Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology: A Summary and Synthesis

Abstract

During the past decade there has been an increasing interest in positive psychology, which promotes a shift away from the traditional deficit-based model of mental health to a framework that emphasizes social-emotional strengths. The building of strengths and an emphasis on the prevention of problems are at the forefront of positive psychology and equally important in the field of school psychology. Based on a review of the extant literature, this article addresses four important questions: (a) What is strength-based assessment? (b) Why use strength-based assessment in school psychology? (c) What are examples of strength-based assessments? and (d) What are the limitations and needs for further research related to strength-based assessment? Implications for both research and practice are emphasized throughout.

Full text

9
Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology:
A Summary and Synthesis
Shane R. Jimerson, Jill D. Sharkey, Vanessa Nyborg, Michael J. Furlong
University of California, Santa Barbara
During the past decade there has been an increasing interest in positive psychology, which pro-
motes a shift away from the traditional deficit-based model of mental health to a framework that
emphasizes social-emotional strengths. The building of strengths and an emphasis on the preven-
tion of problems are at the forefront of positive psychology and equally important in the field of
school psychology. Based on a review of the extant literature, this article addresses four impor-
tant questions: (a) What is strength-based assessment? (b) Why use strength-based assessment in
school psychology? (c) What are examples of strength-based assessments? and (d) What are the
limitations and needs for further research related to strength-based assessment? Implications for
both research and practice are emphasized throughout.
Key Words: Strength-Based, Assessment, School, Deficits, Assets, Strengths
Modern psychology has been co-opted by the disease model. We’ve become too pre-
occupied with repairing damage when our focus should be on building strength and
resilience, especially in children. (Seligman, 2003)
In the new millennium, school psychologists have increasingly recognized alternatives to a defi-
cit-based perspective regarding assessment, practice, and research that emerged from the historical
disease model of human functioning pervasive in the field of psychology (Buckley, Storino, & Saarni,
2003; Rhee, Furlong, Turner, & Harari, 2001; Terjesen, Jacofsky, Froh, & DiGiuseppe, 2004). The
recent zeitgeist in the field of psychology includes an emphasis on positive psychology (Huebner &
Gilman, 2003; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Seligman, Reivich, Jaycox, & Gillham, 1995) and
the perspective that wellness is more than the absence of disease symptoms. Positive psychology
advocates a change from a preoccupation with solely repairing the worst things in life to also building
the best qualities in life (Seligman, 2002). Thus, the building of strengths and an emphasis on the
prevention of problems are at the forefront of positive psychology (Seligman & Peterson, 2000). Like-
wise, the emerging emphasis on promoting “developmental assets” has focused on the strengths of
youths, families, and communities (Scales & Leffert, 1999). Scales and Leffert (1999) describe devel-
opmental assets as “the positive relationships, opportunities, competencies, values, and self-percep-
tions that youth need to succeed” (p. 1). School psychologists have long endorsed strength-based
perspectives (e.g., Lambert, 1964), and during the past decade, there has been a growing recognition
and an emphasis to embrace this perspective that is promoted among some school psychology practi-
tioners and researchers (Baker, Dilly, Aupperlee, & Patil, 2003; Chafouleas & Bray, 2004; Doll &
Lyon, 1998; Miller, 1998; Nettles, Mucherah, & Jones, 2000; Rhee et al., 2001; Robertson, Harding, &
Morrison, 1998; Smokowski, Reynolds, & Bezruczko, 1999; Terjesen et al., 2004).
Wieck, Rapp, Sullivan, and Kisthardt (1989) coined the term “strengths perspective” as a frame-
work to view youths and families with greater emphasis on their strengths and competencies. The use
of this approach is increasing in many disciplines and practices (Rapp, 1997; Seligman, 2002; Seligman
Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided in part by the Don and Marilyn Gevirtz Funds for
Excellence initiative. Address correspondence to Shane R. Jimerson; University of California, Santa Barbara;
Gevirtz Graduate School of Education; Center for School-Based Youth Development; 2208 Phelps Hall; Santa
Barbara, CA 93106-9490. E-mail: jimerson@education.ucsb.edu.
The California School Psychologist, Vol. 9, pp. 9-19, 2004
Copyright 2004 California Association of School Psychologists
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM9

The California School Psychologist, 2004, Vol. 910
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). For example, a strength-based approach has been evident in the mental
health field (e.g., constructive therapies; Hoyt, 1996), medical field (e.g., wellness vs. illness), com-
munity-level advocacy (e.g., asset-based storehouses vs. wastelands; Kretzman & McNight, 1993),
and prevention and education research (e.g., resilience and hardiness; see reviews by Anthony, 1987;
Butler, 1997; Cowan, Cowan, & Schultz, 1996; Gore & Eckenrode, 1994; Kaplan, 1999; Masten, Best,
& Garmezy, 1990; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; Rutter, 1990). The purpose of this article is to explore
the following questions: (a) What is strength-based assessment? (b) Why use strength-based assess-
ment in school psychology? (c) What are examples of strength-based assessments? and (d) What are
the limitations and needs for further research related to strength-based assessment?
What is Strength-Based Assessment?
Developmental trajectories cannot be fully understood without an integrated focus on pathology
and competence (Masten & Coatsworth, 1995) and research has shown that youths’ strengths are as
important to consider as their weaknesses in understanding potential for succeeding in all areas of
functioning (Garmezy, 1993; Kirby & Fraser, 1997). Whereas not all children who experience signifi-
cant risk ultimately experience negative outcomes, most children who have a variety of strengths
experience healthy outcomes (e.g., Masten, Hubbard, Gest, Tellegen, Garmezy, & Ramirez, 1999).
However, much of the practice of identifying students’ needs is based on a deficit model, which fo-
cuses on problems such as processing deficits, poor achievement, and social-emotional difficulties in
order to prescribe intervention programs. The availability of many psychometrically sound instru-
ments to assess mental illness and disability sustains this deficit focus (Epstein, 1999). Though psy-
chologists, social workers, and counselors have developed informal approaches for strength-based
assessment, the empirical validation of assessments examining youth strengths is in its early stages.
Subtle but significant differences between various terms associated with resiliency need to be
carefully defined in order to clarify various phenomena under study. Terms such as “risk factors,”
“protective factors,” “assets,” and “resilience” all represent distinct mechanisms that are often associ-
ated with particular models proposed to explain resilience. A risk factor is any influence in a youth’s
life, whether biological, behavioral, environmental, sociocultural, or demographic, that increases the
probability of a negative outcome. On the other hand, a protective factor is defined as any influence in
a youth’s life that decreases the probability of a negative outcome (Kirby & Fraser, 1997). Stress is a
condition resulting from an individual’s perceived inability to meet life demands that threatens the
ability of the individual to function successfully (Masten et al., 1999). Asset, resource, or promotive
factors increase positive developmental outcomes and decrease negative developmental outcomes re-
gardless of adversity or risk (Leffert, Benson, Scales, Sharma, Drake, & Blyth, 1998; Sameroff &
Fiese, 2000). A buffer is a factor that is only associated with a positive outcome in the presence of risk
(Gore & Eckenrode, 1994). Resilience represents successful adaptation in the face of adversity (Masten
et al., 1999). The development of so many similar yet distinct terms is a result of the many theoretical
models developed to explain the phenomenon of resiliency.
As the development and application of strength-based instruments and assessment strategies con-
tinues, MacDonald and Validivieso (2000) offer a framework for categorizing factors related to desir-
able outcomes in a youth’s life: (a) Aspects of identity—self-confidence, connection, commitment to
others, self-worth, mastery and future orientation, belonging and membership, responsibility, spiritu-
ality, and self-awareness. (b) Areas of ability—physical health, mental health, intellectual, employ-
ment, civic, as well as social and cultural abilities. (c) Developmental opportunities—for exploration,
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM10

11
expression and creativity, adult roles and responsibilities such as group membership, contribution and
service, and employment. (d) Emotional, motivational, strategic supports—nurturance and friendship,
high expectations, standards and boundaries, options assessment and planning, and access to resources.
