Family Income (SES) Age and Grade 4/22/2014. Center for Adolescent Research in the Schools (CARS) Participants n=647

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Family Income (SES) Age and Grade 4/22/2014. Center for Adolescent Research in the Schools (CARS) Participants n=647"

Lenard Nichols
5 years ago
Views:

Percentage Percentage Percentage 4/22/2014 Life and Response to Intervention for Students

University CEC 2014 Center for Adolescent Research in the Schools (CARS) Funded by the

high school students with intense social, emotional and behavioral difficulties.

647 students in five states have been enrolled in the study.

5% Other 4% Lehigh University 17% University of South Carolina 29% University of Missouri 9%

5 African American 39% Caucasian 52% Urban 24% Rural 37% Male 430 66.

1 Percentage Percentage Percentage 4/22/2014 Life and Response to Intervention for Students With Severe Behavioral Needs Talida State- Montclair State University Lee Kern- Lehigh University CEC 2014 Center for Adolescent Research in the Schools (CARS) Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences Comprehensive intervention package addressing the needs of high school students with intense social, emotional and behavioral difficulties. Large scale efficacy trial conducted for two years, students in five states have been enrolled in the study. Data on social, behavioral, and academic outcomes were collected from teachers, parents, and students throughout the trial. Measures of student life satisfaction collected through self-report each year during the efficacy trial. University of Kansas 10% Participants n=647 Ethnicity and School Communities Hispanic/Latino 5% Other 4% Lehigh University 17% University of South Carolina 29% University of Missouri 9% Ohio University 35% Gender Frequency Percent Female African American 39% Caucasian 52% Urban 24% Rural 37% Male Total Suburban 39% Family Income (SES) Age and Grade $0 - $20,000 $20,001 - $40, $40,001 - $60,000 8 $60,001 - $80, $80,001 - $100,001 - $100,000 $120, $120,001 - $140,001 + $140, Age Grade 1

Percentage 4/22/2014 Special Education and General Education Intervention and Control Groups Special Education 49% General Education 51% 25.0 20.0 21.0 Control 49.3% 15.0 10.3 10.0 8.4 5.0 2.4 6.

0 Learning Emotional Other Health Other Missing Disability Disturbance Impairment Life : Definition CURRENT STUDY: PRELIMINARY ANALYSES OF LIFE SATISFACTION REPORTS As a global concept, reflects the

2 Percentage 4/22/2014 Special Education and General Education Intervention and Control Groups Special Education 49% General Education 51% Control 49.3% Intervention 50.6% 0.0 Learning Emotional Other Health Other Missing Disability Disturbance Impairment Life : Definition CURRENT STUDY: PRELIMINARY ANALYSES OF LIFE SATISFACTION REPORTS As a global concept, reflects the cognitive evaluation of an individual in regard to his/her overall satisfaction with life or specific life domains such as family, friends, work environment, or self (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Background Students with emotional and behavioral challenges experience extremely poor outcomes during both school and post-school years (Wagner, 1995; Quinn 2004): Detachment from school environment, high absenteeism, low grades, high dropout rates, and high rates of unemployment and arrest (Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Quinn, 2004; Wagner, 1995). These poor outcomes occur despite an abundance of evidence based interventions available for students with emotional and behavioral challenges Why Examine Life? Present focus of interventions on reducing discrete problem behaviors Broad issues of life satisfaction rarely considered Life satisfaction could be a fundamental outcome measure that guides service design and delivery for all students, particularly students with special needs (Ager, 2002). In order to do so, a better understanding of life satisfaction and its influence on student performance is needed. Research on life satisfaction for students with behavioral challenges is limited (Griffin & Huebner, 2000; Sacks & Kern, 2007). 2

