skills groups were not as effective as CPS in affecting both teacher efficacy and student
outcomes (along with a greater teacher demand for CPS) , it was decided to discontinue the TAU
skills groups after the first year of implementation.
Control Group: A smaller number of students and teachers were recruited as controls for
pre- and post- evaluation only. These students were provided the standard of care for children
with social-behavioral difficulties which could include individual counseling (not provided by
the school psychologist), behavior support, or after school tutoring dependent upon what was
available at the site. No specific consultation or support was attempted by the school
psychologist to support teachers in addressing the needs of these students. A portion of control
students functioned as a wait-list and participated the following year in CPS subsequent to
involvement as control subjects (N= 7).
Methods
Participants:
Over the three-year period of the study, one hundred and forty-five children and seventytwo teachers were enrolled in the CPS study at twelve schools. At nine of these twelve schools,
during year one of the study, sixty-one students were also enrolled in Treatment as Usual (TAU)
group skills training led by the same psychologist implementing CPS. Twenty-eight teachers
participated in the pre-post BASC-2 evaluation of the skills group students. Thirty-nine control
students and twenty-five teachers were recruited for pre- and post- evaluation only, 45% of them
as waitlist controls, and the remaining 55% recruited via Student Study Teams or teacher
referral. While teachers frequently participated in the training over more than one school year,
and participated in group case-consultation with more new students using the CPS model,
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
12
teachers and the students with whom they worked were only evaluated as a part of this study
during their first year of participating in the program (with the exception of the waitlist control
students who were evaluated during a previous year before participating in CPS, N=7).
Two hundred and forty-five students (K-12), 125 teachers, and 12 psychologists
participated in the study at twelve different school sites. Attrition was low (1 psychologist, 7
teachers; 6 students), most often due to the transience of student participants leaving one school
for another or departing the district altogether (N = 5). At all sites, teachers were recruited
through self-selection. Student participants were recruited through: 1) a school-wide screening
for social-emotional functioning—scoring in the elevated or significantly elevated range for
social-emotional problems on the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS) an
abbreviated form of the BASC-2 self-report (Kamphaus and Reynolds, 2007); or 2) through
existing standard systems in place at school sites for obtaining extra support for social-behavioral
difficulties (e.g., Student Study Teams, referral from parents, teachers, and other school staff).
Prior to treatment, two hundred and five students (84%) in the study were rated in the At-Risk or
Clinically Significant range on one or more BASC-2 composite scale.
Grade, Ethnicity, and Gender: The greatest proportion of student participants were
enrolled in the elementary grades (average grade 3.5, N = 198 or 81%). The majority (85%) of
student participants were African American (N=154) or Hispanic (N=54). Thirty-two percent of
student participants were female (N=79), and sixty-eight percent were male (N=166). The
student sample consisted of a greater proportion of children of color and males than the ratio of
students in the Oakland Unified School District as a whole; but is consistent with the target
population of students in the district who are identified disproportionally for Emotional
Disturbance and discipline problems (Kosmos, 2011; Urban Strategies Council, 2012).
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
13
Instruments
Teacher Measures
A 53-item online survey was created to assess teacher efficacy using items from the
following: 25 items from the long version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES
Tschannen-Moran, and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001); and 28 items from the Social-Behavioral Teacher
Efficacy Scale (SBTES) developed for this project. Items were worded to ask teachers to rate
their level of confidence regarding specific tasks (e.g. How confident are you that you can
improve the understanding of a student who is failing), as well as their ability to influence their
students to improve skills deficits (e.g. How confident are you that you can influence your
student to improve his or her sense of time?). Teachers responded to these items by rating their
level of confidence on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from Not at all Confident to Completely
Confident. Both the TSES and the SBTES were used to evaluate teacher outcomes.
The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale: Widely used in other school districts, the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) has demonstrated a correlation between low teacher efficacy and
poor student outcomes. It is composed of three factors that can be sub-categorized into the
following teacher efficacy sub-scales: Instructional Practices, Classroom Management, and
Student Engagement (e.g. How confident are you that you can motivate students who show little
interest in school work? (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy 2001).
The Social-Behavioral Teacher Efficacy Scale: Despite being quite comprehensive, the
TSES is missing a key component that the CPS model specifically targets: teacher-efficacy
regarding students’ social-behavioral functioning, particularly with challenging students. This
potential gap led to development of the Social Behavior Teacher Efficacy Scale (SBTES) by
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
14
combining evaluation methodology of existing measures (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy,
2001; Henson, 2002; Bandura, 2006) and adapting the diagnostic tool Assessment of Lagging
Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP, Greene, 2008, 2016) used in the CPS program to target
specific skills deficits for intervention. The SBTES is adapted from the ALSUP by rewording
items to ask teachers to rate their level of confidence regarding their ability to influence their
students to improve social-behavioral skill deficits (e.g., How confident are you that you can
influence your student to reduce inflexible interpretations, cognitive distortions and biases?).
Items are designed to tap into student deficits typically leading to challenging behavior including
weaknesses in executive functioning, language-processing, emotion regulation, cognitive
flexibility, and social skills (Greene, 2006, 2008; Gioia, Isquith, Guy, and Kenworthy 2000;
Kamphaus, et al. 1999). Using pre-treatment data only, the SBTES was analyzed for reliability
(Cronbach’s Alpha .979) and factor analysis to determine sub-scales, as well as content validity
to determine if the measure and its sub-scales assess what it is designed to evaluate. The 28
items in the SBTES were first submitted to principal-axis factoring with varimax rotation.
Correlations between items were examined, as were factor loadings in order to determine which
items could be collapsed, eliminated, or reworded to make the measure simpler and more userfriendly. Three factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one, accounting for 90.4% of the
variance in the respondents’ scores. Rotation converged after 11 iterations, so the rotated factor
matrix was examined. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 11.1 and accounted for 39.8% of the
variance in respondents’ scores. The second factor had an eigenvalue of 7.1 and accounted for
25.2% of the variance in respondents’ scores. The third factor had an eigenvalue of 5.6 and
accounted for 19.9% of the variance in respondents’ scores. Sub-scale reliability was run and all
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
15
three factors remain highly reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha ranging from .979-.988). Intercorrelations
were conducted and all three sub-factors were highly correlated (p<.001).
Five school psychologists were asked independently to name these three factors in the
SBTES. All were in agreement that these factors should be titled: Flexibility/Social Skills,
Communication/Emotional Regulation, and Executive Functioning. These sub-scales
conceptually reflect the theory of the CPS model and lagging skills the model is designed to
target.
