The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the models for interpretation and use that serve as the foundation of an interpretation/use argument for the Social and Academic Behavior Risk Screener (SABRS). The SABRS was completed by 34 teachers with regard to 488 students in a Midwestern high school during the winter portion of the academic year. Confirmatory factor analysis supported interpretation of SABRS data, suggesting the fit of a bifactor model specifying 1 broad factor (General Behavior) and 2 narrow factors (Social Behavior [SB] and Academic Behavior [AB]). The interpretive model was further supported by analyses indicative of the internal consistency and interrater reliability of scores from each factor. In addition, latent profile analyses indicated the adequate fit of the proposed 4-profile SABRS model for use. When cross-referenced with SABRS cut scores identified via previous work, results revealed students could be categorized as (a) not at-risk on both SB and AB, (b) at-risk on SB but not on AB, (c) at-risk on AB but not on SB, or (d) at-risk on both SB and AB. Taken together, results contribute to growing evidence supporting the SABRS within universal screening. Limitations, implications for practice, and future directions for research are discussed herein.

The primary purposes of this investigation were to (a) continue a line of research examining the psychometric defensibility of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener - Teacher Rating Scale (SAEBRS-TRS), and (b) develop and preliminarily evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a novel multiple gating procedure based on teacher nomination and the SAEBRS-TRS. Two studies were conducted with elementary and middle school student samples across two separate geographic locations. Study 1 (n=864 students) results supported SAEBRS-TRS defensibility, revealing acceptable to optimal levels of internal consistency reliability, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Findings were promising for a combined multiple gating procedure, which demonstrated acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity. Study 2 (n=1534 students), which replicated Study 1 procedures, further supported the SAEBRS-TRS' psychometric defensibility in terms of reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Despite the incorporation of revisions intended to promote sensitivity levels, the combined multiple gating procedure's diagnostic accuracy was similar to that found in Study 1. Taken together, results build upon prior research in support of the applied use of the SAEBRS-TRS, as well as justify future research regarding a SAEBRS-based multiple gating procedure. Implications for practice and study limitations are discussed.