3 Purpose of Study Preliminary investigations: 1. Levels of life satisfaction reported by high school students with severe emotional and behavioral needs a. Life satisfaction with specific domains b. Overall life satisfaction 2. Examine differences between groups based on age, grade, gender, ethnicity, SES, treatment condition 3. Stability of life satisfaction over time 4. Correlations of life satisfaction with outcome measures: academic achievement, internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, anxiety and depression 5. Initial exploration of dual model of mental health Measures: BMSLSS Brief Multidimensional Students Life Scale (BMSLSS): Brief version of the Multidimensional Students Life Scale (MSLSS), a widely used and psychometrically sound life satisfaction measure (Huebner & Gilman, 2002) Measures six content areas related to life satisfaction: Family life Friendships School experience with self Living environment Overall satisfaction with life Measures: BMSLSS (cont.) Brief Multidimensional Students Life Scale (BMSLSS): Each domain assessed with only one item rated on a 7- point Likert scale.: Terrible Unhappy Mostly dissatisfied Mixed (about equally satisfied and dissatisfied) Mostly satisfied, pleased and delighted Guidelines for Interpretation (Athay, Kelley, & Dew-Reeves, 2012) High (greater than 4.5) Measures: BMSLSS (cont.) Studied across diverse samples from different age, geographic locations and cultural backgrounds (Bussing et al., 2009; Zullig et al., 2005; Zullig et al., 2009) Dimensionality (Seligson, Huebner & Valois, 2005) One factor model is supported with loadings ranging from.46 to.77 Construct validity (Athay et al., 2012; Funk III et al., 2003; Seligson, Huebner & Valois, 2005; Siyez & Kaya, 2008) Positively correlates with other life satisfaction measures such as SLSS (r=0.39), MSLSS (r=0.43) Negatively correlates with PANAS-C negative affect subscale and CDI Reliability Alpha coefficients ranging form.65 to.87, higher for older students (Siyez & Kaya, 2008) Inter-item correlations ranged from.45 to.47 (Seligson et al., 2003; Seligson et al., 2005) Test-retest reliability (across two weeks) ranges from.82 to.91 (Funk III et al., 2006; Siyez & Kaya, 2008) Measure: BASC-2 Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition Basic dimensions School problems Internalizing problems Inattention/hyperactivity Emotional symptoms Personal adjustment Ratings on Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4 and true/false questions Clinical cut-offs Clinically significant ( 70) At-risk (60-69) Normal range (< 59) Good psychometric properties with internal consistency ranging from.8 to.9, testretest reliability of.82 across age ranges, long-term stability of.69 and convergent validity at r=.81 Measure: RADS-2 The Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale, Second Edition 30 item self-report measure Four basic dimensions Dysphoric mood Anhedonia/Negative Affect Negative self-evaluation Somatic Complaints Ratings on Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4 Clinical cut-offs Clinical range (> 70) Moderate clinical depression (96 to 93) Mild clinical depression range (92 to 82) Normal range (81 to 1) Good psychometric properties overall (Internal consistency.92 to.94; testretest.89) 3

Measures: MASC Measure: WJ-3 The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children 39 item questionnaire Four basic dimensions Physical symptoms (tense/restless and somatic/autonomic) Social anxiety

range (> 65) Normal range (< 64) Good psychometric properties overall (Alpha coefficient.87 to.89; Test-retest reliability.73 to.

4 Measures: MASC Measure: WJ-3 The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children 39 item questionnaire Four basic dimensions Physical symptoms (tense/restless and somatic/autonomic) Social anxiety (humiliation/rejection and fear of public performance) Harm avoidance (perfectionism and anxious coping) Separation anxiety Ratings on Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4 Clinical cut-offs Clinical range (> 65) Normal range (< 64) Good psychometric properties overall (Alpha coefficient.87 to.89; Test-retest reliability.73 to.89) Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of Achievement Reading Broad reading Basic reading skills Reading comprehension Math Broad math Math calculation Math reasoning Psychometrics WJ-III has strong psychometric properties Internal consistency reliability of.98 and an inter-rater reliability range of.93 to.99. Stability scores indicate high reliability over time.85 to.96. WJ-III correlates moderately other measures Wechsler Individual Achievement test (r=.65) Kaufman s Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (r=.79; WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) Q1-Life : Initial Student Reports RESULTS Domain Mean SD Family Friendship School Self Living environment Overall Total Scale

Q 2- Differences between groups High (greater than 24) Medium (12-24) Low (below 12) 1.

students who receive free/reduced lunch and students who don t receive free/reduced lunch in

5 Q 2- Differences between groups High (greater than 24) Medium (12-24) Low (below 12) 1. Are there significant differences among: student from control and intervention groups in relation to their life satisfaction? female and male students in relation to their life satisfaction at enrolment? students who receive free/reduced lunch and students who don t receive free/reduced lunch in relation to their life satisfaction? students from different ethnic backgrounds in relation to their life satisfaction? students from different age groups in relation to their life satisfaction? 5

