article critique

I N ORDER TO GAIN A BALANCED, comprehensive understanding of mental health, it is important to examine factors

that contribute to positive outcomes as well as those that contribute to psychopathology (Huebner & Gilman, 2003). Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi first formally introduced positive psychology in 2000. Since that time, educational and school psychologists have incorporated this positive psychology focus into more traditional deficit-based assess- ment, intervention, and research (Chafouleas & Bray, 2004; Gilman, Huebner & Furlong, 2009; Miller & Nickerson, 2007). Strength-based assessment, or the measure- ment of emotional and behavioural skills and characteristics that create a sense of accomplishment, contribute to satisfying relationship with family members, peers, and adults, enhance the ability to cope with stress, and promote social and academic development (Epstein & Sharma, 1998), can be used to promote mental health and resilience in children.

Strength-based assessment of social-emotional functioning Psychological assessment is an aspect of training and practice for psychologists. Assessment is the process of gathering data from multiple sources using tools such as standardised measures (e.g. norm-refer- enced behaviour rating scales completed by a teacher or parent as well as student self- reports; standardised intellectual measures, standardised academic achievement tests), interviews, observations, and other specially designed measurement procedures to make an evaluation (Cohen, Swerdlik & Phillips, 1996; Shapiro & Heick, 2004). Traditionally, assessment in US schools has been conducted in order to determine whether a student meets eligibility criteria to receive special education services, which involves documenting specific behavioural and academic deficits. Practicing school and educational psychologists spend a great deal of time engaged in assessment activities (Merrell, Ervin & Gimpel Peacock, 2012),

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4 7 © The British Psychological Society, 2013

Promoting mental health and resilience through strength-based assessment in US schools Amanda B. Nickerson & Callen E. Fishman

Strength-based assessment can provide a systematic way to promote mental health and resilience in children. In this article, strength-based assessment of social-emotional functioning is described. Selected standardised strength-based assessment tools and their psychometric properties are then introduced. The primary focus of the article is on the use of strength-based assessment to promote mental health for youth within a public health framework. Suggestions for using strength-based assessment within a comprehensive prevention model, including universal (school-wide), targeted, and intensive approaches, are provided. Strength-based assessment can be used at the universal level as a screening tool or for programme evaluation purposes. At the selected level, assessment tools can be used to monitor progress and determine which children may be in need of more intensive interventions. Finally, strength-based assessment can be used to evaluate strengths and competencies as part of a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation and to plan for an individualised behavioural, educational, and/or treatment plan. A process for putting these practices into action is provided. Keywords: Strength-based; assessment; school; resilience.

and are, therefore, in a unique position to influence these practices.

Several arguments have been made in support of strength-based assessment prac- tices, or the use of psychometrically valid measures to systematically measure the previ- ously mentioned emotional and behavioural skills and characteristics of students (see Nickerson, 2007). First, students whose strengths are recognised are likely to feel more empowered and motivated to strive for social and emotional health (Epstein, Hertzog & Reid, 2001; LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004). Including strength-based assessment data in evaluations also leads to a focus on enhancement of student functioning, not just the reduction or elimination of deficits (Donovan & Nickerson, 2007; Epstein et al., 2003). This more positive focus is more likely to lead to parent-student-professional rela- tionships characterised by mutual trust, supportiveness, and goal-seeking as opposed to blame or guilt (Epstein et al., 2001, 2003; LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004). Having data focused on strengths can also lead to the development of individualised plans that are more likely to be acceptable to students, families, and service providers (Epstein et al., 2003; Tsang, Wong & Lo, 2012; Walrath et al., 2004). Finally, strength-based assessment also considers social contexts as supportive resources (Jimerson et al., 2004; Tsang et al., 2012), and lends itself to primary prevention and wellness promotion (LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004).

