Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 21(2) 97–115 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1063426611407339 jebd.sagepub.com Teachers and administrators are faced with a number of challenges each year. Some challenges provide meaningful differentiated instruction to improve the academic perfor- mance of all students (No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] of 2001, 2002), offering inclusive educational experiences for students with exceptionalities as appropriate (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004), and establishing a safe and drug-free environment (Satcher, 2001). Each charge is highly important and, in some instances, difficult to achieve—particularly when attending to issues of school safety. Clearly the consequences of antisocial behavior in our schools are far reaching, impacting students, teachers, and the surrounding community as a whole. Antisocial behavior includes a host of undesirable behaviors constituting persis- tent violations of social norms such as verbal and physical aggression, noncompliance, as well as coercion (Kazdin, 1985). Not surprisingly, antisocial behavior is a core char- acteristic of emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), a general category of behavioral challenges that includes externalizing as well as internalizing behavior patterns (Kauffman & Brigham, 2009; Moffit, 1993; Stouthamer- Loeber & Loeber, 2002; Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). The prevalence of EBD is substantial. Between 2% and 20% of school-age children and youth are estimated to evi- dence such characteristic behavior, with more conservative estimates suggesting 6% (Kauffman & Brigham, 2009). In the absence of effective intervention efforts, students with EBD experience a number of short- and long-term negative consequences, including strained social relationships, aca- demic underachievement, school failure, unemployment, criminality, and continued mental health concerns (Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi, 2005; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Garza, 2006). While some educators may contend the issue of EBD is a concern to be addressed by the special education commu- nity, this is simply not the case (Lane, Oakes, & Menzies, 2010). In fact, less than 1% of students go on to qualify for special education services under the category of emotionally disturbed (ED) as defined in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). The vast majority of students with EBD will spend their K-12 years in the general education setting, with general education 407339EB X XX X 10.1177/1063426611407339Lane et al.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2010 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav 1 Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee, USA 2 Georgia State University, Georgia, USA 3 Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA Corresponding Author: Kathleen Lynne Lane, Box 228, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203-5721, USA. Email: Kathleen.lane@vanderbilt.edu Additional Evidence for the Reliability and Validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale at the High School Level: A Replication and Extension Kathleen Lynne Lane 1 , Wendy P. Oakes 1 , Robin Parks Ennis 2 , Meredith Lucille Cox 1 , Christopher Schatschneider 3 , and Warren Lambert 1 Abstract This study reports findings from a validation study of the Student Risk Screening Scale for use with 9th- through 12th-grade students (N = 1854) attending a rural fringe school. Results indicated high internal consistency, test-retest stability, and inter-rater reliability. Predictive validity was established across two academic years, with Spring Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) scores differentiating students with low-, moderate-, and high-risk status on office discipline referrals, grade point averages, and course failures during the following academic year. Teacher ratings evaluating students’ performance later in the instructional day were more predictive than teacher ratings evaluating students’ performance earlier in the instructional day. Educational implications, limitations, and future research directions are presented. Keywords systematic screening, positive behavior interventions and support, at-risk, high school