6 Control vs. Intervention Group An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare life satisfaction reports in control and intervention group There were no significant differences in reports on any of the domain or overall scale Control vs. Intervention Domain Mean (SD) t(df) p Family 3.97 (1.39) 4.04 (1.32) Friendship 4.24 (1.23) 4.27 (1.19) School 3.17 (1.44) 3.05 (1.42) Self 4.44 (1.38) 4.25 (1.46) Living environment 4.08 (1.45) 4.12 (1.34) Overall 4.34 (1.42) 4.24 (1.32) Total Scale (6.04) (5.88) t(530)= p=.565 t(530)= 1.37 p=.171 t(530)=.984 t(530)=1.56 t(531)=-.319 t(531)=.829 t(530)=.882 p=.326 p=.119 p=.750 p=.407 p=.378 Female vs. Male An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare life satisfaction reports between female and male students Females reported significantly less satisfaction with their family and themselves, as well as overall satisfaction with life Female vs. Male Domain Mean (SD) t(df) p Family* 3.72 (1.32) 4.15 (1.36) Friendship 4.21 (1.27) 4.42 (1.17) School 2.99 (1.41) 3.18 (1.43) Self* 3.91 (1.55) 4.59 (1.29) Living environment 3.97 (1.42) 4.17 (1.38) Overall* 3.96 (1.38) 4.47 (1.34) Total Scale* (5.64) (5.99) t(530)= p=.001 t(530)= p=.054 t(530)=-1.41 t(530)=-5.36 t(531)=-1.60 t(531)=-4.08 t(530)=-4.14 p=.158 p=.000 p=.109 p=.000 p=.000 Free/reduce lunch vs. No free/reduced lunch An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare life satisfaction reports between students who receive free/reduced lunch and students who don t There were no significant differences in reports on any of the domain or overall scale Free/reduce lunch vs. No free/reduced lunch Domain Mean (SD) t(df) p Family 4.05 (1.31) 3.90 (1.44) Friendship 4.34 (1.16) 4.38 (1.30) School 3.11 (1.42) 3.13 (1.46) Self 4.40 (1.40) 4.23 (1.44) Living environment 4.06 (1.40) 4.26 (1.29) Overall 4.27 (1.37) 4.34 (1.32) Total Scale (5.83) (6.00) t(512)= 1.16 p=.243 t(512)= p=.714 t(512)=-.123 t(512)=1.20 t(513)=-1.48 t(513)=-.486 t(512)=-.024 p=.903 p=.227 p=.137 p=.627 p=.981 6

Age Groups An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare life satisfaction reports between three age groups ( 13-14, 15-16, 17-18) There were no significant differences in reports between

7 Age Groups An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare life satisfaction reports between three age groups ( 13-14, 15-16, 17-18) There were no significant differences in reports between age groups on any of the domain or overall scale Age Groups Domain F value p value Family F(5, 547)=.686 p=.635 Friendship F(5, 547)= 1.30 p=.258 School F(5, 547)=.309 p=.907 Self F(5, 547)= 1.37 p=.232 Living environment F(5,548)=.589 p=.708 Overall F(5,548)=1.18 p=.313 Total Scale F(5, 547)= 1.11 p=.349 Ethnic Groups An analysis of variance showed significant difference between ethnic groups on: satisfaction with self overall satisfaction with life total scale score Ethnic Groups Domain F value p value Post-hoc p value Family F(3,527)=.938 p=.422 Friendship F(3,527)=.730 p=.534 School F(3,527)= 1.66 p=.173 Self* F(3,527)= 9.07 p=.004 Group 2 (4.58) Group 3 (3.75),p=.033 Living environment* F(3,528)= 2.63 p=.049 Overall F(3,528)=2.55 p=.054 Total Scale* F(3,527)= 2.91 p=.034 1= Caucasian; 2= African American; 3= Hispanic; 4= Other with SELF Q 3-Stability of life satisfaction reports over time A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine difference over time in life satisfaction ratings Significant differences in scores found for: satisfaction with family satisfaction with school overall satisfaction with life total scale score 7

Stability of life satisfaction reports over time Domain Mean (SD) t(df) p Family* 4.05 (1.33) 4.30 (1.38) Friendship 4.37 (1.23) 4.46 (1.27) School* 3.19 (1.42) 3.46 (1.43) Self 4.33 (1.44) 4.43 (1.

11 t(347)=-2.26 t(345)=-3.04 p=.002 p=.197 p=.266 p=.024 p=.

8 Stability of life satisfaction reports over time Domain Mean (SD) t(df) p Family* 4.05 (1.33) 4.30 (1.38) Friendship 4.37 (1.23) 4.46 (1.27) School* 3.19 (1.42) 3.46 (1.43) Self 4.33 (1.44) 4.43 (1.44) Living environment 4.15 (1.37) 4.23 (1.37) Overall* 4.34 (1.38) 4.52 (1.41) Total Scale* (5.98) (6.43) t(347)= p=.001 t(347)= p=.261 t(347)=-3.05 t(346)=-1.29 t(348)=-1.11 t(347)=-2.26 t(345)=-3.04 p=.002 p=.197 p=.266 p=.024 p=.003 Q 4- Correlations Correlations of life satisfaction with following outcome measures: MASC (anxiety) RADS-2 (depression) WJ-3: Academic achievement (reading & math), BASC-2 (internalizing problems, inattention/hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, & personal adjustment) Correlations with Outcome Measures Domain MASC RADS-2 WJ3- Applied Problems Family -.178** Friendship -.198** School -.173** Self -.373** Living environment -.179** Overall -.268** Total Scale -.315** -.462** -.379** -.414** -.566** -.353** -.516** -.619** p= ** p= p= p= p= p=.057 WJ3- Broad Reading P= * p= p= * P= p= p= p=.524 WJ3 Calculations P= p= p= p= p= p= p=.82 Correlations with Outcome Measures (cont.) Domain Internalizing Problems Family -.378** Friendship -.314** School -.396** Self -.491** Living environment -.290** Overall -.415** Total Scale -526** Inattention/ Hyperactivity -.199** -.140** -.357** -.243** -.183** -.236** -315** Emotional Symptoms -.401** -.396** -.423** -.600** -.289** -.480** -.596** Personal Adjustment.445**.421**.339**.562**.274**.422**.565** Dual factor model of mental health One promising model that includes life satisfaction and psychopathology in the definition of mental health (Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2001; Suldo & Shaffer, 2008). Q5- Dual factor model of mental health Groups based on Life and Pathology N 3 4 satisfaction