Despite these compelling arguments, there is only scant research on the effects of intentionally measuring children’s strengths. Donovan and Nickerson (2007) found that adding strength-based data to a psychoedu- cational evaluation report was associated with significant increases in multidisciplinary team members’ expectations for a student with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD) in terms of academic, social, and overall outcomes. Wellborn, Huebner, and Hills (2012) replicated the Donovan and Nickerson (2007) study, finding that the inclusion of strengths information was asso-

ciated with large positive effects for teacher expectations about both short-term and long-term social and behavioural outcomes. Furthermore, the strengths information was associated with moderate effects in terms of teacher expectations regarding making appropriate academic progress and the like- lihood of graduating from high school. It is notable that Wellborn and colleagues (2012) manipulated the ethnicity and language background of the student (Latino/English as Second Language vs. White, English- speaking), and the findings about strengths remained consistent.

In a study examining the use of strength- based assessment in an intervention context, Cox (2006) found that when therapists specifically assessed strengths, included this information in treatment planning, and held strong beliefs about the value of a strength- based perspective, children with emotional and behavioural problems showed decreases in externalising and internalising behaviour and missed therapy appointments. In addi- tion, parent satisfaction with therapy increased.

Strength-based measures: An overview Although educational and school psycholo- gists have a long history of using strength- based assessment informally (e.g. open- ended questions about strengths) to gain valuable information (Epstein et al., 2003; VanDenBerg & Grealish, 1996), such informal methods do not have established reliability and validity (Epstein, Ryser & Pearson, 2002). More recently, there has been a growing emphasis on strength-based measures and related assessments in both research and practice. Although a compre- hensive review of existing measures is beyond the scope of this article, readers are encour- aged to consult Denham, Ji, and Hamre’s (2010) Compendium of Social-Emotional Learning and Associated Assessment Measures for individuals in preschool through elementary school. Haggerty, Elgin and Woolley (2011) have compiled social-emotional learning assessment measures for middle school

8 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4

Amanda B. Nickerson & Callen E. Fishman

youth. For adolescents, Tsang and colleagues (2012) conducted a systematic review of measurement instruments assessing psychosocial well-being. Readers are also referred to the Needs and Outcome section of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) website for a list of websites with assessment compendiums and direct links to measures in the public domain (see http://casel.org/in- schools/assessment/needs-and-outcome/).

Commonly used strength-based measures. The following is a review of some commonly used standardised (i.e. norm-referenced) strength-based assessment measures with psychometric properties validated and published in the literature. The benefit of utilising such tools is that they have estab- lished reliability and validity. Moreover, since they are norm-referenced measures, students’ results may be compared to a national sample of same-aged peers.

The Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scale-2 (BERS-2; Epstein, 2004) includes a 57-item Youth Rating Scale (YRS) for 11- to 18-year-old youth. The BERS-2 also has a 57-item Parent Rating Scale (PRS) and a 52-item Teacher Rating Scale (TRS; Buckley & Epstein, 2004), both of which can be used for children between the ages of 5 and 18. The subscales for the TRS, derived through factor analysis include: (a) Interpersonal Strengths (i.e. ability to control emotions and behaviours); (b) Family Involvement (i.e. participation and relationship to family); (c) Intrapersonal Strengths (i.e. outlook on competence and accomplish- ment); (d) School Functioning (i.e. compe- tence in school and classroom tasks); and (e) Affective Strengths (i.e. ability to express feelings and accept affection from others), in addition to the Strength Index, or total scale. The PRS and YRS also contain a supplemental Career Strength subscale. Research on the BERS-2 and the original BERS indicates that the TRS discriminates between students with and without emotional and behavioural disorders

(Epstein, 2004), and among students with behaviour disorders, learning disabilities, and no disabilities (Reid et al., 2000). There is also evidence of the convergent validity of parent and teacher ratings for student with emotional and behavioural disorders (Friedman, Leone & Freidman, 1999). However, adolescent and caregiver ratings differ for the Family Involvement and School Functioning subscales (Friedman, Friedman & Weaver, 2003).

