Why are there so many raters involved?

The number of raters is determined by the assessor, usually in consultation with the parents or others who know the case. Take the example of an elementary school child. Suppose the child is in Special Day Class all day. It is possible that only two raters would be needed: the teacher and one parent. However, if it turned out that the child had a paraprofessional assistant, she or he should probably be included as well. Alternatively, if the child is mainstreamed for part of the day or if the parents are divorced... well you get the idea.  Before you know it, you can easily have up to 6 raters.  Is this good?

Absolutely!  Having multiple raters providers a more finely tuned view of a student's behavior.  Also, it "evens out" situations where a single teacher's opinion is weighted too heavily, by providing multiple viewpoints.  Although Rapid Screener is capable of including any number of raters; for practical and logistical reasons we limit it to 10 raters.  Regardless of the number of raters, Rapid Screener facilitates quick and immediate turnaround.

As a general rule of thumb, the more chronic and stable the student's problems are reported to be, the fewer raters necessary.  However, in those situations where a clinician is trying to identify an intermittent or recurrent acute problem, it's best to have those who have significant involvement with the student complete Rapid Screener.  Remember, it is just as important to document where, and under what circumstances problems do not occur as where and when they do occur.

Back to Top  Next Question

What if some or all of the raters don't have email addresses?

No problem!  We're easy and solution-focused, not technology-obsessed.  Just call the office (no point in suggesting you send an email, right?) and we'll help you through the process.  Most likely it will involve faxes or U.S. Mail or we can give the individual a temporary web-based email address (e.g., susan1@bgalephd.com).  However, it is still necessary for each rater to complete the Rapid Screener online.

Back to Top  Next Question

Does Rapid Screener provide diagnoses like other instruments?

What an interesting question!  As a clinical psychologist, I frequently diagnose disorders such as social anxiety, phobias, generalized anxiety, depression, Asperger's Syndrome, oppositional defiant disorder, and ADHD.  However, schools don't rely on diagnoses to qualify students as having special education needs.  Instead they use specific criteria that qualify for special education services.  So, anxiety or depression might both be categorized under Emotionally Disturbed and Asperger's and Autism might both fall under Autism.

This occurs for an important reason.  Schools are specifically concerned with behaviors that fall into one of the following areas:

1. Those which that occur only at school

2. Those that occur at school and home

Schools do not typically become involved in behaviors occurring exclusively at home or in the community, but not at school.  Click for Chart

Rapid Screener is perfectly capable of providing valid diagnoses because, just like other survey style assessment tools, it contains many of the behaviors and symptoms listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  In fact, Rapid Screener contains indicators for medical disorders, sleep disorders, and other problems that may initially present as behavioral symptoms.  Through its critical item analysis, these possible areas for families to follow up are included in the report.  Its main focus remains the ability to functionally describe behaviors in a manner that is free of technical jargon.  In other words, it's relatively easy to determine the diagnosis based on the symptom and behavior descriptions, but it's more confusing to figure out the symptoms based on the diagnosis.  "Depression" could mean the student is sad, irritable, angry, eats too much, doesn't eat, or other symptoms.

Back to Top  Next Question

Does Rapid Screener Produce a Full Functional Analysis Assessment?

Glad you asked!  That was the original intent.  In fact, originally, the Rapid Screener was anything but "rapid."  We were going to name it the "Laborious Time-Consuming Screener," but in thinking about it, that just didn't seem like a good idea.

The original program was actually designed to be nothing less than a full-blown, data-rich, powerful analysis tool to help clinicians with complex cases.  Using this software beginning in 2002, it was possible cut the time spent on complex Hughes Bill type functional assessments by 60% and with improved quality in the data collected.

The problem was that for, Functional Behavior Assessments, i.e., assessments that do not involve harm to self, others, or seriously interfering behaviors, it amounted to overkill.  The reports were beautiful, but included far more data than anyone needed, certainly more than anyone wanted.

This ignited interest in developing the current Rapid Screener Standard Edition.  With an average completion time of 15-30 minutes per rater, it is a useful survey that works just fine for the vast majority of cases requiring functional assessment.  But, for Hughes Bill type assessments, it falls short (although there is a "workaround").  Specifically, the Rapid Screener Standard Edition does not:

In my opinion, it would be more valid and useful to rate behavior three times over a six month period than to rate one time for such a long time.  I have found that such instruments are more useful for determining diagnoses, such as depression, which may be waxing or waning.  However, in looking at the need for assessment, often which occur during September through November each year, this is a completely invalid method of determine student functioning at school, since it encompasses behavior, possible across three different teachers (prior school year, summer school, and Fall).  Any teacher who has a student cannot validly complete such a measure until the following Spring (in fact such instruments have only a March to June window.

To be honest, I debated between one month and two weeks.  I changed the rating period about a year ago because of the number of cases I receive "out the door" each Fall.  By shortening the time period, it means that a teacher can validity complete the assessment 3-4 weeks after school has begun (I recommend not rating the first two weeks of behavior unless there is a specific reason for doing this, e.g., comparing to a later survey).  If the survey required a month, then the teacher really couldn't begin it until 6 weeks after school began.  With that, the 50 day time line built into the system, and upcoming holidays, it makes a huge difference whether the IEP to evaluate and create the need for intervention occurs in October or January the following year.  Believe it or not, shortening the rating period to two weeks makes it more likely that IEP meetings can be held in a more timely manner.

Since I shorted the rating period, I have yet to run into a problem in the last 75 cases where the Rapid Screener has been used.  I will carefully monitor this and, if I see a problem, develop a method that probably can look both short and longer-term.  Remember, though, it's essential to maintain an "apples to apples" comparison across data sets.

Why isn't the Rapid Screener available in printed form?

Our goal in developing and producing the C-BATT, which includes Rapid Screener, is to provide powerful state-of-the-art analysis tools and to ease the data collection process for schools and families. Briefly, there are several advantages to having an online system.

All participants have immediate and consistent access to the latest versions of our programs. I constantly work to revise the software to take advantage of new medical, psychological, behavioral, and assessment literature which is incorporated into both the analysis engines and reports generated.

Back to Top  Next Question

Seriously, my kids aren't the only ones who reviewed the structure of the graphs and tables, but I did show it to them. Why? Because I wanted these graphs and tables to be rich, useful data elements. Data is only useful when it provides information for determining functioning, developing an intervention plan, or assessing progress. Otherwise, it's just a waste.

The Rapid Screener was designed to be understandable to families and children, not just school psychologists. I've taken the results of the the Rapid Screener and shown it to groups of children and adolescents between 9-17 years old for the past year. They learn what behaviors their parents and teachers feel are a problem. I usually don't show them the entire list, just a few that are most significant and likely to be targeted during our group treatment.

Our use of two simple graph styles and two color coded charts makes the analysis process intuitive.  And, who doesn't enjoy looking at a bunch of statistics that actually makes sense?

Copyright © 2005  Bruce M. Gale, PhD All rights reserved.
Last Revised: 10/25/08