Content Validity: In order to examine the relationship between the SBTES and student
social-emotional and behavioral functioning, correlations were conducted pre-treatment to
determine the relationship of teacher efficacy scores at the full-scale and sub-scale level with
student T-scores on the BASC-2. Correlations were examined first with all subjects, and then
with students whose T-scores were in the at-risk or clinically significant range on the BASC-2,
and their teachers (N=125 teachers, 245 students). The content validity of the SBTES was
examined by conducting correlations between teacher efficacy and teacher ratings of students’
social behavioral functioning on the BASC-2. These correlations compared BASC-2 Composite
scale T-scores (Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, Behavioral Symptoms, School
Problems, and Adaptive Skills) to both full-scale and sub-scale scores on both teacher efficacy
measures to determine if the SBTES related more strongly to student social behavioral outcomes
than the well-established TSES. Results indicated that higher full-scale scores for teacher
efficacy on both the TSES and SBTES were related to lower student scores for Behavioral
Symptoms (p<.01). However, higher scores only on the SBTES were negatively correlated to
lower T-scores for Externalizing Problems (p<.01) and Internalizing Problems (p<.05). At the
sub-scale level, higher scores for teacher efficacy on all three of the SBTES sub-scales, and all
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
16
three of the TSES sub-scales correlated significantly to lower T-scores for Behavioral Symptoms
(p<.01). None of the TSES sub-scales correlated to teacher ratings of students for any of the
other BASC-2 Composite T-scores. In contrast, higher scores on all three of the SBTES subscales were negatively correlated to lower T-scores for Internalizing Problems and (p<.05).
Further, higher scores for Communication/ Emotional Regulation and Executive Function on the
SBTES were also negatively correlated to lower T-scores for Externalizing Problems (p<.05).
Finally, higher scores for Executive Functioning and Flexibility/Social Skills on the SBTES were
positively correlated to higher T-scores for Adaptive Skills (p<.05).
Student Measure
The teacher report of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC2, Kamphaus, et al. 1999) was used to evaluate the effect of treatment on the social-behavioral
functioning of student participants. The BASC-2 is one of the most commonly used standardized
and reliable instruments for assessing social and mental health functioning of students. The
teacher report form consists of 139-items that requires teachers to rate the frequency of certain
student behaviors observed at school on a 4-point Likert scale (Never, Sometimes, Often,
Always). Items correspond to negative clinical scales (Aggression, Hyperactivity, Conduct
Problems, Attention Problems, Learning Problems, Anxiety, Depression, Somatization,
Atypicality and Withdrawal) as well as positive adaptive capabilities (Adaptability, Social Skills,
Leadership, Study Skills, Functional Communication). Items for each scale are computer
summed from which T-scores are derived. The scores of scales are then combined to generate
four negative composite indices. Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, School
Problems, and Behavioral Symptoms; whereas the Adaptive Skills composite reflects student
strengths. Derived T-scores represent a continuous scale with cut-off scores for clinical severity
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
17
on the negative problem composites categorized as follows: Normal = 25-59; At-Risk = 60-69,
and Clinically Significant >70. For Adaptive Skills the T-score cut-offs for clinical severity are:
Normal >40; At-Risk = 30-39, and Clinically Significant <30 = (Kamphaus, et al. 1999).
Data Collection
Data was collected prior to program implementation and post-program implementation,
approximately 12 weeks later. Control data was collected either via a waitlist (with students
participating one year after having been assessed as a control the year before), or as a
comparison group. Control data was also collected for pre-post comparison over a period of
approximately 12 weeks.
Data Analysis:
Pre-treatment group comparisons: No significant group differences were noted for pretreatment teacher efficacy scores when all teachers in the study were compared year by year, as
well as when they were broken into treatment groups, and compared according to pre-program
teacher efficacy scores. Multivariate Analysis was conducted correcting for multiple analyses by
using a higher level of significance to diminish the possibility of a type 1 error (p < .01). No
significant group differences in student scores pre-program were noted for student ethnicity;
gender; or grade. Level of high-risk for social behavioral problems prior to program participation
was determined by teachers rating students in the at-risk or clinically significant range on at least
one BASC-2 Composite scale on the intake evaluation. 84% of students in the study were rated
in the high risk range prior to intervention, a statistic that was not significantly affected by study
year, and was consistent across all program groups. No significant differences between groups
were noted prior to participation for either the sum of significant composite scores or for the
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
18
percentage of students rated at-risk. Due a lack of significance between pre-treatment groups of
both students and teachers, it was decided analyze all data together regardless of treatment year.
Post-treatment group comparisons: MANCOVA was run to assess the impact of
treatment on teacher efficacy and student outcomes at both the composite and scale level Teacher
covariate was year of participation, and student covariates were ethnicity, grade, year of
participation, gender, and the sum of significant composite scores prior to intervention (e.g. highrisk students). The number of student participants was significantly different across groups. Ttests of program numbers indicated significant differences between the larger CPS sample,
(Teacher N = 72; Student N = 145) and the comparison groups as well as between the smaller
number of participants in the TAU Skills Group (Teacher N= 28; Student N = 61) and Controls
(Teacher N= 25; Student N = 39).
Because the Box M analysis for the teachers was not significant, but it was significant for
student outcomes (likely due to a larger N of CPS student participants compared to the smaller
comparison TAU Skills, and Control groups) in order to diminish the risk of a type 1 error,
Multivariate Analyses used different tests to establish significance for teachers (Wilks’ Λ) versus
students (Pillai’s Trace). Correlations between student outcomes and teacher outcomes were
obtained by first determining a mean change score for each teacher for all their students (this was
done because some teachers worked with two or more students, and other teachers, only one, and
it was considered important not to skew the results by having some teacher efficacy scores
matter more than others—especially those who may have more experience because they worked
with more students. While this tactic may have depressed significance, it was considered
preferable to the likelihood of a type 1 error).
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
19
Results
Post-treatment Analysis of Teacher Efficacy: Outcomes indicate significant program
impact on teacher efficacy according to both teacher efficacy scales even when controlling for
treatment year. There was a statistically significant difference in Teacher Efficacy based on
Program, F (12, 202) = 2.645, p < .05; Wilk's Λ = 0.747, partial η2 = .136, but not study year,
with power above .97. (Note: power in MANCOVA is essentially equivalent of effect size, with
closer to 1.0 stronger indication that the independent variable is having an impact on the
dependent variable). Between-Subjects Effects indicate that for all teacher efficacy variables,
significant group differences were noted regarding pre-post treatment changes (p ≤ .01) after
controlling for participation year, with power for all variables greater than .9. Further post-hoc
Bonferoni analysis of the change in teacher efficacy indicates group differences are evident for
CPS teachers in comparison to the Treatment as Usual Skills Group and Controls (p ≤ .002) with
effect sizes medium to strong (.45-.63), but that changes in teacher efficacy of TAU Skills Group
teachers and Control teachers were not significantly different from each other.
Within-subject changes in Teacher Efficacy analyzed via paired T-tests indicated that
CPS teachers demonstrated significant positive changes on both measures and for all subscales.
Neither the TAU Skills Group, nor controls demonstrated significant changes in teacher efficacy
as assessed by either measure. Shown in Table 2 are pre-post Teacher efficacy scores and within
subject change significance.
Post-treatment Analysis of Student Outcomes: A one-way MANCOVA revealed no
significant main effects based on program for ethnicity, year of participation, grade, or gender;
however, a statistically significant difference was noted in student outcomes based on program
for high-risk students, F (5, 200) = 9.246,p < .000; Pillai’s Trace = .188, partial η2 = .188. This
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
20
outcome indicates that 36.6% of the variance of the dependent variables for high-risk students is
accounted for by the differences between groups. Power to detect the effect was 1.0. Thus, while
the hypothesis that treatment program had an impact on teacher ratings of student socialbehavioral change was not confirmed for all student participants, when students at high-risk for
social-behavioral problems prior to intervention were assessed, the type of program appears to
have had a significant impact on student outcomes.