The Devereux Foundation has developed several strength-based assessment tools, including the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999) and the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA; LeBuffe, Shapiro & Naglieri, 2009). The DECA is a 37-item stan- dardised behaviour rating scale completed by parents, caregivers, or early childhood professionals to evaluate within-child protec- tive factors for children between the ages of 2 and 5 on three subscales: (a) Initiative (i.e. ability to use independent thought and action to meet needs), (b) Self Control (i.e. ability to experience a range of feelings and express them in a socially appropriate way), and (c) Attachment (i.e. a mutual, strong, long-lasting relationship between a child and an adult). The DECA also includes a screener for behavioural concerns. All DECA subscales have been shown to have adequate internal consistency (LeBuffe et al., 2009; Lien & Carlson, 2009). Ogg et al. (2010) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, which revealed that the DECA’s theoretical model fit the data from a sample of parent ratings of over 1300 preschool children iden- tified as at risk for later behaviour problems; in addition, the items functioned similarly for boys and girls. The DECA differentiates between children with identified emotional and behavioural problems and a matched comparison group (LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004). Importantly, the strengths measured by the DECA were nearly as efficient as a screener for behavioural concerns in correctly identifying children (69 per cent vs. 71 per cent, respectively, in average

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4 9

Strength-based assessment and mental health promotion

percentage of correct identification of students with or without known disabilities; LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004).

The Devereux Student Strengths Assess- ment (DESSA; LeBuffe et al., 2009) uses a resilience framework and targets the ‘within child’ protective factors (i.e. strengths) each child possesses in order to promote early intervention and prevention practices both in school and at home. The DESSA can be completed by parents or teachers for children in kindergarten through 8th grades and includes eight subscales: Optimistic Thinking (i.e. confidence and positive atti- tude); Self-Management (i.e. success in controlling emotions); Goal-Directed Behav- iour (i.e. initiation of and persistence in completing tasks; Self-Awareness (i.e. under- standing of strengths and weaknesses); Social-Awareness (i.e. capacity to interact respectfully and collaboratively with others); Personal Responsibility (i.e. tendency to be careful and reliable); Decision Making (i.e. effective approach to problem-solving); and Relationship Skills (i.e. consistent engage- ment in socially appropriate behaviours). A Total Protective Factors scale is also provided. The internal consistency of the DESSA subscales range from .87 to .93, and test-retest reliability ranged from .79 to .90 for parents and .86 to .94 for teachers (LeBuffe et al., 2009). There is also evidence to support the convergent and divergent validity with other standardised, psychomet- rically sound instruments that measure similar constructs (Nickerson & Fishman, 2009). Recognising the need for more effi- cient social-emotional screening tools, Naglieri, LeBuffe and Shapiro (2011a) created an eight-item DESSA-mini, which has an excellent internal consistency of .92, and shows considerable sensitivity and speci- ficity (Naglieri, LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2011b).

Other noteworthy strength-based tools. In addition to the aforementioned standard- ised assessments available through publishers, there are also publicly available or widely used measures that have some

unique features. The Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI; Springer & Phillips, 1997) is a publicly available (i.e. free) 71- item self-report measure for youth aged 10 to 16 years. The measure contains the three overarching domains of social bonding, personal competence, and social compe- tence. The social bonding domain includes the school bonding, social bonding, and prosocial norms dimensions. Questions in this domain are designed to illicit informa- tion about the student’s motivation for school (e.g. I try hard to do well in school); family connection (e.g. I like to do things with my family); and general feelings about others (e.g. there is some good in every- body). The personal competence domain includes the self-concept, self-control, and positive outlook, and self-efficacy dimen- sions. Questions in this domain require students to reflect on their self perception (e.g. people usually like me); emotional regulation (e.g. I get mad easily); general outlook on life (e.g. I think I will have a nice family when I get older), and beliefs regarding their ability to succeed (e.g. when I study hard, I will get better grades). Lastly, the social competence domain includes the assertiveness, confi- dence, and co-operation/contribution dimensions. Questions in this domain focus on the student’s level of assertiveness (e.g. if I don’t understand something, I will ask for an explanation); feelings of self-confidence (e.g. I will always have friends); and desire to help others (e.g. helping others makes me feel good). The measure yields a total IPFI score, 10 dimension scores, as well as an alcohol and other drug attitudes acceptance score. The development of the IPFI included a pilot test with 642 students aged 10 to 16 across five sites as well as a validation sample of 2416 students across 15 sites. The internal consistency of the domain scales ranged from .46 to .65, with the alpha coefficient entire measure being .93. In terms of the construct validity, the authors provide a matrix of intercorrelations between IPFI dimensions and risk measures, which shows

10 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4

Amanda B. Nickerson & Callen E. Fishman

evidence of the negative relation between risk factors and protective factors. The complete measure as well as additional infor- mation on the available psychometrics and scoring procedures can be found at http://www.lions.hu/lionsquest/www.emt. org/userfiles/ipfi.pdf.

