By James L. McDougal, Psy. D., Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D., & Scott T. Meier, Ph.D

TM

By James L. McDougal, Psy. D., Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D., & Scott T. Meier, Ph.D.

• 3-tier Behavioral Progress Monitoring System • for screening and assessing changes in

response to behavior intervention • follows the RTI model • School-aged children and adolescents (5-18)• 2 main components: BIMAS Standard &

BIMAS Flex• Multi-informant tool with forms for teachers,

parents, youth, and clinician• web-based data management and reporting

system.

What is the BIMAS?

Presentation Overview

• School Mental Health Services• BIMAS: Rationale within an RTI context• BIMAS: Theory and Structure • BIMAS: Development and Psychometric

Properties• BIMAS: Applications in a School District• BIMAS: Web-based Interface and Reports.• Q and A

Background & Development

Why is Behavioral/Emotional Screening Crucial?

• Students with behavioral/emotional problems: - lower grades- poorer reading skills- drop-out rate > 50%- worst social & academic outcomes of any disability group (Bradley, Dolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008)

• Loss of instructional time: teacher intervention & student disruption (Arnold, 1997)

• Early ID – prevents pervasive problems (Kern, Hilt-Panahon, & Sokol, 2009)

• Systematic universal screening ID children at-risk for E/B problems (Kamphaus & Reynolds, 2007)

Early Identification

• Early identification and intervention with children who are at risk for EBD appear to be the “most powerful course of action for ameliorating life-long problems associated with children at risk for [EBD]” (p. 5). (Hester et al., 2004)

• Younger children are more likely to be responsive to and maintain the positive outcomes from early prevention and intervention programs (Bailey, Aytch, Odom, Symons, & Wolery, 1999)

RTI and BehaviorRationale and need for Universal Behavior Screening

• Strong link between behavior/emotions and academic performance

• How do we define health?

– Schools screen for vision, hearing, speech, and academic achievement

– Behavior/Emotional screening occurs in less than 2% of districts across the U.S.

RTI and Behavior Rationale and need for Universal Behavior Screening

• Screeners for children are mostly done in primary care settings; we miss many children for early identification and intervention

(Pagano et al., 2000).

• Screening measures for children are frequently focused on one disorder to the exclusion of others, an approach that neglects large numbers of children who have problems other than the target condition

(August et al., 1992; Taylor et al., 2000; Matthey & Petrovski, 2002).

RTI and BehaviorRationale and need for Universal Behavior Screening

• Early problem identification allows for prevention & intervention

• Negative impact of problems can be minimized

• Only 15-20% of children with emotional/behavioral problems receive mental health services in the U.S (Ringel & Sturm, 2001)

RtI and Behavior Rationale and need for Universal Behavior Screening

• Teachers accurately identify young children at high risk of academic and behavioral problems related to school adjustment with a great deal of accuracy (Taylor et al., 2000).

• Schools are the ideal setting for large-scale, broad based mental health screening of children and adolescents (Wu et al., 1999).

How to use BIMAS within the RtI Framework

Tier 1• Universal Level• Students without

serious problem behaviors (80-90%)

• Use BIMAS to Screen


Tier 2• Targeted Level

• Students at risk for problem behaviors (5-15%)

• Use BIMAS to monitor & assess response to intervention/treatment


Tier 3• Intensive Level

• Students with chronic/intense problem behaviors (1-7%)

• BIMAS Data for decision making: Treatment planning, Special education eligibility, IEP review, program evaluation

Applications of BIMAS1. Screening- To detect students in need of

further assessment and to identify their respective areas of need.