Given the significance of the overall test for high-risk students only, the univariate main
effects were examined further. Univariate main effects for program differences with the
covariate sum of significant composite scores were found at p < .01 for four of the five
composite scores: Externalizing Problems (F (1, 86) = 17.67; p < .001; partial η2 = .080, power
.987); School Problems (F (1, 55) = 25.66; p < .001; partial η2 = .112, power .999); Behavorial
Symptoms (F (1, 73) = 26.33; p < .001; partial η2 = .115, power .999); and Adaptive Skills (F (1,
43) = 11.15; p < .01; partial η2 = .052, power .941); but not on Internalizing Problems (F (1, 252)
= .82; p = .38; partial η2 = .004, power .147).
Within Subject Changes, All students: Looking further at within-subject changes for prepost outcomes it appears that while group differences for all students did not reach significance,
the trend for within-subjects changes is similar to those students rated high-risk prior to
intervention, and are therefore worth noting. Only CPS students demonstrated significant
positive within-subject changes with decreases in School Problems (p < .01) and Behavioral
Symptoms (p < .05) and improvement in Adaptive Skills (p < .01). These changes were greater
for high-risk CPS students with larger decreases in Externalizing Problems (p < .01), School
Problems (p < .01) and Behavioral Symptoms (p < .01) and greater improvement in Adaptive
Functioning (p < .01), despite a smaller N (15% fewer students). In contrast, TAU Skills group
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
21
students as a whole demonstrated a significant change in composite scores only for increased
Behavioral Symptoms (p < .05), and at the scale level for significantly increased Conduct
Problems (p < .05), Depression (p < .01), and Withdrawal (p < .01). Control students overall at
the scale level demonstrated significant increased Anxiety (p < .05), and decreased Social Skills
(p < .01) and Leadership (p < .05). Shown in Tables 4-5 are pre-post composite scores for all
students.
Within Subject Changes, High-Risk students: High-risk CPS students demonstrated
significant decreases as measured by the following composite scores: School Problems (p < .01)
and Behavioral Symptoms (p < .01) and greater improvement in Adaptive Skills (p < .01).
Improvements at the scale level were noted for CPS high-risk students’ decreasing Depression (p
< .01), Attention Problems (p < .01) and Learning Problems (p < .05); increased Adaptability and
Leadership (p < .01), as well as improved Study Skills and Functional Communication (p < .05).
Conversely neither high-risk TAU Skills group students nor Control students demonstrated
significant change in composite scores. However at the scale level, decreased Adaptability (p <
.05) was noted for High-Risk TAU Skills group students, and High-Risk Control students
demonstrated significant increased Anxiety (p < .05). Shown in Table 5 are pre-post composite
scores for high-risk students.
Percentage of Students with Pre-post Composite Category Changes: Frequencies of
students rated by teachers as having shifted in T-score severity on BASC-2 Composite scales
(i.e., from the Clinically Significant to the At-Risk, or At -Risk to the Normal range or vise-versa)
are listed in Table 6. Of the students whose teachers participated in CPS, 37% were rated as
demonstrating enough measureable change in behavioral and emotional status post treatment on
at least one composite scale to move from one level of severity to a less severe category level
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
22
(i.e., from Clinically Significant to At-Risk, or At -Risk to Normal). In comparison, over the same
period only 26% of students in the TAU skills group, and 21% of the Control students were rated
as moving to a less severe category on one composite scale. CPS teachers rated 23% of their
students as shifting to a less severe category on two or more composite scales as compared to
teacher ratings of 16% of students in TAU skills group and 13% of Control students. ANOVA
indicates that improvement on one composite was not significant according to group (p =.08),
but for those improving on more than one composite groups differences were significant (p
<.01). Post hoc analysis indicates differences found between CPS and the other two groups, but
not between TAU Skills groups and Controls.
Conversely, less than 33% of the CPS students were rated as shifting to a more severe
level on any one composite scale, whereas 41% of TAU students, and 76% of the Control
students did so. Finally, fewer than 18% of CPS students were rated as having moved to a more
severe category on two or more composite scales, while 28% of TAU skills group students, and
38% of the Control students did so. ANOVA indicates that improvement on one composite was
not significant according to group (p =.8), but for those improving on more than one composite
groups differences were significant (p <.08), as was also the case for those demonstrating worse
functioning on one or more composite (p <.001). Post hoc analysis indicated differences found
between CPS and the other two groups, but not between TAU Skills groups and Controls with
the exception of the percentage of students demonstrating worse outcomes on only one
composite (TAU Skills groups and Control groups changes were significantly discrepant from
each other (p <.001). Groups difference effect sizes ranged from small to medium (Table 6 and
Figure 1).
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
23
Correlations Between Teacher Variables and Student Variables. Table 7 illustrates that
CPS teachers demonstrated a significant relationship between improvement in teacher efficacy
on the Executive Functioning sub-scale of the SBTES with the following improvement on
student composite scores: decreases in Externalizing Problems and Behavioral Symptoms (p <
.01); and improvements in Adaptive Skills (p < .05). No correlations in changes at the composite
level were noted for CPS student outcomes with teacher efficacy as measured by other sub-scales
of the SBTES or for the measure as a whole. No positive changes as measured by the whole and
sub scales on the TSES were related to any changes in student outcomes regardless of treatment.
Looking further at the scale scores that make up the BASC-2 Composites, a relationship
between increased teacher efficacy and improved student functioning was found only with
outcomes of CPS participants, and only on the measure developed for this project (SBTES).
Significant relationships (p < .05) were noted in improved teacher efficacy for promoting student
Executive Functioning with decreases in student Hyperactivity and Attention Problems,
Depression and Withdrawal, and improvements in student Adaptability and Social Skills.
Significant relationships (p < .05) were also noted in improved Teacher Efficacy for promoting
student Communication and Emotional Regulation with decreases in student Hyperactivity and
Attention Problems, Depression and Withdrawal, and improvements in student Social Skills and
Study Skills. These outcomes indicate that increased teacher efficacy for promoting student
Social-Behavioral functioning as a result of CPS participation may be related to actual improved
teacher ratings of that student’s functioning. No correlations were noted between student changes
on either composite or scale scores with any change in scores on any teacher efficacy measures
for students and teachers in both the TAU Skills groups and Controls.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
24
Final data collection looked at outcome data analyzing percentages of participating CPS
teachers providing feedback regarding their experience, and what they believed they and their
students got from program participation. These outcomes indicated that most of the teachers
believed that the program was a worthwhile experience (>90%) that improved their
understanding of their students (>80%), provided them with tools to use in the future (> 80%),
helped them to support their students in improving problem solving skills (>70%), and that they
would recommend the program to other teachers (90%), see Table 10. Qualitative feedback
clarified these ratings further with 28 of participating CPS teachers providing an answer to what
they found most valuable about program participation, see Table 11.