The Developmental Asset Profile (DAP; Search Institute, 2013a) is a 58-item strength-based tool that may be used with youth aged 8 to 18. This measure is high- lighted because it uniquely incorporates the use of technology to streamline the data collection and analysis process. The DAP offers three online-administration options as well as a traditional paper survey option. With the online options, students’ results are automatically uploaded to a server. The prac- titioner may chose to generate a report at an aggregate level or may choose to break the results down by grade, gender, race/ ethnicity, and/or asset category scores. As such, the DAP makes data collection and progress monitoring much more user- friendly than other methods. The DAP is grounded in the Search Institute’s Develop- mental Assets Framework, which includes 40 competencies from resiliency and preven- tion research. It assesses student characteris- tics across two domains (i.e. internal and external). The internal domain contains four categories including support (i.e. exis- tence of positive adult role models); empow- erment (i.e. feelings of safety and perceptions of being appreciated); bound- aries and expectations (i.e. prevalence of home, school, and neighborhood belief- sets); and constructive use of time (i.e. involvement in extracurricular activities). The external domain also contains four cate- gories. These include commitment to learning (i.e. level of school engagement); positive values (i.e. general respect for others and feelings of responsibility); social competencies (i.e. level of assertiveness and willingness to express beliefs); and positive identity (i.e. feelings of self worth). Prelimi- nary psychometrics were complied from field tests with a sample of 1300 6th through

12th grade students from a Minnesota school district and a sample of 1110 6th through 12th grade students in an Oregon school district. The internal consis- tencies of the asset scales ranged from .59 to .87, and the total DAP yielded an alpha coef- ficient of .97. The test-retest reliability for the total DAP score was .87. Lastly, the concurrent validity was measured by comparing DAP scores to the original Atti- tudes and Behaviours Survey, which meas- ures each of the 40 developmental assets. The comparison of asset scores demon- strated a strong linear relationship. More information about this tool can be found at: http://www.search-institute.org.

As suggested by this brief review, there are a growing number of strength-based assess- ment measures with evidence to suggest that they meet minimum requirements for relia- bility and validity (Nickerson, 2007; Tsang et al., 2012). As noted earlier, strength-based tools have several noteworthy benefits. Mainly, the information yielded focuses on the student’s positive skills and abilities. As such, low standardised scores are not indicated to be a weakness or a deficit, but rather an opportu- nity for intervention. Given the limited empir- ical evidence to-date, however, there are limits to their utility. These tools are not recom- mended to be a primary assessment tool to make high stakes decisions regarding classifi- cations or diagnoses. Rather, they should be integrated as one component of a multi- method system (Nickerson, 2007). More work is needed to explore the extent to which these measures can be used to determine which individuals have an increased likelihood of achieving positive outcomes (i.e. predictive validity). We also need further information about the extent to which including a strength-based assessment instrument provides information that cannot be gained from other more commonly used procedures (i.e. incremental validity), and their clinical utility in terms of their sensitivity and respon- siveness in assessing change in psychosocial functioning over time (Nickerson, 2007; Tsang et al., 2012).

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4 11

Strength-based assessment and mental health promotion

Use of strength-based measures to promote youth mental health Linking assessment findings to interventions to promote mental health is critical. School- based mental health services have advanced considerably by developing systems of support for students within a multi-tier public health model (Doll & Cummings, 2008; Merrell et al., 2012). This framework focuses on comprehensive approaches to prevention and wellness promotion at the primary (universal or school-wide), secondary (targeted), and tertiary (intensive) levels. Given the emphasis on strengths and well- ness, this is an ideal model for applying strength-based assessment and linking it to meaningful practice. Strength-based meas- urement tools are also necessary to identify needs, provide implementation feedback, and document the impact of social-emotional learning (Greenberg et al., 2003).

Strength-based assessment at the school-wide level Strength-based assessment measures may be used at the universal level to identify school- wide social-emotional needs. The informa- tion yielded from these assessments allows for a natural transition into intervention planning. This process works particularly well when a school uses a comprehensive social and emotional learning (SEL) programme. Social-emotional learning builds children’s skills in recognising and managing emotions, appreciating the perspectives of others, setting goals, making good decisions, and resolving conflicts (Greenberg et al., 2003). CASEL (2013) provides systematic instructions regarding the adoption of evidence-based SEL programmes (http://casel.org/guide/). Social-emotional learning has been linked to improved social and emotional skills, atti- tudes, behaviour, and academic perform- ance (Durlak et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2003). A meta-analysis of 213 K-12 school- based, universal SEL programmes revealed that SEL participants had significantly improved social and emotional skills, atti- tudes, and behaviour, as well as an overall

11-point gain in academic achievement, providing strong support for the use of these programmes in schools (Durlak et al., 2011).

Lamb-Parker et al. (2008) provided examples of how a strength-based, systematic mental health approach can be used to support young children’s social and emotional development. The process involved collecting information about children from observations, record reviews, and conversations with parents. After allowing for sufficient time for the teacher to get to know the child (about four weeks), a standardised strength-based measure, such as the DECA, was completed by teachers. The results were summarised and used to develop strategies for the class environment, daily programme, supportive interactions, activities, and family partnerships. Finally, progress was evaluated using the strength- based assessment (Lamb-Parker et al., 2008).

For adolescents, Steen, Kachorek and Peterson (2003) conducted focus groups with youth about their conceptualisation of character strengths. They found that high school students were able to discuss char- acter strengths, identify how these are devel- oped, and provide a unique perspective on how universal efforts (e.g. character educa- tion programmes) can be improved to culti- vate these strengths. Although Steen and colleagues (2003) conducted this research study to inform the development of a strength-based measure, their process and findings hold promise for taking the time to listen to youths’ ideas about how to concep- tualise strengths and design prevention efforts that focus on building these strengths.

Clearly, there are many applications for strength-based assessment for the general population of school students. The examples above illustrate how these assessments may be used at all levels (preschool through adolescence) within school contexts. It is important to highlight that in addition to identifying initial needs, strength-based assessment can also be used for programme evaluation efforts (Huebner & Gilman,

12 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4

Amanda B. Nickerson & Callen E. Fishman

2004). Collecting these data in an ongoing way provides feedback about the implemen- tation of programmes and can evaluate ongoing progress and impacts (Greenberg et al., 2003; Lamb-Parker et al., 2008).

Strength-based assessment at the targeted level Results from the universal strength-based screener can be used to identify at-risk students that may benefit from intervention at the selected level. For example, Lamb- Parker and colleagues (2008) outlined how they used results from a universal strength- based assessment to identify children who could benefit from participation in a peer playgroup to enhance social-emotional strengths. Students identified from a universal strength-based assessment could also be targeted for more intensive skills training related to their specific needs (McCabe & Altamura, 2011). Additionally, their parents or guardians might benefit from skills coaching or training in positive behavioural supports. Interestingly, the Search Institute (2013) is currently working on developing technology which will auto- matically compile a Personal Development Plan (PDP) based on the student’s DAP results. The key with any of these methods is linking the screening results directly to inter- vention planning. This is consistent with a trend to use measures that not only provide assessment, but also serve as intervention tools (Volpe, Briesch & Chafouleas, 2010).

Strength-based assessment at the intensive level At the intensive level, strength-based meas- ures can be utilised to evaluate strengths and competencies for students for whom a more comprehensive assessment and individu- alised behavioural, educational, and/or treatment plan is indicated (Lewis et al., 2010; Nickerson, 2007). Strength-based assessment measures should never be used as the primary assessment tool or to make diag- nostic or classification decisions; however, they can and should be used as a component of a comprehensive, multi-method assess- ment (Nickerson, 2007). Educational and

school psychologists may integrate strength- based assessment information in reports to provide a more balanced view of the child and his or her social-emotional strengths and needs (Cox, 2006; Donovan & Nick- erson, 2007; Rhee et al., 2001; Wellborn et al., 2012). Nickerson (2007) provided an example of a child who exhibits clinically significant levels of depression, but who also has average to above average family involve- ment. In this case, the role of the parents could be highlighted in intervention plan- ning, and the family can be taught concrete strategies for helping the child, such as scheduling time for positive activities and identifying when the child is making cogni- tive distortions and gently guiding the child to interpret events more realistically.

