Advertisement

Strength-Based Approaches to Assessment in Schools

  • Michael H. Epstein
  • Mark K. Harniss
  • Vestena Robbins
  • Linda Wheeler
  • Shelly Cyrulik
  • Michaela Kriz
  • J. Ron Nelson
Part of the Issues in Clinical Child Psychology book series (ICCP)

Strength-based assessment has received considerable acceptance from across a wide range of stakeholders involved in youth services including child welfare (Saleeby, 1992), mental health (Lourie, Katz-Leavy, & Stroul, 1994), family services (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1994), and education (Nelson & Pearson, 1991). Several education and mental health initiatives as well as established treatment models have stressed the need for strength-based assessment including the Child and Adolescent Service System Program (cassp) (Stroul & Friedman, 1994), the U.S. Department of Education's National Agenda for Achieving Better Results for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance (1994), multisystemic therapy (Henggeler et al., 1998), and the wraparound approach (VanDenBerg & Grealish, 1996). Strength-based assessment has been defined as “the measurement of those emotional and behavioral skills, competencies, and characteristics that create a sense of personal accomplishment; contribute to satisfying relationships with family members, peers, and adults; enhance one's ability to deal with adversity and stress; and promote one's personal, social, and academic development” (Epstein & Sharma, 1998, p. 3). In this chapter, we briefly overview strength-based assessment, discuss informal and formal assessment techniques, and end with applied examples of strength-based assessment

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index: Professional manual(3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: PsychologicalGoogle Scholar
  2. Achenbaeh, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/ 418and 1991 profile. BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson, P. L., Leffert, N, Scales, P. C, & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the“village” rhetoric: CreatingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, L. L., & Hammil, D. D. (1990). Behavior Rating Profile: An ecological approach to behavioralGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (Eds.). (1994). Supporting and strengthening families: Methods, strategies, and practice(Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  6. Durand, M. V.,& Carr, E. G. (1985). Self-injurious behavior: Motivating conditions and guidelines for treatment. School Psychology Review, 14.,171–176.Google Scholar
  7. Dwyer, K., & Osher, D. (2000). Safeguarding our children: An action guide, Washington, DC: U.S.Google Scholar
  8. Eber, L., & Nelson, C. M. (1997). School-based wraparound planning: Integrating services for studentsPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, M. H. (1999). Development and validation of a scale to assess the emotional and behavioralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, M. H., Harniss, M. K, Pearson, N., & Ryser, G. (1998). The Behavioral and Emotional RatingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein, M. H.,&Sharma, J. (1998). Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: A strength-based approachGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, K. A., Leone, P. E., & Friedman, P. (1999). Strengths-based assessment of children withCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, R.,& Scott, S. (1999). Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the ChildPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oswald, D. P., Cohen, R., Best, A. M., Jenson, C. E., & Lyons, J. (2001). Child strengths and the level of care for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9,192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quay, H. C, &Peterson, D. (1987). Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  16. Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., Pastor, D. A., & Ryser, G. (2000). Strengths-based assessment differences across students with LD and EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 346–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saleeby, D. (Ed.). (1992). The strengths perspective in social work practice. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1998). Assessment(7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Scott, T. M, & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Universal school discipline strategies: Facilitating positive learning environments. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 54–64.Google Scholar
  20. Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1994). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotional disturbances. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.Google Scholar
  21. Sugai, G, & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls, and promises. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 10–22.Google Scholar
  22. Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H. & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(2), 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G.,& Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 72–82.Google Scholar
  24. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G, & Sprague, J, R. (1999). Effective behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23–37.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Education (1994). National agenda for achieving better results for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Van Den Berg, J. E.,& Grealish, E. M. (1996). Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophy and procedures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Den Berg, J. E, & Grealish, E. M. (1998). The wrap-around process: Training manual. Pittsburgh: Community Partnership Group.Google Scholar
  28. Witte, J. F. (1991). First year report: Milwaukee parental choice program. Madison, WI: Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Policy, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  29. Harniss, M. K., Epstein, M. H., Ryser, G., & Pearson, N. (1999). The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: Convergent validity. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henggeler, S. W, Schoenwald, S. K., Bourdin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Krai, R. (1989). Strategies that work: Techniques for solutions in the schools. Milwaukee, WI: Brieg Family Therapy Center.Google Scholar
  32. Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C, Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lourie, I. S., Katz-Leavy, J., & Stroul, B. A. (1994). Individualized services in a system of care. In B. A. Stroul (Ed.), Children's mental health: Creating systems of care in a changing society. Baltimore, MD: Brookes, 429–452.Google Scholar
  34. Lyons, J. S., Kisiel, C, &West, C. (1997). Child and adolescent strength assessment: A pilot study. Family Matters, 30–32.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, C. M., & Pearson, C. A. (1991). Integrating services for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale. St. Paul, MN: Family Social Sciences, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  37. Oswald, D. P., Cohen, R., Best, A. M., Jenson, C. E., & Lyons, J. (2001). Child strengths and the level of care for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9,192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quay, H. C, &Peterson, D. (1987). Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  39. Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., Pastor, D. A., & Ryser, G. (2000). Strengths-based assessment differences across students with LD and EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 346–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saleeby, D. (Ed.). (1992). The strengths perspective in social work practice. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1998). Assessment(7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  42. Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Universal school discipline strategies: Facilitating positive learning environments. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 54–64.Google Scholar
  43. Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1994). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotional disturbances. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.Google Scholar
  44. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls, and promises. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 10–22.Google Scholar
  45. Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H. & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(2), 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 72–82.Google Scholar
  47. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J, R. (1999). Effective behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23–37.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Department of Education (1994). National agenda for achieving better results for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  49. VanDenBerg, J. E.,& Grealish, E. M. (1996). Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophy and procedures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. VanDenBerg, J. E., & Grealish, E. M. (1998). The wrap-around process: Training manual. Pittsburgh: Community Partnership Group.Google Scholar
  51. Witte, J. F. (1991). First year report: Milwaukee parental choice program. Madison, WI: Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Policy, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael H. Epstein
    • 1
  • Mark K. Harniss
    • 2
  • Vestena Robbins
    • 3
  • Linda Wheeler
    • 4
  • Shelly Cyrulik
    • 4
  • Michaela Kriz
    • 1
  • J. Ron Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NebraskaLincolnNebraska
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleWashington
  3. 3.REACHLouisvilleKentucky
  4. 4.Alliance for Children and FamiliesMilwaukeeWisconsin

Personalised recommendations