2. Student Progress Monitoring- To provide feedback about the progress of individual students or clients.

3. Program Evaluation- To gather evidence that intervention services are effective.

Instrument Structure

The BIMAS consists of two levels

1. Standard

2. Flex

BIMAS Standard

• 34 change-sensitive items

• Can be used as a brief screener, treatment monitoring or program evaluation tool

• 4 forms:

Teacher, Parent, Self (U.S. normed)

& Clinician

Intervention Item Selection Rules (IISRs; Meier 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004)

• BIMAS: developed using empirically derived model for designing change-sensitive measures to assess RTI: IIRSs

• “State” scale as opposed to a “Trait” scale • BIMAS developed using clinical & school

samples in field settings (rare combo in psychotherapy research)

• Identified constructs that change as a result of emotional and behavioral intervention

IISRs (cont’d) 1. Be grounded in theory- to provide for interpretation

and minimize the effects of chance; 2. Be aggregated across individuals- to reduce the

effects of random error;3. Not evidence ceiling and floor effect;4. Evidence change after a psychosocial intervention;5. Change in the theoretically expected direction; 6. Evidence change relative to control and

comparison groups;7. Show no difference at pre-intervention; 8. Have no relation to relevant systematic errors; and 9. Be subject to cross-validation studies.

(Meier 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004)

Rule 1. Items Based on Theory

• Review existing research and theory

• Select pool of items from a variety of theories

• Ensure large Item Pool

• Select those thought to be influenced by intervention.

Rule 2. Aggregate Items

• Aggregation across individuals decreases error

• Increases chances of showing intervention effect

• Individual response used to inform theory

Rule 3. Avoid Ceiling/Floor Effects

• Mean item scores should not be at top or bottom of possible range

• Drop items with means 2 or more SD’s out

Rule 4. Detect Change Post-Intervention

• Significance vs. effect size

• Retain subset of items showing pre/post change

• Then filter those that demonstrate treatment group change

Rule 5. Change in the Expected Direction

• Retain items showing pre/post TX change in expected direction

• Items changing in opposite direction: retained to investigate negative effects

Rule 6. Change Relative to Comparison Group

• Compare to no TX control for: developmental and maturation effects, and TX effects

• Do items differentiate between TX groups?• Retain items: pre/post difference in TX

group

• Drop items with pre/post difference in control group

Rule 7. No Difference at Pre-Test

• Drop items showing significant difference between samples drawn from the same population

• Random assignment best

Rule 8. Remove Systematic Error

• Drop items reflecting systematic error

• (e.g., social desirability --Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale)

Rule 9. Cross Validate

• Repeat steps 3-8 with new samples from same population

• Emphasize theoretically predicted change items

BIMAS StandardBehavioral Concern Scales:• Conduct— anger management problems, bullying

behaviors, substance abuse, deviance• Negative Affect — anxiety, depression• Cognitive/Attention — attention, focus, memory,

planning, organization

Adaptive Scales:• Social — social functioning, friendship maintenance,

communication• Academic Functioning — academic performance,

attendance, ability to follow directions

BIMAS Flex• List of specific behavioral items

corresponding to each Standard item for progress monitoring

• User can select items based on elevated Standard scale score for an individual student

— customized treatment goals • Ability to make notes to describe specific

behaviors, response to services, or to add other comments

• Teacher, Parent, Self and Clinician forms

BIMAS Flex ExampleStandard Item:

Fought with others (verbally, physically, or both)

Negatively worded: • Argued with peers• Argued with teachers• Argued with parents• Argued with siblings• Talked back to parents• Talked back to teachers• Physically hurt peers• Physically hurt parents• Physically hurt teachers• Physically hurt siblings• Threatened peers• Threatened teachers• Threatened parents• Threatened siblings

Positively worded:• Showed regret after a fight• Was respectful to adults• Walked away from a fight• Prevented a fight• Stopped an argument• Found a positive outlet for

frustration• Avoided a verbal confrontation

Or…custom create your own!

Psychometric Properties

Large Normative SampleTotal Sample

N = 4,855

Teacher

N = 1,938

Parent

N = 1,938

Self-Report

N = 1,050

Normative

N = 700

Clinical

N = 350

Normative

N = 1,400

Clinical

N = 467

Normative

N = 1,400

Clinical

N = 538

Age x Gender Distribution: Normative Sample

Age Group

Teacher Ratings Parent Rating Self-Reports

Male

(N)Female

(N)Total (N)

Male

(N)Female

(N)Total (N)

Male

(N)Female

(N)Total (N)

5-6 100 100 200 100 100 200

7-9 150 150 300 150 150 300

10-11 100 100 200 100 100 200

12-13 100 100 200 100 100 200 100 100 200

14-16 150 150 300 150 150 300 150 150 300

17-18 100 100 200 100 100 200 100 100 200

Total 700 700 1400 700 700 1400 350 350 700

Race/Ethnicity Distribution• Highly comparable to the most recent U.S. Census

(Weighted N’s)

Form Asian African American

Hispanic White Other Total

Teacher Total N 55 218 203 836 50 1361

% 4.0 16.0 14.9 61.4 3.7

Census % 3.8 15.7 15.1 61.9 3.5

Difference % 0.22 0.29 - 0.22 -0.47 0.18

Parent Total N 30 214 207 873 75 1400

% 2.2 15.3 14.8 62.4 5.4

Census % 3.8 15.7 15.1 61.9 3.5

Difference % - 1.65 - 0.39 - 0.33 0.47 1.89

Self-Report

Total N 28 110 107 433 25 703

% 4.0 15.6 15.2 61.6 3.5

Census % 3.8 15.7 15.1 61.9 3.5

Difference % 0.23 - 0.07 0.09 - 0.29 0.03

Geographic Region Distribution• Highly comparable to the most recent U.S. Census

(Weighted N’s)

Form Northeast Midwest South West Total

Teacher Total N 251 299 486 325 1361

% 18.4 22.0 35.7 23.9

Census % 18.1 21.9 36.7 23.3

Difference % 0.35 0.08 -1.03 0.61

Parent Total N 272 265 530 333 1400

% 19.4 18.9 37.9 23.8

Census % 18.1 21.9 36.7 23.3

Difference % 1.39 -2.97 1.13 0.47

Self-Report

Total N 128 159 259 157 703

% 18.3 22.6 36.8 22.4

Census % 18.1 21.9 36.7 23.3

Difference % 0.21 0.70 0.03 -0.93

Parental Education Level• Highly comparable to the most recent U.S. Census

(Weighted N’s)

Parent Education Level

High school or Lower

Apprenticeship/2-year College

University or higher

Total

Total N 646 385 369 1400

% 46.2 27.5 26.4

Census % 46.6 27.2 26.2

Difference % - 0.43 0.28 0.16

Norm Groups• Age groups based on:

– age group mean differences

– developmental settings (K-12)

• Combined-gender norms

(♂ flagged as often as ♀)

• Gender-specific norms available as option

Age Groups

Teacher Parent Self

5-6 5-6

7-9 7-9

10-11 10-11

12-13 12-13 12-13

14-16 14-16 14-16

17-18 17-18 17-18

Development of Standard Scores• T-scores reported on every scale• Raw scores percentile rank to preserve the

shape of original distribution (behavior: not normal curve but

• Original percentile scores smoothed by imposing empirical percentiles

• Final smoothed percentile scores converted to standard T-scores (M = 50; SD = 10)

Interpretation of BIMAS Scores : Scale-level Descriptors

Behavior Concern Scales (↑ scores = )• High Risk: T = 70+• Some Risk: T = 60-69 • Low Risk: T < 60

Adaptive Scales (↑ scores = )• Strength: T = 60+• Typical: T = 41-59• Concern: T ≤ 40

Interpretation of BIMAS Scores: Item-Level Descriptors

(Useful in Individualized Intervention Design)

• Likert Scale 0 = Never;1 = Rarely;2 = Sometimes;3 = Often;4 = Very Often

Item Descriptors:

Behavior Concern ScalesNo Concern Mild Concern = M + 1SD; ≥ 75th percentile Concern = >1 SD; ≥ 84th percentile

Adaptive ScalesConcern = ≤10th percentile Mild Concern = 10th - 20th percentile; M - 1SDFairPositive = ≥ 75th percentile; M + .67SD

Psychometric Properties• Reliability

– Internal Consistency– Test-Retest (stability)

• Validity– Content – Construct

• Scale structure• Screening accuracy• Progress monitoring

Reliability• Internal Consistency

– The extent to which all items on the same scales measure the same content

– Cronbach’s Alpha (ranges from 0.0 to 1.0; higher = more reliable)

– Good range: α = .80 to .89

• Clinical cases added to the Normative Sample for reliability analyses (85% Normative; 15% Clinical)– To increase variability in the data– Most schools: mixture of students with & w/o

diagnosis

Internal Consistency Cronbach’s Alpha

Form Behavioral Concern Scales Adaptive Scales

Conduct Negative Affect

Cognitive/

Attention

Social Academic Functioning

Teacher .91 .85 .91 .85 .81

Parent .87 .82 .90 .84 .77

Self-Report .88 .85 .87 .83 .75

Reliability (cont’d)• Test-Retest Reliability

– Refers to the stability of test scores when an assessment is administered on two or more occasions (without intervention)

– Pearson’s Correlation (r) between Time 1 and Time 2 BIMAS scores

– 2-to-4 week interval

– Ranges from -1 to +1; higher = more reliable; good range: .7 or higher

Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients

Form Behavioral Concern Scales Adaptive Scales

Conduct Negative Affect

Cognitive/

Attention


Teacher

(N = 112).89 .85 .91 .91 .91

Parent

(N = 83).79 .91 .84 .96 .80

Self-Report (N = 53)

.81 .87 .82 .90 .85

All rs significant, p < .001.; A 2-4 week interval (non-clinical sample; no intervention in between)

Across-Informant Correlations• Correlation between parent & teacher ratings • Correlation between self-report &

parent/teacher• Are the behaviors assessed by the BIMAS

consistently detected by raters in different settings?

• (Diff informant: Diff observation context)

• Parent to Teacher r: range = .79 - .86• Parent to Self r: range = .59 - .69• Teacher to Self r: range = .54 - .59

Validity

Validity

The validity of a test refers to the quality of inferences that can be made by the test’s scores (i.e., how well does the test measures and how well are the claims it makes for its use and applications supported by empirical evidence).

The BIMAS Validity

• Validity

– Content

– Construct

• Relationship with Other Measures

• Screening Accuracy

• Progress Monitoring

Content validity • Behavioral Items on

BIMAS Standard:– Empirically-based: Meier's (1997, 1998, 2000, 2004)

work on change-sensitive item selection (IISRs on slides 15,16 )

– Input from colleagues in field testing studies over an 8 year period

• Structure of items into scales– Exploratory & Confirmatory factor analysis– Rational/clinical analysis

Construct Validity Relationship with other Tests

• Convergent Validity– Degree to which results from theoretically-

related measures converge

– Pearson’s Correlation (r) between BIMAS & Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales (Conners CBRS) on relevant scales

– Ranges between -1 & +1; higher = more convergence* (reverse is true for Adaptive Scales strength-based)

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients between Conners CBRS and BIMAS Conduct

Conners CBRS Scales

BIMAS Conduct Behavioral Concerns Scale

Teacher(N = 112)

Parent (N = 126)

Self (N = 107)

Defiant/Aggressive Behaviors .519 .734 .642

Conduct Disorder .499 .681 .615

Oppositional Defiant Disorder .493 .777 .622

•All correlations, p < .01 (2-tailed)

• All construct-related scales show convergent validity

Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Conners CBRS and BIMAS Negative Affect

Conners CBRS Scales

BIMAS Negative Affect Behavioral Concern Scale

Teacher(N = 112)

Parent (N = 126)

Self (N = 107)

Emotional Distress .474 .696 .540

Major Depressive Episode .379 .615 .556



Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Conners CBRS and BIMAS Cognitive Attention


Conners CBRS Scales

BIMAS Cognitive/Attention Behavioral Concern Scale

Teacher(N = 112)

Parent (N = 126)

Self (N = 107)

Hyperactivity/Impulsitivity .627 .563 .460

ADHD Inattentive .688 .531 .530

ADHD Hyperactive/Impulsive .621 .562 .455


Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Conners CBRS and BIMAS Social

Conners CBRS Scales

BIMAS Social Adaptive Scale

Teacher(N = 112)

Parent (N = 126)

Self (N = 107)

Autistic Disorder -.688 -.469 n/a

Aspergers Disorder -.706 -.521 n/a



(-ve correlations since BIMAS Adaptive Scales: Higher Scores = Less Concerns)

Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Conners CBRS and BIMAS Academic Functioning


Conners CBRS Scales

BIMAS Academic FunctioningAdaptive Scale

Teacher(N = 112)

Parent (N = 126)

Self (N = 107)

Academic Difficulties -.494 -.395 -.488

Language (subscale) -.436 -.308 n/a

Math (subscale) -.389 -.354 n/a


(-ve correlations since BIMAS Adaptive Scales: Higher Scores = Less Concerns)

BIMAS Validity (cont’d) Claims for its use:

1. A multi-informant screening tool to identify emotional and behavior concerns – Teacher– Parent – Self

2. A progress monitoring tool

1) BIMAS as a Screening Tool

• Ratings offered by teachers, parents, students (self)

• Clinical samples were identified during the standardization process.– Screening criteria were applied thru the

use of a Clinical Diagnostic Information Form.

Clinical Diagnoses of the samples rated by teachers, parents and students themselves.

Clinical Group Teacher Parent Self-Report TotalN % N % N % N

DBD 123 22.9 70 15.0 65 18.6 258ADHD 109 20.3 117 25.1 89 25.4 315Anxiety 55 10.2 67 14.3 56 16.0 178Depression 60 11.2 73 15.6 62 17.7 195PDD 95 17.7 86 18.4 65 18.6 246LD 45 8.4 -- -- -- -- 45DD 30 5.6 -- -- -- -- 30Other 21 3.9 54 11.6 13 3.7 88Total 538 100.0 467 100.0 350 100.0 1355

The BIMAS Clinical Samples• Large clinical samples; different diagnostic groups

The BIMAS as a Screening ToolHow were the data analyzed?

• Can the BIMAS discriminate clinical from non-clinical cases?

• Discriminant Function Analysis. – Compare the means of the groups across the

BIMAS subscales

– Develop a discriminant function equation

– “Hide” original group membership and allow the determination of the “predicted-new” membership to be made with BIMAS subscale scores

The BIMAS as a Screening ToolHow were the data analyzed?......

• Calculate percent correct classification estimates for the….– Clinical– Non-clinical– Total sample

• Calculate other accuracy classification statistics

The Teachers as Screening Agents

BIMAS–T scores can differentiate between Clinical vs. Non-Clinical

BIMAS-T Standard ScalesClinical Sample

Cohen’s dN M SD

Conduct 516 63.5 10.9 1.3

Negative Affect 537 66.4 10.4 1.6

Cognitive/Attention 538 66.6 9.8 1.7

Social 538 35.6 10.3 −1.4

Academic Functioning 538 40.2 9.8 −1.0

Note. Clinical Ms (SDs) compared to values from the normative sample (N = 1,361, M = 50, SD = 10).

Cohen’s d values of 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = medium effect, and ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0.8 = large effect.∣ ∣

BIMAS Standard T-score Cut-offs

BIMAS Scales T-score Scale Descriptors

Behavioral

Concern Scales

T = 70+ High Risk

T = 60-69 Some Risk

T = 60 or less Low Risk

Adaptive Scales

T = 40 or less Concern

T = 41-59 Typical

T = 60+ Strength

Group Classification as Predicted by BIMAS–Teacher Scales Scores

using Cut-Scores

Predicted Group Membership

Normative Sample

Clinical Sample

Total

Actual Group Membership

Normative Sample

1,167 233 1,400

Clinical Sample

107 431 538

Total 1,274 664 1,938

Blue = True Negatives; Pink = True Positives

Classification Accuracy of BIMAS–Teacher Scales

(All satisfactory) Classification Accuracy Statistic Full Range of Scores Cut-Scores

Overall Correct Classification 85.2% 82.5%

Sensitivity 83.5% 80.1%

Specificity 85.8% 83.4%

Positive Predictive Power 68.4% 64.9%

Negative Predictive Power 93.4% 91.6%

Behavioral Concern Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

DBD ADHD ANX DEP PDD LD DD

Conduct Negative Affect Cognitive/Attention

BIMAS–Teacher Mean T-scores by Clinical Group

Low Risk

Some Risk

High Risk

BIMAS–Teacher Mean T-scores by Clinical Group

Adaptive Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

DBD ADHD ANX DEP PDD LD DD


Strength

Typical

Concern

The Parents as Screening Agents

BIMAS–P scores can differentiate between Clinical vs. Non-Clinical

BIMAS-P Standard ScalesClinical Sample

Cohen’s dN M SD

Conduct 467 60.3 10.5 1.0



Social 467 38.4 9.9 −1.2


Note. Clinical Ms (SDs) compared to values from the normative sample (N = 1,400, M = 50, SD = 10).

Cohen’s d values of 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = medium effect, and ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ 0.8 = large effect.∣ ∣

BIMAS Standard T-score Cut-offs

BIMAS Scales T-score Scale Descriptors

Behavioral

Concern Scales

T = 70+ High Risk

T = 60-69 Some Risk

T = 60 or less Low Risk

Adaptive Scales

T = 40 or less Concern

T = 41-59 Typical

T = 60+ Strength

Group Classification as Predicted by BIMAS–Parent Scales Scores

using Cut-Scores


Normative Sample

Clinical Sample

Total


Normative Sample

1,124 276 1,400

Clinical Sample

124 343 467

Total 1,248 619 1,867


Classification Accuracy of BIMAS–Parent Scales








20

30

40

50

60

70

80

DBD ADHD ANX DEP PDD


BIMAS–Parent Mean T-scores by Clinical Group

Low Risk

Some Risk

High Risk

Adaptive Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



BIMAS–Parent Mean T-scores by Clinical Group

Strength

Typical

Concern

The Students as Screening Agents

BIMAS–SR scores can differentiate between Clinical vs. Non-Clinical

BIMAS-P Standard ScalesClinical Sample

Cohen’s dN M SD

Conduct 350 57.3 9.7 0.7



Social 350 41.4 9.7 −0.9


Note. Clinical Ms (SDs) compared to values from the normative sample (N = 703, M = 50, SD = 10).

Cohen’s d values of 0.2 = small effect, ∣ ∣ 0.5 = medium effect∣ ∣ , and 0.8 = large effect.∣ ∣

Group Classification as Predicted by BIMAS–Self-Report Scales Scores

using Cut-Scores


Normative Sample

Clinical Sample

Total


Normative Sample

1,124 276 1,400

Clinical Sample

124 343 467

Total 1,248 619 1,867


Classification Accuracy of BIMAS–Self-Report Scales








20

30

40

50

60

70

80



BIMAS–Self-Report Mean T-scores by Clinical Group

Low Risk

Some Risk

High Risk

Adaptive Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



BIMAS–Self-Report Mean T-scores by Clinical Group

Strength

Typical

Concern

BIMAS Validity Claim No. 2:

The BIMAS as a Progress Monitoring Tool

Progress Monitoring with BIMAS

• Documenting and Measuring Change/Progress– BIMAS Standard – BIMAS Flex

• A Case Study

–Anger management group

Anger Management Treatment Study

N = 46 (ages 12 to 18 years)

Gender: 32 males and 14 females.