Many different models explaining the relative influences of risk and protective factors have been
proposed; however, as a relatively new concept, little research has been conducted to critically exam-
ine existing models. According to an Additive Model or Compensatory Model, risk and protective
factors are cumulative in nature, with each additional risk factor increasing the odds of a negative
outcome and each additional protective factor decreasing the odds of a negative outcome (Garmezy,
1993). Under this model, the number of risk and protective factors is more important than the specific
type of factor. An alternative, the Interactive Model or Risk-Protective Model, states that protective
factors only come into play in the presence of risk factors. Under this model, positive parenting prac-
tices, for example, have their maximum impact only in the presence of a stressful experience such as
poverty or divorce. Thus, protective factors may only buffer, interrupt, or prevent the effect of risk
factors (Rutter, 2000). More recent conceptualizations of resilience have combined elements of the
Additive and the Interactive models. The Protective-Protective Model proposes that it is both the
presence and number of protective factors that is significant in reducing risk (Hollister-Wagner, Foshee,
& Jackson, 2001). On the other hand, the Challenge Model posits that moderate levels of risk promote
successful adaptation to stress, whereas low levels do not promote enough stress for action and high
levels are overwhelming (O’Leary, 1998). O’Leary comments that it is the successful overcoming of
challenge that results in the attainment of resilience, and in some cases, thriving.
At least four distinct but related conceptual models emerge from the literature to detail the specific
influence of positive factors on outcome. First, psychologists have long had an interest in the support
and promotion of psychological well-being (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996). This model examines one’s
global sense of quality of life and is related to school psychology in psychological states such as
happiness. Promoting happiness is one way to reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes for children.
Huebner, in particular, has developed the Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Survey based
upon this strength-based model (Gilman & Huebner, 2003; McCullough & Huebner, 2003). A second
way that strength-based assessment has been conceptualized is as of an examination of positive traits,
for example, intellectual functioning and athleticism are traits that can be developed and utilized to
enhance a student’s well-being. Such a model falls within the body of work related to the assessment
constructs such as social-emotional intelligence (e.g., Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar, 2001) and self-effi-
cacy (e.g., Muris, 2001). As such, it examines the positive traits of individual youths and the develop-
ment of their character; that is, these have been called “character strengths” and are valued regardless
of their relationship to negative developmental outcomes. For example, when asked, adolescents indi-
cate that leadership, practical intelligence, wisdom, social intelligence, love of learning, spirituality,
and the capacity to love and be loved are traits that they value (Steen, Kachorek, & Peterson, 2003).
Third, some strength-based assessment approaches have focused on those within-youth traits that help
them to manage and cope with risks and life challenges (e.g., Ewart, Jorgensen, Suchday, Chen, &
Matthews, 2002). A fourth way in which strength-based assessment has been considered is as protec-
tive factor—those factors outside the individual child such as family functioning, peer relationships,
and community factors that can also provide a buffer to risk. Bonnie Benard offers such a model
(Brown, D’Emidio-Caston, & Benard, 2000) and it provides the conceptual basis for the Resilience
Youth Development Module of the California Healthy Kids Survey (see www.wested.org/pub/docs/
chks_samplereports.html#resilience).
Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM11

The California School Psychologist, 2004, Vol. 912
Why use a Strength-Based Approach in Assessment in School Psychology?
The profession of psychology is oriented toward the study of human behavior and cognition with
the goal of improving the human experience. Historically, however, psychologists have focused on the
study of abnormal development and psychopathology while ignoring the study of what factors im-
prove academic, cognitive, and social functioning (Terjesen et al., 2004). Though in its infancy, the
strengths movement has been a catalyst for the development of assessment and intervention practices
based on positive youth development. Using a strength-based focus in work with youth, school psy-
chologists can better meet the standards of their profession by fostering youths’ “capacity-building” to
cope with life challenges.
Although strengths are emphasized as an important component of Individualized Education Plan
(IEP) processes, school psychologists continue to focus on deficits as mandated by federal and state
regulations to assess areas of disability and deficits, with no comparable requirement to assess student
strengths (Rhee et al., 2001). Focusing on deficits may allow school psychologists to diagnose dis-
abilities, but such practice does not inform intervention and treatment approaches. In contrast, it is
argued that identifying areas of strength to capitalize upon, such as fostering motivation or nurturing
confidence, may promote addressing underlying problems as opposed to simply altering observable
behaviors (Terjesen et al., 2004). Further, when using strength-based assessments, school psycholo-
gists recognize the importance of ecological and contextual variables, which may lead to a deeper, and
arguably, a more appropriate understanding of youths and their resources. Unique information may be
gleaned from a closer inspection of a youth’s strengths that, in turn, facilitates comprehensive inter-
vention planning (Rhee et al., 2001).
Strength-based assessment can promote a positive arena for school psychologists, teachers, and
families to monitor student performance and communicate with success. The endorsement of strengths
can empower children and families to take responsibility and navigate their own life experiences (Rhee
et al., 2001). In addition, school personnel benefit personally from implementing such an approach
through increased optimism, hope, and motivation for change that comes from examining strengths
and competencies rather than feeling overwhelmed and hopeless by a focus on multiple problems
(Clark, 1999; Constantine, Benard, & Diaz, 1999).
A strength-based approach to assessment enhances the practice of school-based consultation, col-
laboration, and intervention. As reflected in state standards, school psychologists have a responsibility
to provide developmental support and opportunities to boost functioning in students (Rhee et al., 2001).
As Rhee and colleagues point out, The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Training
Standard 2.7—Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health states that “school psychologists
provide or contribute to prevention and intervention programs that promote mental health and physical
well-being of students.” Additionally, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing—Pupil Per-
sonnel-School Psychology Specialization Standard 21—Wellness Promotion, Crisis Intervention, and
Counseling, maintains that “candidates are prepared to help design, implement and evaluate wellness,
prevention, intervention, and other mental health programs” (Rhee et al., 2001).
One particularly appealing application of the strength-based approach is in the identification of
keystone variables, which when targeted for intervention are likely to have a broad impact on the
positive functioning of a student after consideration of their particular constellation of behavior (Barnett,
Bauer, Ehrhardt, Lentz, & Stollar, 1996). Specifically, Barnett and colleagues define keystone vari-
ables as pivotal in deflecting a constellation of behavior toward the positive, resulting in associated
benefits from personal, peer, and adult viewpoints, and providing foundational skills for future devel-
opment. Though relatively simple to identify and teach, keystone variables have a profound impact on
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM12

13
changing the trajectory of ongoing problems while preventing the development of future difficulties.
Examples of keystone variables include foundational skills (e.g., study skills and social skills) and
environmental conditions (e.g., parental communication and adult mentoring).
What are Examples of Strength-Based Assessments?
As psychologists have begun to examine aspects of positive psychology more critically, various
instruments have been developed for research and clinical practice. Epstein and Sharma (1998) define
strength-based assessment as:
…the measurement of those emotional and behavioral skills, competencies, and char-
acteristics that create a sense of personal accomplishment; contribute to satisfying
relationships with family members, peers, and adults; enhance one’s ability to deal
with adversity and stress; and promote one’s personal, social, and academic devel-
opment. (p. 3)
A variety of instruments are available to objectively assess variables related to strengths and resil-
iency among youth. Brief overviews of selected strength-oriented assessments are provided in the
following table as an introduction to a sampling of such measures.
What are Limitations and Needs Related to Strength-Based Assessment?
Strength-based assessment and intervention practices are based on strength building, rather than
deficiency focused and, when included in a multidimensional assessment, allow for a more “balanced”
approach to viewing youth development. Moreover, employing this approach to assessment enhances
the practice of school-based consultation, collaboration, and intervention. Despite the intuitive ben-
efits of seeking enriched information about the strengths of children, it is acknowledged that there is
little empirical data examining available strength oriented measures (e.g., BERS and CHKS) in pro-
moting positive youth development. Only recently have studies began to more rigorously examine
these “strength-based” instruments’ ability to reliably assess positive indicators and predict positive
youth outcomes (Scales et al., 2000). Furthermore, as school psychologists expand their use of strength-
based assessment resources, it is essential that they base practice on more than ideological preferences;
thus, further research is necessary to clarify and delineate the value of assessing strengths and the
models, paradigms, or theories that drive their use.
Though longitudinal studies have examined the relative influences of measured risk and protec-
tive factors on targeted developmental outcomes, there is limited research examining the relative mer-
its and limitations of a strength-based approach to assessment in the school context. Further research
investigating the value-added of considering strengths, in addition to risk factors is essential. Like-
wise, often the focus of related research has examined the value of predicting problems; however, a
strength-based approach suggests that it is desirable to examine positive outcomes as well. While
positive psychology has appealed to many scholars and professionals, there is limited empirical inves-
tigation that delineates the merits of this perspective in working with children or families. Further
research explicating how strengths can be used to facilitate positive youth development is important.
That is, to enhance school psychology assessment practices, evidence is needed that a strength-based
assessment that considers a balance of student needs and skills, provides more comprehensive and
meaningful information than traditional deficit-focused models. Ultimately, strength-based assessments
must be more than a set of loosely arranged principles or assessment practices, and organized by
models that lead to better understanding of all students.
As school psychologists expand their application of strength-based perspectives, it is important
that they maintain an open mind about what these approaches encompass. The work of Daleiden,
Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM13

The California School Psychologist, 2004, Vol. 914
Measure Strength-Based Subscales Reliability Concurrent Validity
Behavioral
Assessment Scale
(BASC)
(Reynolds &
Kamphaus, 1992)
Respondent: Parent, Teacher,
Self
Parent and Teacher forms:
Adaptive scale, included
items that measure
Adaptability, Leadership,
Social Skills, and Study
Skills
Self-report form: Adaptive
scale includes items that
measure Relations with
Parents, Interpersonal
Relations, Self-Esteem, and
Self-Reliance
Internal consistency
alpha coefficients
ranged from .80 to
.90
Correlations between the
BASC Teacher form and the
TRF competence subscales
ranged from .52 to .82
Correlations between the
BASC Parent form and the
Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL) competence
subscales ranged from .40 to
.68
Correlations between the
BASC Self form and the
Youth Self Report
competence subscales ranged
from .15 to .39
Behavioral and
Emotional Rating
Scale (BERS)
(Epstein & Sharma,
1998)
Respondent: Primary
Caregiver, Self (BERS-2)
All forms: Interpersonal
Strengths, Affective Strength,
Family Involvement, School
Functioning, Intrapersonal
Strengths
Internal consistency
alpha coefficients =
.98
Test-retest = .99
Interrater reliability
ranged from .83 to
.98
Correlations between BERS
subscales and the Teacher
Report Form (TRF)
competence subscales ranged
from .29 to .73
Correlations between BERS
and the SSRS Social Skills
correlations ranged from .46
to .73 and Academic
Competence ranged from .50
to .72
California Healthy
Kids Survey-
Resilience Youth
Development
Module (RYDM)
(Constantine et al.,
1999)
Respondent: Self
Externally-situated strengths
(e.g., the presence of caring
relationships, high
expectations, and
opportunities to participate in
meaningful activities) and
Internally-situated strengths
(e.g., social competence,
autonomy, sense of meaning,
and purpose)
Internal consistency
alpha coefficients
ranged from .55 to
.88
The exception to this
was the Meaningful
Participation in the
Community subscale,
which had “low
reliability and new
items were
[subsequently]
written to be assessed
in the next phase of
the field test”
(Constantine et al.,
1999, p. 7).
Correlations between RYDM
and the Multidimensional
Life Satisfaction Scale
ranged from .43 to .66
Correlations between RYDM
and the Extended Life
Orientation Test were .56
Table 1.
A Sample of Strength-Based Measures
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM14

15
Developmental
Assets Profile
(DAP)
(Search Institute,
2004)
Respondent: Self
Asset Categories: Support,
Empowerment, Boundaries
and Expectations,
Constructive Use of Time,
Commitment To Learning,
Positive Values, Social
Competencies, and Positive
Identity
Based on the Search
Institute’s 40 Developmental
Assets Model
Internal consistency
alpha coefficients
for the DAP scales
averaged .81 for the
eight asset category
scales.
Internal consistency
was .93 for Internal
assets, .95 for
External assets, and
.97 for Total assets.
Two-week test-
retest were .86, .84,
& .87, respectively.
Correlation between DAP and
the Search Institute 40
Developmental Assets (A&B
survey) is .82 with Total
Assets.
The correlation with risk
behaviors and Total Assets
= -.45, and with the thriving
score and Total Assets of .65.
Coefficients for Internal and
External Assets with the A&B
survey were .80 & .76,
respectively.
Multidimensional
Student Life
Satisfaction Survey
(Huebner, 2001)
Respondent: Self
Satisfaction in multiple
domains; Family, Friends,
School, Living Environment,
and Self
Internal consistency
coefficients between
.72 & .85.
Two- and four-week
test-retest ranged
from .70 to .90.
Family domain correlated .61
with BASC Parent scale,
Friends domain correlated .56
with Loneliness and Social
Dissatisfaction Scale, School
domain correlated .68 with
Quality of School Life Scale,
and Self domain correlated .62
with General Self-Esteem
scale of the Self-Description
Questionnaire-I.
School Social
Behavior Scale-2
(SSBS-2)
(Merrell, 2002)
Respondent: Teacher
Social Competence included
items that measure Peer
Relations, Self-Management/
Compliance, and Academic
Behavior
Internal consistency
alpha and split-half
reliability
coefficients ranged
from .96 to .98
Moderate correlations between
SSBS and CBCL, TRF.
Social Skills Rating
System (SSRS)
(Gresham & Elliott,
1988)
Respondent: Parent, Teacher,
Self
All forms: Social Skill Scale
includes items that measure
Cooperation, Assertion,
Responsibility, Empathy, and
Self-Control
Teacher form: Academic
Competence Scale measure
reading and mathematics
performance, general
cognitive functioning, as well
as motivation and parental
support
Internal consistency
alpha coefficients
ranged from .75 to
.94
Moderate to high correlations
between SSRS and Social
Behavior Assessment, Child
Behavior Checklist (Teacher,
Parent, and Student Self-
Report forms), Harter Teacher
Rating Scale, Piers-Harris,
Walker-McConnell.
Table 1 continued.
A Sample of Strength-Based Measures
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM15

The California School Psychologist, 2004, Vol. 916
Vasey, and Williams (1996), for example, suggests that counting “good” things or “positive” psycho-
logical experiences is insufficient to understand the emotional status of a youth. For example, some
research (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1996) has found that excessively high levels of positive emotions are
associated with developmental problems. An intriguing possibility for strength-based assessment is
that it may also include examination of the regulation of both negative and positive emotions. As such,
it will encourage school psychologists to de-emphasize assessments that search for symptoms and
focus more on how youths manage their social and emotional worlds. An example of a recently devel-
oped instrument that takes such an integrated strength approached is the How I Feel scale (Walden,
Harris, & Catron, 2003), which examines positive and negative emotional experiences as well as emo-
tional control.
There is a need to propose and understand how strengths influence behavior and development.
Some investigations provide intriguing ideas about how this can be done. Research related to the
States of Mind model provides an example of a current theory that holds promise to show how strength-
based approaches can be integrated with more traditional symptoms-based assessment models. States
of Mind research has examined how the balance of individual’s inner thoughts (e.g., ideas and affec-
tive experiences) is related to mental well being. What has been found is that psychological well being
is not defined by the mere absence of negative cognitions or emotional experiences, but by maintain-
ing a proper balance between them. When the ratio of positive to negative thoughts (P/P+N) persis-
tently falls outside of the .56 to .68 range (researchers refer to .62 as a “set point”), then an individual
is at increased risk of experiencing some mental disorder. Too many negative thoughts are associated
with various forms of psychopathology, whereas too many positive thoughts are associated with ex-
cessive optimism and mania. Daleiden et al. (1996) extended this research to include children and
adolescents and found that this model was applicable to them also. This research emphasizes the pres-
ence of an internal psychological modulating process, not a static counting of negative or positive
conditions.
In addition to offering a way to focus on youths’ emotional management, strength-based assess-
ment also focuses attention on positive outcomes for youth. This is another area in which strength-
based approaches can make a potentially useful contribution, by better identifying key measures for
positive development. Within the field of education, this should be a familiar objective because schools
are devoted to developing positive academic achievement. Similarly, students need to develop per-
sonal and social-emotional competence. Current efforts by the Search Institute surveys and the CHKS
Resilience Youth Development Module, based in positive youth development and strength-based ra-
tionales, serve the valuable purpose of refocusing attention to desired developmental outcomes. Within
school psychology, Huebner’s Multidimensional Student Life Satisfaction Survey (e.g., McCullough
& Huebner, 2003) provides a way to examine general well being within the contexts of family, friends,
school, living environment, and self.
Conclusion: From Discussion to Practice
As school psychologists expand their awareness of strength-based assessment tools and practices,
there are a number of entry points they will want to consider. Strength-based assessment can begin at
the level of taking steps to increase awareness of personal strengths as a motivation to reorient assess-
ment and the IEP process away from a search for deficits and negative symptoms. This may include
adding a section to psychological reports under headings such as “Student Personal and Social Re-
sources” or by beginning IEP meetings by asking teachers and parents to comment about what the
student does well or how they are likable. It would then be reasonable to begin the process of incorpo-
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:45 AM16

17
rating at least one existing strength-based assessment instrument regularly into social-emotional com-
petence assessment plans. Even if the referral questions focus on behavioral difficulties or depression,
it may be helpful to also assess what is going well for the student or to compile examples of times when
the student had positive experiences or managed their emotions well. Beyond focusing on individual
students, strength-based assessment also considers how a student’s social contexts act as supportive
resources. From this perspective, school psychologists can also work with their school sites to con-
sider using the CHKS Resilience Youth Development Module, the Developmental Assets Profile and
related assessments to conduct environmental scans to better understand the strength profiles of stu-
dents and the positive youth development capacity of the school. The CHKS is mandated for use in all
California schools every two years (grades 7, 9, and 11). Becoming involved with the collection of
these surveys and working with school committees to examine what the students have to say about
sources of social support at school complements school psychologists’ efforts to consider individual
student strengths. Finally, as progress in the development and application of strength-based assess-
ment continues, school psychologists will benefit by seeking out professional development to expand
understanding of positive psychology and strength-based assessment and to consider how these per-
spectives can be incorporated into assessment, consultation, and counseling services.
REFERENCES
Anthony, E. J. (1987). Risk, vulnerability, and resilience: An overview. In E. J. Anthony & B. Cohler (Eds.), The
invulnerable child (pp. 3-48). New York: Guilford.
Baker, J. A., Dilly, L. J., Aupperlee, J. L., & Patil, S. A. (2003). The developmental context of school satisfaction:
Schools as psychologically healthy environments. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 206-221.
Barnett, D. W., Bauer, A. M., Ehrhardt, K. E., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. A. (1996). Keystone targets for change:
Planning for widespread positive consequences. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 95-117.
Brown, J. H., D’Emidio-Caston, M., & Benard, B. (2000). Resilience education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Buckley, M., Storino, M., & Saarni, C. (2003). Promoting emotional competence in children and adolescents:
Implications for school psychologists. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 177-191.
Butler, K. (1997). The anatomy of resilience. The Family Therapy Networker, 21, 22-31.
Chafouleas, S. M., & Bray, M. A. (2004). Introducing positive psychology: Finding a place within school psychology.
Psychology in the Schools, 16, 1-5.
Clark, M. D. (1999). Strength-based practice: The ABC’s of working with adolescents who don’t want to work
with you. Retrieved February 27, 2001, from http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/prevention/assets/asset2.html
Constantine, N., Benard, B., & Diaz, M. (1999). Measuring protective factors and resilience traits in youth: The
Healthy Kids Resilience assessment. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention
Research, New Orleans, LA.
Cowan, P., Cowan, C. P., & Schultz, M. (1996). Thinking about risk and resilience in families. In E. M. Hetherington
& E. Blechman (Eds.), Stress, coping and resilience in children and families (pp. 155-172). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y. C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in adolescents. Personality &
Individual Differences. 31, 1105-1119.
Daleiden, E. L., Vasey, M. W., & Williams, L. L. (1996). Assessing children’s state of mind: A multitrait, multimethod
study. Psychological Assessment, 8, 125-134.
Doll, B., & Lyon, M. A. (1998). Risk and resilience: Implications for the delivery of educational and mental health
services in schools. School Psychology Review, 27, 348-363.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Holgren, R., & Suh, K. (1996). The relations of
regulation and emotionality to problem behavior in elementary school children. Development and
Psychopathology, 8, 141-162.
Epstein, M. H. (1999). The development and validation of a scale to assess the emotional and behavioral strengths
of children and adolescents. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 258-263.
Ewart, C. K., Jorgensen, R. S., Suchday, S., Chen, E., & Matthews, K. A. (2002). Measuring stress resilience and
coping in vulnerable youth: The social competence interview. Psychological Assessment, 14, 339-352.
Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, J. (1998). Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: A strength-based approach to
assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:46 AM17

The California School Psychologist, 2004, Vol. 918
Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56, 127-136.
Gilman, R., & Huebner, S. (2003). A review of life satisfaction research with children and adolescents. School
Psychology Quarterly. 18, 192-205.
Gore, S., & Eckenrode, J. (1994). Context and process in research on risk and resilience. In R. Haggerty, L.
Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes,
mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 19-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1988). Teachers’ social validity ratings of social skills: Comparisons between
mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 225-234.
Hollister-Wagner, G. H., Foshee, V., & Jackson, C. (2001). Adolescent aggression: Models of resiliency. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 445-466.
Hoyt, M. (1996). Constructive therapies Vol. 2. New York: Guilford.
Huebner, E. S., & Gilman, R. (2003). Toward a focus on positive psychology in school psychology. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 99-102.
Kaplan, H. (1999). Toward an understanding of resilience: A critical review of definitions and models. In M.
Glantz & J. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. New York: Plenum.
Kirby, L. D., & Fraser, M. W. (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective. In M. W. Fraser
(Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (pp. 10-33). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Kretzman, J. P., & McNight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.
Lambert, N. M. (1964). The protection and promotion of mental health in schools. (Public Health Service Publication
No. 1226. 4003342015). Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.
Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Developmental assets:
Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209-
230.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well being measures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628.
MacDonald, G. B., & Validivieso, R. (2000). Measuring deficits and assets: How we track youth development
now, and how we should track it. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, Center for Youth
Development and Policy Research.
Masten, A. S., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of
children who overcame adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, D. (1995). Competence, resilience, and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D.
Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Volume 2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 715-752). New
York: Wiley.
Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999). Competence in the
context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaption from childhood to late adolescence. Development
and Psychopathology, 11, 143-169.
McCullough, G., & Huebner, E. S. (2003). Life satisfaction reports of adolescents with learning disabilities and
normally achieving adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 311-324.
Merrell, K. M. (2002). School Social Behavior Scales, second edition: User’s guide. Eugene, OR: Assessment-
Intervention Resources.
Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive
intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Muris, P. (2001). A brief questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy in youth. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 23, 145-149.
Nettles, S. M., Mucherah, W., & Jones, D. S. (2000). Understanding resilience: The role of social resources.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 47.
O’Leary, V. E. (1998). Strength in the face of adversity: Individual and social thriving. Journal of Social Issues,
54(2), 425–446.
Rapp, C. A. (1997). Preface. In D. Saleeby (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice. New York:
Longman.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC). Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Services.
Rhee, S., Furlong, M., Turner, J., & Harari, I. (2001). Integrating strength-based perspectives in psychoeducational
evaluations. The California School Psychologist, 6, 5-17.
Robertson, L. M., Harding, M. S., & Morrison, G. M. (1998). A comparison of risk and resilience indicators
among Latino/a students: Differences between students identified as at-risk, learning disabled, speech impaired
and not at-risk. Education & Treatment of Children, 21, 333-353.
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:46 AM18

19
Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K.
H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology
(pp. 181-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered: Conceptual considerations, empirical findings, and policy implications.
In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 651-682). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. (2000). Transactional regulation: The developmental ecology of early intervention. In
J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Early intervention: A handbook of theory, practice, and analysis (2nd ed.,
pp. 135-159). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent
development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the
prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 27-46.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 3-9). New York: Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Quote from the APA Positive Psychology website. Retrieved December 20, 2003, from
http://www.apa.org/releases/positivepsy.html
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction [Special Issue]. American
Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Peterson, C. (2000). Positive clinical psychology. Retrieved December 20, 2003, from
http://www.psych.upen.edu/seligman/posclinpsychchap.html
Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Gillham, J. (1995). The optimistic child. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Smokowski, P. R., Reynolds, A. J., & Bezruczko, N. (1999). Resilience and protective factors in adolescence: An
autobiographical perspective from disadvantaged youth. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 425-448.
Steen, T. A., Kachorek, L. V., & Peterson, C. (2003). Character strengths among youth. Journal of Youth &
Adolescence, 32, 5-16.
Terjesen, M. D., Jacofsky, M., Froh, J., & DiGiuseppe, R. (2004). Integrating positive psychology into schools:
Implications for practice. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 163-172.
Walden, T. A., Harris, V. S., & Catron, T. F. (2003). How I Feel: A self-report measure of emotional arousal
regulation for children. Psychological Assessment, 15, 399-412.
Wieck, A., Rapp, C., Sullivan, W. P., & Kisthardt, S. (1989). A strengths perspective for social work practice.
Social Work, 34, 350-354.
Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology
CSP2004_7.21.04 7/21/04, 7:46 AM19