Discussion
Outcomes of this research indicate that participation in the Collaborative Proactive
Solutions at OUSD may have improved teacher efficacy as assessed using an established teacher
efficacy measure (TSES) but even more using a measure regarding student Social-Behavioral
functioning (SBTES). CPS participation also appeared to have a significant positive impact on
changes in teachers’ ratings of students’ social-behavior especially for those rated at high risk
prior to intervention. Even more, positive changes in CPS teacher efficacy to affect the socialbehavior of their students was related to teacher ratings of improved student outcomes. Further
correlation analysis indicated that changes in teacher efficacy for TAU skills groups were not
related to student outcomes, and if anything were negatively related. This negative correlation
was stronger for the teachers whose students received no support: Control teachers demonstrated
decreases in teacher efficacy, and decreases in student social-behavioral functioning. Although
group comparisons of all students did not demonstrate significant pre-post changes, teacher
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
25
ratings of high-risk students participating in the study did indicate a significant difference
between treatment effects, and the within-subject changes indicated more of an impact upon CPS
students than those in the TAU and Control groups. Teacher ratings of students in TAU skills
groups indicated that the program directly administered by the school psychologist to children
had little or no positive impact, and no treatment at all actually led to worse outcomes. When
outcomes of students rated at higher risk (those who exhibited poor social-behavioral functioning
prior to intervention) were analyzed separately, the post-treatment impact of CPS appeared to be
even stronger in comparison with high-risk TAU skills group and Control students. Conversely,
high-risk Control students demonstrated significantly worse Internalizing Problems (p< .05) over
the same time period. Perhaps the most important finding of this research is that while increased
teacher efficacy was related to improved teacher ratings of student outcomes for participants in
CPS, this was not the case for the other two groups. While some improvements in teacher
efficacy were noted for both TAU and controls, these within-subject improvements were both
not significant, and not related to student outcomes.
There is also some indication that there was a larger shift in the overall percentage of
students moving to less significant levels on the BASC-2 for students in CPS, while the opposite
was true for the students in the TAU and control groups. It is tricky to compare shifts from one
BASC-2 category on a student by student basis, since moving from one level to another might be
a matter of a few points one direction or another; nonetheless looking at this trend for all groups
is intriguing, especially as these categories are widely used to assess many thousands of children
nationwide, and thus considered fairly robust.
Other studies administering measures directly to students (such as the student form of the
BASC-2) or using teacher reports rely on the assumption that student social-behavioral
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
26
functioning is a product of student changes only (Nugent, et al. 2013; Rajendran et al. 2013;
Thaler, Mayfield, Reynolds, Hadland, and Allen, 2012). The assumption underlying this
research is different: we assume that improved teacher ratings of student functioning reflects
improved skills-building within the dyadic relationship of students and teachers together and is
directly related to improved teacher efficacy, especially when evaluating teacher ability to
support improved social-behavioral functioning. BASC-2 teacher reports are one of the most
frequently used measures to assess student emotional disturbance, yet acknowledgement of the
subjective nature of a teacher-generated report is rare (Angkustsiri, Leckliter, Tartaglia, Beaton,
Enriquez, and Simon, 2012; Earhart, Jimerson, Eklund, and Hart, 2009; Miller,
Martinez, Shumka, and Baker, 2014). This research relies upon the “dyadic interaction” inherent
in this subjectivity because outcomes might be, by their very nature, dependent upon perceptions
of teachers who are struggling to address the needs of challenging and disruptive students. The
treatments evaluated in this study differ specifically in the target of intervention: treatment of
social-behavioral functioning directly with psychologist-implemented skills training of students
versus student social-behavioral functioning indirectly shaped through psychologist-led teacher
training and consultation. Since Collaborative Proactive Solutions was implemented specifically
at OUSD to try and reduce teacher referrals of students displaying poor social-behavior, it is
entirely appropriate to assess its impact upon teacher perspectives of both their own capacity,
and student functioning, as well as the relationship between the two. Thus, teacher reports of
improved student functioning may indicate not just success with improved student outcomes, but
perhaps more importantly the impact of psychologist consultation on teachers’ efficacy to
understand and address needs of more challenging students—precisely the target of
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
27
Collaborative Proactive Solutions in OUSD. Further, this research suggests consultation may be
an effective service delivery model for this intervention.
There are a number of limitations to the present study. First, it was very difficult to
ensure that there was consistency across psychologists implementing the CPS and TAU
programs. This is in part because the professional experience varied greatly within the study
sample (as is the reality of most psychological services staff in any given district, even one as
large as OUSD). For instance some of the psychologists in the program had been working in the
field for a very long time (almost 20 years), while others were relatively new to the profession
(within two years of starting as a school psychologist). Each psychologist came from different
training backgrounds (two had earned PhD’s, the rest MA’s, MSEds, etc.) with various emphases
in their respective graduate trainings. Compounding this is the differential amount of training
provided with Dr. Greene (from the first ten psychologists participating in a 4-day seminar,
versus the two later joining psychologists who only participated in 2-day trainings). Also, there
were differences in the number of monthly supervision sessions with Dr. Greene attended by
individual psychologists, with some who started later attending fewer sessions (it is impossible to
say if this affected psychologist capacity, as one of the psychologists who joined the program
later was one of the first deemed by Dr. Greene to have qualified as meeting training criteria). It
was also problematic that the training part of this program for psychologists was occurring
concurrently with program implementation and evaluation (so student and teacher training,
particularly in the first year of implementation was at times facilitated by a psychologist who Dr.
Greene had not yet determined was implementing CPS with fidelity). For this reason alone,
significant changes in psychologists’ skills acquisition could have occurred between the early
stages of the study and the end, which in turn could have led to differential outcomes for both
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
28
students and teachers. This study attempted to control this differential by evaluating as a
covariate the year of program participation (not-significant for outcome changes for either
students or teachers), but it would have been preferable to have been more consistent from the
outset. Another difficulty was assessing the fidelity of psychologist implementation of the
scripted Treatment As Usual social skills group. Since this program was not the target of
evaluation, and since it was one of a number of options available for psychologists to use in their
repertoire, it is entirely possible and perhaps likely that variations of skills existed between the
psychologists in implementing this comparison program. The defense for using this program as
a comparison anyway is that this kind of alternative program is how supports are implemented in
school districts as a general rule, and certainly is the case for OUSD. The wide discrepancy
between any given psychologist and another is simply a factor in every single district in the
country—but the truth is also that this variability makes accurate and rigorous research difficult,
especially in a limited fashion as was the case with this study. It is also true, that just because the
state of the state makes rigorous research challenging, the need for evaluating programs in reallife settings is also very compelling. So with a caveat acknowledging that there were too few
psychologists in this study to meaningfully evaluate within-program differences statistically,
within-psychologist differences is a serious limitation unavoidable due to the reality of
evaluating a program in a real-life setting, with real-life psychologists, teachers, and students.
Difficulty of standardization in this study was problematic for teachers as well, and one
of the greatest drawbacks in the study was that the amount of teaching experience was not
calculated from the outset in the evaluation (something researchers realized after the fact that
should have been part of initial design, but given the anonymous nature of the teacher efficacy
evaluation, to obtain this information after, was considered perhaps something that might be
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
29
controversial with the teacher’s union, and thus not pursued). There were further problems with
creating equivalent treatment, comparison, and control groups for both students and teachers, and
the process of recruitment was altered to exclude the BESS as a tool for identification over the
period of study implementation. It was impossible to recruit teachers and students for program
participation using an objective method that would distribute subjects evenly and randomly to
treatment groups, and in a related flaw, the control group was significantly smaller than the size
of the respective treatment populations (CPS and TAU skills groups). The reality in busy and
overburdened urban school districts is that teachers are less likely to participate in any evaluation
that does not offer them any benefit in return—as was the case for the Control group in this
research. For all of these reasons, the whole study runs the risk of being subject not only to a
self-referral bias, but of attributing changes seen in teacher efficacy and student social-behavior
to differential treatment instead of more inherent skills of psychologists and teachers predating
any intervention. Further studies would incorporate a more stringent training protocol and
schedule, and more exact evaluation of adults’ skills sets and training prior to program
participation.
Programmatic limitations include the study being limited to twelve schools in Oakland
Unified School District; replication is needed in larger more diverse samples drawn from a broad
range of schools and grade levels. With a sufficiently large enough sample of schools, it would
be possible to conduct school-level analysis and assess between-school differences. Additionally,
it will be important to replicate this program in other inner-city school districts to improve the
generalizability of these findings.
Conclusions
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
30
The results of this project modestly supports directing resources through school
psychologist consultants to act as change agents in affecting both teacher efficacy, as well as
social-behavioral outcomes for students. With the hope that both student and teacher skills
acquired would last beyond the period of treatment, it is possible this intervention may have a
greater impact than can be measured by this research. Further, the case for potential for use of
psychologists’ skills and efforts beyond more conventional pull-out, student-targeted
interventions (which in this research was actually less powerful than a consultation model where
teachers are both the target of and conduit for treatment) is compelling. Future work includes
expanding the Collaborative Proactive Solutions beyond OUSD to a greater number of schools,
as well as following students and teachers for an entire school year. Long term evaluation goals
would include following study participants regarding educational outcomes longitudinally (e.g.,
subsequent referral rates for discipline and special education), as well as teacher efficacy after
program participation to evaluate any lasting impact.
For a variety of reasons—budgetary, a shift towards use of Restorative Justice, and
prevention as a part of Response to Intervention (RTI) initiatives—there is a need for programs
in public schools to provide teachers with explicit training to address students’ social-behavioral
difficulties in non-punitive ways. This project not only suggests the use of school psychologist
consultation is a way to implement Collaborative Proactive Solutions, but also that the program
itself may be a potentially effective way to improve teacher efficacy which in turn is related to
improved teacher perceptions of student social-behavior.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
31
Table 1.
Teacher Efficacy MANCOVA
Multivariate Testsa
Effect
Value
Pillai's
Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Intercept
Trace
Roy's
Largest
Root
Study
Year
Pillai's
Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's
Largest
Root
Pillai's
Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Program Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's
Largest
Root
F
Hypothesis Error df Sig.
df
Partial Noncent. Observed
Eta
Parameter Powerd
Square
d
.082 1.508b
6.000 101.000 .183
.082
9.045
.561
.918 1.508b
6.000 101.000 .183
.082
9.045
.561
.090 1.508b
6.000 101.000 .183
.082
9.045
.561
.090 1.508b
6.000 101.000 .183
.082
9.045
.561
.027
.466b
6.000 101.000 .832
.027
2.798
.183
.973
.466b
6.000 101.000 .832
.027
2.798
.183
.028
.466b
6.000 101.000 .832
.027
2.798
.183
.028
.466b
6.000 101.000 .832
.027
2.798
.183
.261
2.551
12.000 204.000 .004
.130
30.617
.973
.747 2.645b
12.000 202.000 .003
.136
31.735
.978
.328
2.736
12.000 200.000 .002
.141
32.833
.982
.292 4.967c
6.000 102.000 .000
.226
29.802
.990
a. Design: Intercept + StudyYear + Program
b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
d. Computed using alpha = .05
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
32
Table 2.
Teacher Efficacy Pre-post Data Across Treatment Groups (N=125)
Program
Collaborative
Proactive Solutions
N=72
Measure
Social-Behavioral
Teacher
Efficacy Scale
 Communication/
Emotional
Regulation
 Flexibility/
Social Skills
 Executive
Functioning
Teacher Sense of
Efficacy Scale
 Classroom
Management
 Instructional
Practices
 Student
Engagement
M
SD
Pre
4.9
2
Post
6.8
2
Pre
5.0
2
Post
7.0
2
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
4.8
6.7
4.8
6.7
6.3
2
2
2
2
2
Post
7.5
1
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
6.3
7.6
6.5
7.7
6.0
7.2
2
1
2
1
2
2
M
Change
1.8***
2.0***
1.9***
1.5***
1.2***
1.6***
1.2***
1.2***
TAU Skills Group
N=28
M
SD
6.0
2
6.9
2
6.2
2
6.9
2
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.9
7.2
2
2
2
2
2
7.1
2
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.1
6.9
2
2
2
2
1
2
M
Change
+.9
+.7
+.2
+.1
-.1
.1
.1
-.2
Control
N=25
M
SD
6.6
2
6.9
1
6.6
2
7.0
2
6.8
6.9
6.5
6.9
6.7
1
2
1
2
1
6.3
2
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.7
6.7
7.0
2
2
1
2
1
2
M
Change
+.3
+.4
+.1
+.4
-.4
.0
.0
-.6
Significance (2-tailed): *** 0.001 ** 0.01 level *0.05
Scoring for both the SBTES and the TSES is on a Likert scale from 0-10 with 0 = not at all
confident and 10 = completely confident;
Within-program change significance was obtained through paired T-test analysis
d Represents the effect size for within-program change
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
33
Table 3.
Student Outcomes MANCOVA of BASC-2 TR
Multivariate Testsa
Effect
Value
F
Hypo- Error df Sig.
thesis
df
Pillai's Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
.125 5.707b
Partial Noncent. Observed
Eta
Parameter Powerd
Square
d
5.000 200.000 .000
.125
28.535
.992
.875 5.707b
5.000 200.000 .000
.125
28.535
.992
.143 5.707b
5.000 200.000 .000
.125
28.535
.992
Roy's Largest
Root
.143 5.707b
5.000 200.000 .000
.125
28.535
.992
Pillai's
Trace
Wilks'
Pre
Lambda
Significant Hotelling's
Composite Trace
Sum
Roy's Largest
Root
.188 9.246b
5.000 200.000 .000
.188
46.231
1.000
.812 9.246b
5.000 200.000 .000
.188
46.231
1.000
.231 9.246b
5.000 200.000 .000
.188
46.231
1.000
.231 9.246b
5.000 200.000 .000
.188
46.231
1.000
1.110 10.000 402.000 .353
.027
11.098
.585
.947 1.108b 10.000 400.000 .354
.027
11.082
.584
.056
.027
11.065
.584
.040
8.443
.578
Intercept
Program
Pillai's
Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's Largest
Root
.054
1.107 10.000 398.000 .356
.042 1.689c
5.000 201.000 .139
a. Design: Intercept + StudyYear + Program
b. Exact statistic
c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
d. Computed using alpha = .01
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
34
Table 4.
Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Negative Problems
All Students (N=245)
Collaborative
TAU CBT Skills Group
BASC-2 TR
Proactive Solutions
N=61
N= 145
T Scores
Negative Problem
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
 Aggression
Post
Pre
 Conduct
Post
Problems
Internalizing Pre
Problems
Post
Pre
 Anxiety
Post
Pre
 Depression
Post
Pre
 SomatizaPost
tion
Pre
School
Problems
Post
Pre
 Attention
Problems
Post
Pre
 Learning
Post
 Problems
Pre
Behavioral
Symptoms
Post
Pre
 Atypicality
Post
Pre
 Withdrawal
Post
Externalizing
Problems
 Hyperactivity
M
68.5
66.9
67.2
65.2
69.7
68.9
65.6
64.7
59.7
59.6
56.4
55.9
64.3
62.2
55.3
55.9
63.0
60.9
62.5
60.7
60.5
58.7
67.4
65.4
61.1
59.8
58.0
56.9
M
SD
Change
11
-1.6
13
11
-2.0*
11
14
-.8
15
11
-.9
12
13
-.1
13
12
-.5
11
14
-2.1*
13
14
+.6
14
9
-2.1**
9
7
-1.8**
7
12
-1.8*
12
10
-2.0 *
11
14
-1.3
14
10
-1.1
10
Control
N=39
T Scores
M
SD
68.6
69.8
65.5
65.5
71.2
73.0
65.1
67.2
61.3
63.2
56.3
57.2
62.9
66.0
57.3
58.0
61.2
61.4
61.8
61.9
58.8
59.0
66.8
69.1
61.5
62.5
59.5
62.4
12
13
11
11
16
16
11
11
13
14
11
11
12
15
13
12
9
9
7
7
11
11
10
10
11
12
11
10
T Scores
M
Change
+.2
0
+1.8
+2.1*
+1.9
+.9
+3.1**
+.7
-.2
+.1
+.2
+1.9*
+1.0
+2.9**
M
SD
67.4
67.2
65.5
64.7
68.0
67.2
66.0
66.1
58.3
58.8
55.2
58.2
61.7
62.0
52.5
50.4
63.2
63.5
63.4
61.2
60.9
62.8
66.7
65.9
61.9
60.5
59.8
58.5
17
14
13
13
17
15
13
14
15
13
13
15
15
13
13
8
8
8
8
8
11
9
14
12
17
17
10
12
M
Change
-.2
-.8
-.8
+.1
+.5
+3.0*
+.3
-2.1
+.3
-1.2
+.9
-.8
-1.4
-1.3
Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale
for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form: Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School
Problems and Behavioral Symptoms) <60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant
At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically
Significant
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
35
Table 5.
Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Positive Skills
All Students (N=245)
BASC-2 TR
Positive Skill
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
 Leadership
Post
Pre
 Study Skills
Post
 Functional Pre
CommunPost
ication
Adaptive
Skills
 Adaptability
 Social
Skills
Collaborative
Proactive Solutions
N= 145
TAU CBT Skills Group
N=61
Control
N=39
T Scores
T Scores
T Scores
M
SD
39.4
41.0
37.4
39.2
42.7
43.9
42.7
44.3
38.3
39.6
41.0
5
7
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
7
8
42.6
9
M
Change
+1.6**
+1.8**
+1.2
+1.6**
+1.3*
+1.6*
M
SD
40.9
39.8
39.0
36.6
44.4
44.0
44.2
43.9
40.0
39.8
39.5
7
6
7
6
7
7
6
7
6
7
8
40.4
8
M
Change
-1.1
-2.4**
-.4
-.3
-.2
+.9
M
SD
38.0
38.7
37.5
37.6
39.9
43.0
40.7
42.4
39.0
37.7
39.6
7
6
9
7
7
7
6
5
6
7
8
39.8
12
M
Change
-.7
+.1
-3.1**
-1.7*
-1.3
+.2
Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05
BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form:
Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School Problems and Behavioral Symptoms)
<60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive
Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically Significant
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
36
Table 6.
Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Negative Problems
High-Risk Students (N=205)
Collaborative
TAU CBT Skills Group
BASC-2 TR
Proactive Solutions
N=53
N= 123
T Scores
Negative Problem
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
 Aggression
Post
Pre
 Conduct
Post
Problems
Internalizing Pre
Problems
Post
Pre
 Anxiety
Post
Pre
 Depression
Post
Pre
 SomatizaPost
tion
Pre
School
Problems
Post
Pre
 Attention
Problems
Post
Pre
 Learning
Post
 Problems
Pre
Behavioral
Symptoms
Post
Pre
 Atypicality
Post
Pre
 Withdrawal
Post
Externalizing
Problems
 Hyperactivity
M
69.7
67.5
68.0
65.9
71.0
69.5
66.1
65.0
60.6
60.6
57.0
56.3
65.6
62.9
56.4
56.5
63.2
61.3
63.3
61.3
60.8
58.9
68.8
66.2
62.5
60.8
58.9
57.5
M
SD
Change
11
-2.2*
13
11
-2.1**
11
14
-.5
15
11
-1.6
12
13
-0
13
12
-.7
11
11
-2.7*
13
15
+.1
14
9
-1.9**
9
7
-2.0**
7
12
-1.6*
12
11
-2.6**
11
14
-1.7
14
10
-1.6
10
Control
N=29
T Scores
M
SD
69.3
70.1
65.8
65.5
72.3
73.2
65.8
67.8
61.4
62.7
57.1
57.2
63.7
64.9
57.9
61.4
61.4
61.2
61.9
61.6
59.2
58.9
67.6
68.6
62.4
62.2
59.9
61.5
12
12
12
13
15
16
11
11
13
13
12
13
14
12
12
13
9
9
12
13
12
11
9
10
11
12
10
9
T Scores
M
Change
+1.8
-.3
+.9
+2.0
+1.3
+.1
+1.2
+3.5
-.2
-.3
-1.3
+1.0
+1.2
+1.6
M
SD
68.1
67.5
66.3
64.9
69.3
68.2
67.4
66.5
60.1
59.4
56.9
58.7
62.7
62.3
53.0
51.6
63.8
63.3
63.3
62.0
62.0
63.5
67.7
66.1
61.9
60.1
61.0
60.1
13
13
13
12
14
13
15
15
15
13
13
16
15
14
14
13
8
7
8
7
9
8
14
12
16
14
11
11
M
Change
-.6
-1.4
-1.1
-.9
-.7
+1.8*
-.4
-1.4
-.5
-1.3
-.2
-.6
-1.8
-.9
Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale
for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form: Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School
Problems and Behavioral Symptoms) <60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant
At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically
Significant
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
37
Table 7.
Student Pre-, and Post-Data Across Treatment Groups-Positive Problems
High-Risk Students (N=205)
BASC-2 TR
Positive Skill
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
 Leadership
Post
Pre
 Study Skills
Post
 Functional Pre
CommunPost
ication
Adaptive
Skills
 Adaptability
 Social
Skills
Collaborative
Proactive Solutions
N= 123
TAU CBT Skills Group
N=59
Control
N=29
T Scores
T Scores
T Scores
M
SD
38.7
40.5
36.8
38.9
42.2
43.8
42.7
44.4
38.2
39.6
40.1
6
6
8
7
7
6
7
6
6
7
8
41.9
9
M
Change
+1.6**
+1.8**
+1.2
+1.6**
+1.3*
+1.6*
M
SD
40.7
39.8
38.6
36.6
44.5
44.2
44.2
44.3
40.0
40.0
39.5
7
6
7
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
8
40.1
8
M
Change
-.92
-2.0*
-.2
+.1
0
+.6
M
SD
37.2
38.0
36.7
37.5
39.3
40.2
40.4
41.4
38.6
37.9
39.2
7
6
8
8
8
6
5
6
7
7
8
40.1
8
M
Change
+.8
+.8
+.9
+.1
-.7
+.9
Significance (2-tailed): ** 0.01 level *0.05
BASC-2 TR Represents Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, 2nd Edition, Teacher Form:
Negative Problems (Externalizing, Internalizing, School Problems and Behavioral Symptoms)
<60 = Normal range, 60-69= >70= Clinically Significant At=Risk; Positive Skill (Adaptive
Skills) >40 = Normal range, 30-40= At=Risk, >30= Clinically Significant
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
38
Table 8.
Frequency of students’ T-scores rated as more severe or less severe on BASC-2 Composite Scales
All Students (N=245)
Changes in BASC-2
Composite Scale
Severity
Collaborative
Problem Solving
N=145
TAU CBT Skills
Group
N=61
Control
Group
differences
Effect
Size
Sig.
Cohen’s
d
N=39
N
%
N
%
N
%
92
63
45
74
53
79
1.2
.07
54
37
16
26
8
21
.08
.22
34
23
10
16
5
13
<.01
.36
98
67
36
59
9
24
<.05
.36
48
33
25
41
30
76
<.001
.24
25
17
17
28
15
38
<.001
.36
Improved
No positive change
on any Composite
Improvement on 1
Composite Scale
Improvement on 2
or more Composite
Scales
Worsened
No negative change
on any Composite
Scale
Worsened on 1
Composite Scale
Worsened on 2 or
more Composite
Scales
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
39
Figure 1.
Group Comparisons: Percentage of students’ T-scores shifting in severity (Improving or
Worsening) on BASC-2 Composite Scales
N=245
Shift in Severity
A
B
C
D
Less severe category Less severe category More severe category More severe category
on at least 1
on 2 or more
on at least 1
on 2 or more
Composite Scale Composite Scales** Composite Scale*** Composite Scales***
Percentage of students
60
40
37
26
21
20
23
16
13
0
-20
-17
-28
-33
-40
-38
-41
-60
-80
-76
-100
Collaborative Problem Solving
TAU CBT Skills Group
Group Differences Significance (2-tailed): *** 0.001 level
** 0.01 level
Control
*0.05
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
40
Table 9.
CPS Program correlations between changes in teacher efficacy and student social-behavior
BASC-2 COMPOSITE
Mean change
Externalizing Problems
Behavioral Symptoms
Adaptive Skills
BASC-2
SCALE
Mean change
Hyperactivity
Depression
Attention
Problems
Withdrawal
Adaptability
Social Skills
Study Skills
TEACHER EFFICACY
Measure
Mean Change
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
TEACHER
SBTES
EFFICACY Communication
Measure
/ Emotional
Mean Change
Regulation
SBTES Executive
Functioning
-.314**
.014
-.313**
.014
+.261*
.042
SBTES
Executive
functioning
SBTES full
scale
Pearson
Correlation
-.258
-.318
-.263
Sig. (2-tailed)
.044
.012
.041
Pearson
Correlation
-.253
-.271
-.217
Sig. (2-tailed)
.049
.035
.093
Pearson
Correlation
-.269
-.234
-.224
Sig. (2-tailed)
.036
.069
.082
Pearson
Correlation
-.293
-.323
-.255
Sig. (2-tailed)
.022
.011
.048
Pearson
Correlation
.244
.261
.177
Sig. (2-tailed)
.058
.042
.173
Pearson
Correlation
.263
.268
.218
Sig. (2-tailed)
.040
.037
.092
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.269
.229
.232
.045
.089
.086
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
41
Table 10.
Collaborative Proactive Solutions Post-program teacher survey (N=72):
Post-CPS Questions
Likert scale from 0-10 with 0 = disagree completely and 10 = agree completely
M
SD
My student(s) developed a better understanding of their problems.
6.9
1.8
My student(s) developed problem solving skills.
6.7
1.8
I developed teaching skills that I will be able to use in the future with
challenging students.
8.5
1.2
I learned a lot about my student(s) that I didn’t know before.
7.9
1.6
I learned a lot about myself as a teacher that I didn’t know before.
7.4
1.8
The CPS Program was well-integrated into my school.
4.5
2.5
Participation in the CPS Program was worthwhile.
8.8
1.5
The psychologist who led CPS at my school was effective in teaching the
concepts and supporting my learning.
8.9
1.3
I would recommend the CPS Program to other teachers.
9.0
1.4
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
42
Table 10.
Collaborative Proactive Solutions Post-program Qualitative feedback (N=28):
The most valuable thing about participating in Collaborative Proactive Solutions was:
 I learned that some things that my students struggle with I took for granted that they would just
know how to do: i.e. calming-down strategies
 Having a regular meeting time with students who need extra attention and doing it in a positive
way with support from the psychologist
 I learned to really look at the reasons my students had the challenging behavior as opposed to
focusing on the challenging behavior. It was very helpful to be able to identify their lagging
skills.
 It really made me look at the way I handle problems and how it isn't always the most effective.
I realized that it is so much more important to focus on the lagging skills and how I can teach
those than focusing on the bad behavior. That has helped me to see behavior problems
differently.
 [It is a ]Positive way to connect and deal with students who have problems in school.
 The creation of a teacher student relationship where the students’ behavior was discussed more
objectively and not judged and where students have more of an opportunity to explain their
thoughts and feelings.
 Using a technique that helps students take ownership for their own behavior.
 The most valuable thing I got was an understanding of how to use the framework of this
program to better understand what triggered certain behaviors in my students. This helped me
deal with both the students in the program but also the rest of the students in my class.
 Learning to communicate better with parents and students.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
43
 The most valuable thing was being aware of spending time listening to students and involving
them in creating solutions.
 The Plan B Cheatsheet with conversation prompts [was the most useful]
 The emphasis on the idea that problems cannot be solved by adults for students was vitally
important to my continuing education as a teacher. I think that this idea is pretty foundational
to good teaching, (students need to learn the skills to be successful in different environments),
but it was beneficial for me to practice working with students who are lacking some
fundamental social skills and to work on learning how to listen to them better myself.
 I learned how to be more empathetic to my students. I learned how to come to a compromise
instead of making demands.
 Being able to focus on select students and discrete skills they need help with.
 Time with teachers and the psychologist to keep our goals in front of us.
 Getting a chance to look at the situation in a completely new way.
 Strategies and Skills
 Having one-on-one time with my students
 collaboratively working on solutions
 using the language specific to the model; refraining from instituting my solution for a problem
 The most valuable thing was recalling the preciousness of time spent listening to students.
 I learned and practiced new approaches to communicate with challenging students to help
address & improve students' lacking skills in the classroom.
 Clarity and explanation of what already seems to be true: what works, what doesn't. A frame
that sees what students are lacking in terms of skills rather as just bucking the system...
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
44
 Talking to my peers about the progress [I was] making with my student and getting feedback
from them and the psychologist
 [Acquiring] skills to talk to students when there are problems that need to be solved, and skills
to help me be aware of issues that are causing the problems in class.