Race/Ethnicity:

30 African American,

2 Hispanic &

14 Caucasian students • BIMAS scores showed good sensitivity to

change in response to intervention in theoretically expected direction


40

50

60

70

80

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test


Anger Management Treatment Group: Pre- to Post-Treatment BIMAS T-scores

Teacher Parent Self-Report

High Risk

Some Risk

Low Risk

Adaptive Scales

20

30

40

50

60

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test


Anger Management Treatment Group: Pre- to Post-Treatment BIMAS T-scores

Teacher Parent Self-Report

Typical

Concern

Pre-Post Intervention Performance of an Anger Management Treatment Group: BIMAS–Teacher T-scores

• Statistically significant change in theoretically expected direction

BIMAS-T Scale Pre-Test Post-Test t Cohen’s d

ConductM 65.9 59.3

9.2 1.5SD 4.8 3.7

Negative AffectM 63.0 53.9

6.6 1.0SD 10.7 7.7

Cognitive/ AttentionM 63.3 55.3

7.3 1.2SD 6.6 6.9

SocialM 30.0 34.4

−3.4 −0.7SD 5.5 7.2

Academic FunctioningM 41.9 45.7

−5.2 −0.8SD 4.9 4.1

Note. N = 46. All ts significant at p < .01.

Cohen’s d values of 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = medium effect, and 0.8 = large effect. ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣

Pre-Post Intervention Performance of an Anger Management Treatment Group: BIMAS–Parent T-scores


BIMAS-P Scale Pre-Test Post-Test t Cohen’s d

ConductM 66.6 53.5

12.7* 2.6SD 5.8 4.3


10.4* 1.7SD 9.5 6.9


10.3* 2.0SD 5.4 4.6

SocialM 31.7 37.5

−4.7* −1.0SD 4.9 6.9


−7.3* −1.3SD 4.4 4.1



Pre-Post Intervention Performance of an Anger Management Treatment Group: BIMAS–Self-Report T-scores


BIMAS-SR Scale Pre-Test Post-Test t Cohen’s d

ConductM 65.5 52.2

13.8* 2.8SD 5.4 3.8


11.5* 1.8SD 9.8 6.5


12.9* 2.4SD 6.6 4.2

SocialM 35.1 39.5

−4.5* −0.8SD 6.2 4.8


−10.1* −1.8SD 5.0 3.0



BIMAS Web Interface

Please contact the Publisher (MHS Inc.)

Contact info at the end of this presentation

Some Key Features

• Web-based: allows users to access from different locations

• Different levels of access• User interface tailored to needs of the user• Online or paper administration• Paper tests can be generated and scanned in

batches with any regular scanner • Real-time reporting• Many custom features

Levels of Access within the BIMAS System

School SetupFeatures:

• Schedule BIMAS Standard Universal Assessments across all schools in a district

• Tailor school schedule to each individual school

• Import feature (Excel template for easy upload)

Class Setup

Features:

• Classes organized by school, grade, subject and teacher

• Homeroom classes vs. Subject classes

• Import feature

User SetupFeatures:

• Different access levels for different user types

• T-score rights

• Read-only rights

• Multi-rater comparison rights

• Password protected login for users

• Import feature

Student Setup

Features:

• Demographics linked to students for effortless assessment/report generation

• Easy migration of students from year to year or school to school within district

• Import feature

Screening/Progress Monitoring

Administration & Scoring

Features:

• Individual or group (batch) paper and online administrations

• Student information does not have to be reentered for every single administration

• Import paper form data using any regular scanner

Online/Paper Administration & Scoring Options

ADMINISTRATION

& SCORING OPTIONS

Q: Does the rater have

internet access? Yes/No

<< if YES >>

Online AdministrationRater completes the assessment online via an emailed link or by

directly logging onto BIMAS Online with a user account.

<< if NO >>

Paper-and-Pencil Administration

Assessor prints a paper-and-pencil form from BIMAS Online for the

rater to fill out manually.

Online Scoring

Assessment is automatically scored and reports are

generated online.