9 Q5- Dual factor model of mental health MANOVA conducted to explore group differences A one-way MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate main effect for groupings, Wilks λ =.686, F (12, ) = 7.7, p < Given the significance of the overall test, the univariate main effects were examined. Significant univariate main effects for grouping were obtained for MASC total score, F (3, 232 ) = 8.819, p <.001, and RADS total score, F (3,232 ) = , p <.001. Dependent Variable Anxiety Total Score (36.47) Multiple Comparisons (46.57) satisfaction (31.18) (40.66) Mean Std. Error Sig. Difference (I- J) * (46.57) satisfaction * * (31.18) * (46.57) * (31.18) 9.48 * Multiple Comparisons Conclusions Depression (46.96) Total Score (58.55) satisfaction (43.76) (54.34) (58.55) * satisfaction (54.34) * (46.96) * satisfaction (43.76) * (58.55) * (54.34) * (46.96) 7.40 * satisfaction (43.76) * Findings mirror previous results for students without disabilities Overall students with EBD somewhat satisfied with their life and specific life domains Differences noted Female less satisfied than male with family, self, overall life Other minority groups less satisfied with self and living environment Age and SES no differences noted Differences in reports over time Potentially influenced by treatment? Conclusions (cont.) Life satisfaction highly correlated with outcome measures Anxiety and depression negatively correlated with high life satisfaction Broad reading and applied problems positively correlated with high life satisfaction BASC impairment composites all negatively correlated with life satisfaction and positive composite correlated positively with high life satisfaction Initial evidence for dual model present in students with EBD Implications for Practice Targeting life satisfaction related to school Only area students identified as having lower life satisfaction Extra attention for female and minority students on improving life satisfaction beyond reducing impairment Target domains of life satisfaction that are indicated as low within these groups I.e., targeting family, self, overall life satisfaction for female students at a broad level I.e., targeting self, living environment for Hispanic/Latino students For specific interventions, conduct a more detailed assessment to get an accurate understanding of domains of life satisfaction for each student 9

10 Implications for Practice Future Directions Life satisfaction does change over time, indicating that it is not stable and is amenable to change Look into intervention practices that can alter life satisfaction Use of life satisfaction as a standard for evaluating the outcomes of an intervention Comparing the intervention effectiveness against the effect it had on enhancing the life satisfaction of the individual (Huebner & Gilman, 2004). An understanding of life satisfaction variables could provide better guidelines on what additional variables need to be targeted by assessment and intervention to achieve better outcomes for students: Life satisfaction domains (e.g., family, school, peers, and community) can be assessed individually and overall More comprehensive measures such as MSLSS (longer version of BMSLSS) can be used for more targeted understanding of specific domains in which the student is struggling in Future Directions Enabling professionals to better understand the role different environmental context play in a child s functioning Inform prevention and intervention efforts (Huebner & Gilman, 2004). Look at treatment utility of measures of life satisfaction (Nelson- Gray, 2003) Success of an intervention should not be solely determined by the degree of reduction in problem behaviors Mere absence of problem behaviors does not guarantee the presence of favorable mental health status or increased life satisfaction. Future Directions Explore evidence of predictive power for dual model for students with EBD Empirical evidence for this model is very promising: Predicts better outcomes in academics, social, and physical domains (Antaramian et al., 2010; Suldo & Shaffer, 2008) Predicts school engagements and feelings of connectedness beyond standard models of mental health (Antaramian et al., 2010) Identification of traditionally neglected group of students with low psychopathology and low life satisfaction (Suldo & Shaffer, 2008) Overall, this model may provides the conceptual and empirical foundation for including life satisfaction as an essential outcome variable for EBD students Questions? THANK YOU!!!! statet@mail.montclair.edu 10

Validity and Reliability of the Brief Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale With Turkish Children

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247782343 Validity and Reliability of the Brief Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction