This study examined the relationship between two school-wide screening measures, one examining classroom behaviors (the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener; SAEBRS; Kilgus, Chafouleas, & Riley-Tillman, 2013) and another evaluating writing fluency (Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression; CBM-WE). This study also evaluated the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for identifying students at-risk for writing achievement deficits. A convenience sample of 147 third-grade general education students across two schools, who were determined to not have any significant impairment impacting their writing performance, participated in this study. The index tests (i.e., SAEBRS, CBM-WE) and reference standard (i.e., Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, III Essay Composition subtest; Pearson, 2009) were identified a priori. Of 147 participants, 18 students were identified as at-risk for writing achievement deficits and 129 students were identified as not at-risk. Results indicated a statistically significant relationship between the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for female and male students. In the identification of writing achievement deficits, the area under the ROC curve for CBM-WE revealed fair accuracy (AUC = .761; 95% Confidence Interval [.644, .878]) and poor accuracy was noted for the SAEBRS (AUC = .653; 95% Confidence Interval [.528, .778]). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the independent AUC values, the difference in the qualitative indicator suggest that CBM-WE is a superior screening measure for identifying at-risk students in comparison to the SAEBRS. The findings from this study highlight the contribution of classroom behaviors to the writing process of elementary-aged students and offers support for the use of CBM-WE to identify students at-risk for writing achievement deficits.
","abstract_html":"<p>This study examined the relationship between two school-wide screening measures, one examining classroom behaviors (the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener; SAEBRS; Kilgus, Chafouleas, & Riley-Tillman, 2013) and another evaluating writing fluency (Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression; CBM-WE). This study also evaluated the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for identifying students at-risk for writing achievement deficits. A convenience sample of 147 third-grade general education students across two schools, who were determined to not have any significant impairment impacting their writing performance, participated in this study. The index tests (i.e., SAEBRS, CBM-WE) and reference standard (i.e., Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, III Essay Composition subtest; Pearson, 2009) were identified a priori. Of 147 participants, 18 students were identified as at-risk for writing achievement deficits and 129 students were identified as not at-risk. Results indicated a statistically significant relationship between the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for female and male students. In the identification of writing achievement deficits, the area under the ROC curve for CBM-WE revealed fair accuracy (AUC = .761; 95% Confidence Interval [.644, .878]) and poor accuracy was noted for the SAEBRS (AUC = .653; 95% Confidence Interval [.528, .778]). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the independent AUC values, the difference in the qualitative indicator suggest that CBM-WE is a superior screening measure for identifying at-risk students in comparison to the SAEBRS. The findings from this study highlight the contribution of classroom behaviors to the writing process of elementary-aged students and offers support for the use of CBM-WE to identify students at-risk for writing achievement deficits.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Hamsho, Narmene"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Tanya L. Eckert"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-08-24T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2019-08-24T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T04:55:50Z","subjects":["Classification Accuracy","Classroom Behaviors","Sensitivity","Writing Performance","Social and Behavioral Sciences"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://surface.syr.edu/etd/1084","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Tanya L. Eckert"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Hamsho, Narmene"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Classification Accuracy","Classroom Behaviors","Sensitivity","Writing Performance","Social and Behavioral Sciences"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://surface.syr.edu/etd/1084"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This study examined the relationship between two school-wide screening measures, one examining classroom behaviors (the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener; SAEBRS; Kilgus, Chafouleas, & Riley-Tillman, 2013) and another evaluating writing fluency (Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression; CBM-WE). This study also evaluated the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for identifying students at-risk for writing achievement deficits. A convenience sample of 147 third-grade general education students across two schools, who were determined to not have any significant impairment impacting their writing performance, participated in this study. The index tests (i.e., SAEBRS, CBM-WE) and reference standard (i.e., Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, III Essay Composition subtest; Pearson, 2009) were identified a priori. Of 147 participants, 18 students were identified as at-risk for writing achievement deficits and 129 students were identified as not at-risk. Results indicated a statistically significant relationship between the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for female and male students. In the identification of writing achievement deficits, the area under the ROC curve for CBM-WE revealed fair accuracy (AUC = .761; 95% Confidence Interval [.644, .878]) and poor accuracy was noted for the SAEBRS (AUC = .653; 95% Confidence Interval [.528, .778]). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the independent AUC values, the difference in the qualitative indicator suggest that CBM-WE is a superior screening measure for identifying at-risk students in comparison to the SAEBRS. The findings from this study highlight the contribution of classroom behaviors to the writing process of elementary-aged students and offers support for the use of CBM-WE to identify students at-risk for writing achievement deficits.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Examining the Classification Accuracy of the Social, Academic, Emotional Behavior Risk Screener and Its Relationship with Writing Performance"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Tanya L. Eckert"],"dc:creator":["Hamsho, Narmene"],"dc:description.abstract":["This study examined the relationship between two school-wide screening measures, one examining classroom behaviors (the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener; SAEBRS; Kilgus, Chafouleas, & Riley-Tillman, 2013) and another evaluating writing fluency (Curriculum-Based Measurement in Written Expression; CBM-WE). This study also evaluated the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for identifying students at-risk for writing achievement deficits. A convenience sample of 147 third-grade general education students across two schools, who were determined to not have any significant impairment impacting their writing performance, participated in this study. The index tests (i.e., SAEBRS, CBM-WE) and reference standard (i.e., Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, III Essay Composition subtest; Pearson, 2009) were identified a priori. Of 147 participants, 18 students were identified as at-risk for writing achievement deficits and 129 students were identified as not at-risk. Results indicated a statistically significant relationship between the SAEBRS and CBM-WE for female and male students. In the identification of writing achievement deficits, the area under the ROC curve for CBM-WE revealed fair accuracy (AUC = .761; 95% Confidence Interval [.644, .878]) and poor accuracy was noted for the SAEBRS (AUC = .653; 95% Confidence Interval [.528, .778]). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the independent AUC values, the difference in the qualitative indicator suggest that CBM-WE is a superior screening measure for identifying at-risk students in comparison to the SAEBRS. The findings from this study highlight the contribution of classroom behaviors to the writing process of elementary-aged students and offers support for the use of CBM-WE to identify students at-risk for writing achievement deficits.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://surface.syr.edu/etd/1084"],"dc:subject":["Classification Accuracy","Classroom Behaviors","Sensitivity","Writing Performance","Social and Behavioral Sciences"],"dc:title":["Examining the Classification Accuracy of the Social, Academic, Emotional Behavior Risk Screener and Its Relationship with Writing Performance"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T04:55:50Z"}