Scanned Scoring

Assessor scans the paper-and-pencil form using any

regular scanner and imports the image files into BIMAS

Online.

Online Scoring

Assessor enters responses from paper-and-pencil forms

into BIMAS Online for automatic scoring and report

generation.

Progress MonitoringFeatures:• Searchable list of all students• Quick status, student profile, and assessment

history for each student• Assign Flex items for each student• Paper and online assessments linked to

student • Reminders sent for student follow-up• Notes section for general comments about

the student

Application of BIMAS within RtI Framework

Tier 1 Universal LevelUniversal Screening

Reduce new cases of problem behavior

Tier 2 Targeted LevelIntervention & Progress Monitor At-Risk Students

Reduce current cases of problem behavior

Tier 3 Intensive LevelIntensive Services & Frequent Monitoring

Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current cases

S S S

S F F S F F S

SFFFFSFFFS F F F S F S

Web-based Reports

ReportsFeatures:• Only reports accessible to the user are

available• Graphs are generated on the screen and can

easily be regenerated with different variables in real-time

• Direct links between related reports and drill-down options from group to individual reports

• Graphs can be copied easily into any user documentation

• Item-level norms available

Types of Reports1) Assessment Reports—present BIMAS Standard

results numerically and graphically in one specific assessment (i.e., static results from a single point in time).

• At the Group Level: Ideal for Universal Screening or Intervention Design for an intervention group, class, grade, school, and/or district.

• At the Individual Level: Standard scale scores can assist in Universal Screening to identify problem areas for a student while the item-level scores (also based on U.S. national norms) would be particularly useful for individualized Intervention Design.

2) Progress Reports—compare the results of two or more BIMAS Standard/Flex assessments for the same individual/group of individuals to monitor progress and measure changes over time.

• At the Group Level: Useful in Program Evaluation for an intervention group, class, grade, school, and/or district.

• At the Individual Level: Student Progress Monitoring becomes effortless with scale-level as well as item-level time series graphs.

Types of Reports (cont’d)

Types of Reports (cont’d)3) Comparative Reports—offer comparisons between

the results of different BIMAS assessments.

• At the Group Level: Provide assistance in Universal Screening or Intervention Design by comparing group average BIMAS Standard scale scores obtained approximately the same point in time between different classes, grades, or schools numerically and graphically.

• At the Individual Level: Versatile tool for Student Progress Monitoring whereby BIMAS Standard/Flex assessments by different raters for the same individual are compared.

Types of Reports (cont’d)4) Demographic Reports— present graphically

the percentage/numeric breakdown of students in a class, grade, school, or district along a particular demographic variable (e.g., age, gender, service code, or race/ethnicity).

• Group Level only: Ideal for identifying and targeting specific demographic risk factors in Universal Screening or Intervention Design.

Summary/Strength of BIMAS• BIMAS: empirically-based; sensitive to

change (excellent for RtI) √• Standard & Flex √• Big Norm Samples & Good Psychometric

Properties √• Powerful Web-based Interface √• Easy paper & online administration and

scoring options √• Wide Selection of Informative Web-based

Reports √

Author Contact InformationPlease direct all theoretical/behavioral RtI implementation inquiries to:

Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D.

Professor of School Psychology

University of Northern Colorado

College of Education & Behavior Sciences

Mckee Hall 289- CB 131

Greeley, CO 80639

(970) 405-6694

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Publisher Contact InformationPlease direct all product-related inquiries to:

Jane Wong, M.A.

Research Associate

Multi-Health Systems, Inc. (MHS)

Email: [email protected]

3770 Victoria Park Avenue

Toronto, ON, Canada

M2H 3M6

Toll Free Tel: 1-800-456-3003 ext. 209

Toll Free Fax: 1-888-540-4484 (Attn to Jane Wong)

Visit our website: www.mhs.com/bimas

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mhs.com/bimas

Documents

By James L. McDougal, Psy. D., Achilles N. Bardos, Ph.D., & Scott T. Meier, Ph.D