 How to talk to the students in a way that makes them more accountable for their actions
 Space to think specifically about difficult student behaviors
 I most valued having an opportunity to work independently with a student that was
experiencing behavioral difficulties in my classroom. The one-on-one time definitely helped us
to develop a relationship that benefited us in the classroom setting.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was made possible by a grant from the Oakland Unified School District Local
Education Agency (LEA).
Research support and approval was obtained through the Human Research Protection Program
Committee on Human Research at UCSF (IRB #: 12-09444; Reference #: 072222).
45
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
46
References
Angkustsiri, K., Leckliter, I., Tartaglia, N., Beaton, E., Enriquez J., Simon, T. (2012). An
Examination of the Relationship of Anxiety and Intelligence to Adaptive Functioning in
Children with Chromosome 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome. Journal of Developmental
Behavioral Pediatrics, 33, 713–720.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide For Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales in Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, eds. T. Urdan and F. Pajares. Information Age Publishing, 307–337, ISBN10: 1593113668
Barrett, P. (1998). Evaluation of cognitive-behavioral group treatments for childhood anxiety
disorders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 459-468.
Bernard, M. (2006a). It’s time we teach social-emotional, competence as well as we teach
academic competence. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 103–119.
Bernard, M. (2006b). Strengthening the social and emotional foundations of young people with
achievement and behaviour problems: A guide for working with parents and teachers (3rd
Ed.). Oakleigh, Victoria: Australian Scholarships Group.
Bradshaw, C.P., Buckley, J., and Ialongo, N. (2008a). School-based service utilization among
urban children with early-onset educational and mental health problems: the squeaky
wheel phenomenon. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 169-186.
Bradshaw, C.P., Koth, C.W., Bevans, K.B., Ialongo, N., and Leaf, P.J. (2008b). The impact of
school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational
health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
47
Brownell, M.T. and Pajares, F. M. (1996). The influence of teachers’ efficacy beliefs on
perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems: a path
analysis.” Florida Education Research Council, Inc. Research Bulletin, 27, 11-20.
Erchul, W. P., and Martens, B. K. (2002). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases
of practice (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Caplan, G. and Caplan, R.B. (1993). Theory and practice of mental health consultation. New
York: Basic Books.
Caplan, G. and Caplan, R.B. (1999). Mental Health Consultation and Collaboration. Long
Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J., Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J., Olin, S., and
Romanelli, L. H., (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based
preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental
Health Promotion: Training and Practice, Research and Policy, 1(3), 6-28.
Earhart, J., Jimerson, S., Eklund, K., and Hart, S. (2009). Examining relationships between
measures of positive behaviors and negative functioning for elementary school children.
The California School Psychologist, 14, 97-104.
Erchul, W. P., and Martens, B. K. (2002). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases
of practice (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Egyed, C. and Short, R. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, experience and decision to refer a
disruptive student. School Psychology International, 27(3), 462-474.
Franklin, C., Moore, K., and Hopson, L. (2008). Effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy
in a school setting. Children and Schools, 30, 15-26.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
48
Gerrity, D. and DeLucia-Waack J. (2010). Effectiveness of Groups in the School. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 32(1), 97-106.
Ghafoori, B., and Tracz, S. (2001). Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Reducing
Classroom Disruptive Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. National Dissemintation Center for
Children with Disabilities, retrieved from ERIC ED, 457182, accessed 11/24/13.
Gioia, G., Isquith, P.K., Guy, S.C., and Kenworthy, L.; Reviewed by Baron, I.S. (2000). Test
review: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Child Neuropsychology, 6(3),
235–238.
Greene, R.W. (2004). Effectiveness of Collaborative Problem Solving in affectively dysregulated
children with oppositional-defiant disorder: initial findings. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1157–1164.
Greene, R. (2008). Lost at school: why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through
the cracks and how we can help them. New York: Scribner.
Greene, R. (2011). Collaborative Proactive Solutions can transform school discipline. Phi Delta
Kappan, 93(2), 25-28.
Greene, R. (2016). Lost and Found. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henson, R. K. (2002) From Adolescent Angst to Adulthood: Substantive Implications and
Measurement Dilemmas in the Development of Teacher Efficacy Research. Educational
Psychologist. 37(3), 137-150.
Kamphaus, R., Reynolds, C., Hatcher, N. (1999). Treatment planning and evaluation with the
BASC: The Behavior Assessment System for Children. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.).The use of
psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
49
Kamphaus, R. W., and Reynolds, C. R. (2007). BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening
System (BESS) manual. Circle Pines, MN: Pearson.
Kosmos, K. (2011). Overview of Special Education, SPED Programs and RTI. Internal
document, Psychological Services Department, Programs for Exceptional Children,
Oakland Unified School District.
Macklem, G. (2011). Evidence-based school mental health services: Affect education, emotion
regulation and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. New York: Springer.
Maniadaki, K., Sonuga-Barke, E., and Kakouros, E. (2006). Adults’ self-efficacy beliefs and
referral attitudes for boys and girls with AD/HD. European Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 15(3), 132-140.
Meijer, C. and Foster, S. (1988) The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of
Special Education, 22, 378-385.
Meyers, M. (1995). A consultation model for school psychological services. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 6(1), 59-71.
Miller, L., Martinez, Y., Shumka, E., and Baker, H. (2014). Multiple informant agreement of
child, parent, and teacher ratings of child anxiety within community samples. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 59(1), 34–39.
Nugent, K., Kline, E., Thompson, E., Reeves, G., and Schiffman, J. (2013). Assessing psychoticlike symptoms using the BASC-2: adolescent, parent and teacher agreement. Early
Intervention Psychiatry, 7(4), 431-6.
Ozer, E. M., and Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A selfefficacy analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472-486.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
50
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Hershfeldt, P. A., Leaf, P. J. (2010). A multilevel exploration of the
influence of teacher efficacy and burnout on response to student problem behavior and
school-based service use. School Psychology Quarterly. 25(1), 13-27.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., and Mitchell, M. (2011). Examining the validity of office discipline
referrals as an indicator of student behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 48(6),
541-555.
Podell, D. and Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.
Journal of Educational Research. 86, 247-253.
Rajendran K., O'Neill S., Halperin J.M. (2013). Inattention symptoms predict level of depression
in early childhood, 125(1), 154-61.
Soodak L.C. and Podell, D.M. (1993) Teacher Efficacy and Student Problem as Factors in
Special Education Referral. Journal of Special Education. 27(1), 66-81.
Soodak L.C. and Podell, D.M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multifaceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401-411.
Tejeda-Delgado, M., (2009). Teacher efficacy, tolerance, gender, and years of experience and
special education referrals. International Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 112-119.
Thaler N., Mayfield J., Reynolds C., Hadland C., Allen D. (2012). Teacher-reported behavioral
disturbances in children with traumatic brain injury: an examination of the BASC-2.
Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1(1), 30-7.
Tschannen-Moran, M., and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTATION
Tschannen-Moran, M. and McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of Self-Efficacy: Four Professional
Development Formats and Their Relationship to Self-Efficacy and Implementation of a
New Teaching Strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228-248.
Urban Strategies Council. (2012). A deeper look at African American males in the Oakland
Unified School District. Oakland Unified School District., retrieved from
http://www.thrivingstudents.org/47/urban-strategies-council-deeper-look-africanamerican-males-ousd-report, accessed 9/2/14.
51