Not surprisingly, research has revealed that strength-based approaches need to be integrated within the intervention in order to impact outcomes (Cox, 2006; Quinlan, Swain & Vella-Brodrick, 2012). This can be done by explicitly discussing results of the strength-based assessment with children and families (Cox, 2006), and designing inter- ventions that require the student to plan and set goals that incorporate their strengths (Quinlan et al., 2012). Information gleaned from a strength-based assessment can be used to develop goals in an Individualised Education Plan or Behaviour Support Plan. Nickerson (2007) provided an example of a child who is aggressive towards peers who excels in athletics. In this case, time spent in athletics could be used as reinforcement for exhibiting alternative behaviours or as the context in which to teach replacement behaviours such as verbalising frustration at losing but stating at least one aspect of his teammates’ game that went well. In this example, the strength is used as part of a comprehensive, empirically-based interven- tion approach. After the intervention has been implemented, a strength-based assess- ment instrument could also be used on an individual basis to assess progress and further highlight existing strengths.

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4 13

Strength-based assessment and mental health promotion

Process for putting strength-based assessment into action As demonstrated above, strength-based assessment lends itself well for use within a multi-tier public health model of mental health service delivery and a comprehensive approach to social-emotional learning. Nevertheless, we recognise that most strength-based measures are not available in the public domain and thus require funding and administrative support. Thus, practi- tioners will likely need to advocate for the use of such assessments and then assist, if not lead, the implementation efforts. To facili- tate these endeavours, we have outlined a sequential process that practitioners may use to put strength-based assessment into action (i.e. Figure 1).

First, we recommend that practitioners use the resources, such as those outlined in this paper, to select a strength-based tool that fits within the school’s pre-existing preven- tion model. Once this information is compiled, the practitioner might then present the idea to the administration. This presentation should include a brief review of the benefits of strength-based assessment, as well as an overview of the selected strength- based measure and its associated costs. Once permission is obtained, the practitioner would then need to convene a group of invested individuals to create an implemen- tation plan. Once this plan is developed and vetted through administrators, it will be important to convey the plan to key stake- holders and to ensure that any questions

14 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4

Amanda B. Nickerson & Callen E. Fishman

Figure 1: Putting strength-based assessment into action.

Select: Select the strength-based

assessment approach that fits your school’s situational needs.

Advocate: Talk to administration about the benefits of utilising a strength- based assessment approach.

Communicate: Convey the plan with faculty, administrations, and parents/ caregivers; gain support.

Execute: Put the plan in action; make sure it’s followed.

Plan: Decide when data will be collected, who will compile the data, and how

the data will be used.

Share/Re-evaluate: Share the results; update the plan

for next year.

and/or concerns are addressed. Next, the plan should be executed. There will likely be unforeseen obstacles and areas in need of improvement after the first year of imple- mentation. As such, it will be imperative for the practitioner to publicly share the results and then readjust the plan for next year’s implementation. Within an action research paradigm, this process could also provide useful information to further develop and understand these tools.

Conclusion Considerable strides have been made in inte- grating positive psychology, social-emotional learning, and the enhancement of strengths in children and adolescents. Educational and school psychologists can play a leading role in using strength-based assessment to promote mental health and resilience in youth. Suggestions for using these measures at the school-wide, group, and individual levels to identify strengths, target areas for development, and assess progress in reaching goals have been provided. Educational and school psychologists can follow a process for advocacy and implementation to ensure that the importance of systematically recognising and enhancing strengths is realised. With this advocacy comes opportunities to conduct applied research to push the field forward in terms of our understanding and develop- ment of these tools and their impact on enhancing outcomes for youth.

Address for correspondence Amanda B. Nickerson, PhD Director, Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention, Associate Professor, Dept. of Counseling, School & Educational Psychology Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 428 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, New York 14260-1000 Email: [email protected]

Callen E. Fishman, PsyD Licensed Psychologist/ Psychiatric Examiner, Bureau of Institutional Sex Offender Treatment, New York State Office of Mental Health, Division of Forensic Services, 44 Holland Avenuee, Albany, New York 12229 Email: [email protected]

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4 15

Strength-based assessment and mental health promotion

Buckley, J.A. & Epstein, M.H. (2004). The Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scale – 2 (BERS–2): Providing a comprehensive approach to strength-based assessment. The California School Psychologist, 9, 21–27.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2011). Needs and outcome. Available at: http://casel.org/in-schools/ assessment/needs-and-outcome/

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2013). Effective social and emotional learning programmes – preschool and elementary school edition. Available at: http://casel.org/guide/

Chafouleas, S.M. & Bray, M.A. (2004). Introducing positive psychology: Finding a place within school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 1–5.

Cohen, R.J., Swerdlik, M.E. & Phillips, S.M. (1996). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Cox, K.F. (2006). Investigating the impact of strength-based assessment on youth with emotional or behavioural disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 287–301.

Denham, S.A., Ji, P. & Hamre, B. (2010). Compendium of social-emotional learning and associated assessment measures. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Doll, B. & Cummings, J.A. (Eds.) (2008). Trans- forming school mental health services: Population-based approaches to promoting the competency and wellness of children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Donovan, S.A. & Nickerson, A.B. (2007). Strength- based versus traditional social-emotional reports: Impact on multidisciplinary team members’ perceptions. Behavioural Disorders, 32, 228–237.

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymniki, A.B., Taylor, R.D. & Schellinger, K.B. (2011). The impact on enhancing students’ social emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions, Child Development, 82, 405–432.

Epstein, M.H. (2004). Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scale – 2nd edition: A strength-based approach to assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Epstein, M.H., Dakan, E., Oswald, D.P. & Yoe, J.T. (2001). Using strength-based data to evaluate children’s mental health programmes. In M. Hernandez & S. Hodges (Eds.), Developing outcome strategies in children’s mental health (pp.153–166). Baltimore: Brooks.

Epstein, M.H., Harniss, M.K., Robbins, V., Wheeler, L., Cyrulik, S., Kriz, M. et al. (2003). Strength- based approaches to assessment in schools. In M.D. Weist, S.W. Evans & N.A. Lever, Handbook of school mental health: Advancing practice and research (pp.283–299). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Epstein, M.H., Hertzog, M.A. & Reid, R. (2001). The Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scale: Long- term test-retest reliability. Behavioural Disorders, 26, 314–230.

Epstein, M.H., Ryser, G. & Pearson, N. (2002). Standardisation of the Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scale: Factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Behavioural Health Services & Research, 29, 208–216.

Epstein, M.H. & Sharma, J.M. (1998). Behavioural and Emotional Rating Scale: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Friedman, K.A., Leone, P.E. & Friedman, P. (1999). Strength-based assessment of children with SED: Consistency of reporting by teachers and parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 169–180.

Friedman, P., Friedman, K.A. & Weaver, V. (2003). Strength-based assessment of African-American adolescents with behavioural disorders. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 667–673.

Gilman, R., Huebner, E.S. & Furlong, M.J. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of positive psychology in schools. New York: Routledge.

Greenberg, M.T., Weissberg, R.P., Utne O’Brien, M., Zins, J.E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H. & Elias, M.J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through co-ordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.

Haggerty, K, Elgin, J. & Woolley, A. (2011). Social- emotional learning assessment measures for middle school youth. Washington: University of Washington Social Development Research Group. Available at: http://www.lions- quest.org/pdfs/SocialEmotionalLearning AssessmentMiddleSchoolYouth.pdf

Huebner, E.S. & Gilman, R. (2003). Toward a focus on positive psychology in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 99–102.

Huebner, E.S. & Gilman, R. (2004). Perceived quality of life: A neglected component of assessments and intervention plans for students in school settings. The California School Psychologist, 9, 127–134.

Jimerson, S. R., Sharkey, J., Nyborg, V., Furlong, M.J. (2004). Strength-based assessment and school psychology: A summary and synthesis. The California School Psychologist, 9, 9–19.

16 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4

Amanda B. Nickerson & Callen E. Fishman

References

Lamb-Parker, F., LeBuffe, P., Powell, G. & Halpern, E. (2008). A strength-based, systemic mental health approach to support children’s social and emotional development. Infants & Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, 21(1), 45–55.

LeBuffe, P.A. & Naglieri, J.A. (1999). The Devereux Early Childhood Assessment. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan.

LeBuffe, P.A. & Shapiro, V.B. (2004). Lending ‘strength’ to the assessment of preschool social- emotional health. The California School Psychologist, 9, 51–61.

LeBuffe, P.A., Shapiro, V.B. & Naglieri, J.A. (2009). The Devereux Student Strengths Assessment. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan.

Lien, M.T. & Carlson, J.S. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment in a Head Start sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 386–396.

Lewis, T.J., Jones, S.E.L., Horner, R.H. & Sugai, G. (2010). School-wide positive support and students with emotional/behavioural disorders: Implications for prevention, identification, and intervention. Exceptionality, 18, 82–93.

McCabe P.C. & Altamura, M. (2011). Empirically valid strategies to improve social and emotional competence of preschool children. Psychology in Schools, 48(5), 513–540.

Merrell, K.W., Ervin, R.A. & Gimpel Peacock, G. (2012). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Miller, D.N. & Nickerson, A.B. (2007). Changing the past, present, and future: Potential applications of positive psychology in school-based psycho- therapy with children and youth. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 147–162.

Naglieri, J.A., LeBuffe, P.A. & Shapiro, V. (2011a). Devereux Student Strengths Assessment – Mini. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press.

Naglieri, J.A., LeBuffe, P.A. & Shapiro, V.B. (2011b). A study of the reliability of the DESSA – Mini. Psychology in the Schools – Special Issue on Resilience in the Schools, 48, 660–671.

Nickerson, A.B. (2007). The use and importance of strength-based assessment. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 2, 15–25.

Nickerson, A.B. & Fishman, C. (2009). Convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of the Devereux Elementary Student Strength Assessment. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 48–59.

Ogg, J.A., Brinkman, T.A. Dedrick, R.F. & Carlson, J.F. (2010). Factor structure and invarience across the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment protective factor scale. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 107–118.

Quinlan, D., Swain, N. & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2012). Character strengths interventions: Building on what we know for improved outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 1145–1163.

Reid, R., Epstein, M.H., Pastor, D.A. & Ryser, G.R. (2000). Strength-based assessment differences across students with LD and EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 346–355.

Rhee, S., Furlong, M.J., Turner, J.A. Harari, I. (2001). Strength-based perspectives in psychoeduca- tional evaluations. The California School Psycho- logist, 6, 5–17.

Search Institute (2013a). Developmental Assets Profile: Technical summary. Available at: http://www.search-institute.org/sites/default/ files/a/DAP-TechnicalSummary-05-2013a.pdf

Search Institute (2013b). The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP). Available at: http://www.search-institute.org/ survey-services/surveys/DAP

Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction [Special Issue]. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Shapiro, E.S. & Heick, P.F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred for social/ behavioural/emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 551–561.

Springer, F.J. & Phillips, J.L. (1997). Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI): A measure of adolescent resiliency. Available at: http://www.lions.hu/lionsquest/ www.emt.org/userfiles/ipfi.pdf

Steen, T.A., Kachorek, L.V. & Peterson, C. (2003). Character strengths among youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 5–16.

Tsang, K.L.V., Wong, P.Y.H. & Lo, S.K. (2012). Assessing psychosocial well-being of adolescents: A systematic review of measurement instruments. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38, 629–646.

VanDenBerg, J.E. & Grealish, E.M. (1996). Individualised services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophy and proce- dures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 7–22.

Volpe, R.J., Briesch, A.M. & Chafouleas, S.M. (2010). Linking screening for emotional and behavioural problems to problem-solving efforts: An adaptive model of behavioural assessment. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 240–244.

Walrath, C.M., Mandell, D.S., Holden, E.W. & Santiago, R.L. (2004). Assessing the strengths of children referred for community-based mental health services. Mental Health Services Research, 6, 1–8.

Wellborn, C. R., Huebner, E. S. & Hills, K. J. (2012). The effects of strength-based information on teachers’ expectations for diverse students. Child Indicators Research, 5, 357–374.

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4 17

Strength-based assessment and mental health promotion

Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.