Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP)- For teachers

Abstract

The Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP) — For Teachers is a standardized, ecologically grounded assessment instrument designed to capture educators’ perspectives on the academic performance, behavioral functioning, social-emotional competencies, and family engagement of children in elementary school (grades 1 through 6). Developed by Natasha K. Bowen, Gary L. Bowen, and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the ESSP Teacher Form constitutes the educator-informant component of the comprehensive ESSP assessment battery, which also includes child-report and parent-report instruments. The measure contains 19 multi-part items encompassing key ecological domains: demographic and instructional context, academic attainment and cognitive capacity, attendance and behavioral warning indicators, peer relations, self-regulation, academic work orientation, physical aggression, and home–school collaboration. Items utilize varied, psychometrically targeted response formats including multi-point frequency scales (ranging from Never to Always), ordinal academic performance anchors (e.g., Below grade level, At grade level, Above grade level), standard letter grading metrics, and categorical administrative indicators. Extensive psychometric investigations demonstrate that the teacher-report subscales possess robust internal consistency reliabilities, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .80 to .94 across behavioral and engagement dimensions. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations support multidimensional latent structures that delineate distinct behavioral strengths and environmental barriers. By translating complex social-ecological dynamics into actionable diagnostic profiles, the ESSP Teacher Form serves as an essential tool for multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), targeted school social work interventions, and empirical research investigating the environmental determinants of early elementary school success.

Keywords

Elementary School Success Profile, ESSP Teacher Form, social-ecological assessment, academic engagement, social-emotional competence, multi-tiered systems of support, school social work, behavioral screening, child development, teacher-report rating scale

Authors

The Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP) measurement system was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers led by faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work:

• Natasha K. Bowen, Ph.D., MSW — Professor and leading social work researcher specializing in educational psychometrics, social-ecological assessment systems, and intervention design for at-risk youth. Formerly at the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; currently affiliated with The Ohio State University College of Social Work.
• Gary L. Bowen, Ph.D., ACSW — Kenan Distinguished Professor and former Dean at the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Internationally recognized scholar in family dynamics, school social environments, and the development of the broader School Success Profile (SSP) framework.
• Michael E. Woolley, Ph.D., MSW — Associate Professor and psychometrics expert specializing in educational environments, social capital in schools, and child well-being, formerly contributing to the initial operationalization and validation of the ESSP instrument suite.
• Jack M. Richman, Ph.D., MSW — Professor emeritus and former Dean at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work, co-investigator on the School Success Profile project specializing in clinical social work practice and adolescent risk and resilience.
• Joelle D. Powers, Ph.D., MSW — Academic scholar focusing on school mental health, ecological assessment in primary education, and bridging knowledge gaps among instructional and student support staff.

Correspondence regarding the Elementary School Success Profile instrument suite has historically been directed through the School Success Project at the School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

Purpose

The Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP) for Teachers was engineered to address a significant methodological and practical void in educational and clinical assessment: the absence of a comprehensive, ecologically anchored screening instrument capable of evaluating both the individual child and their immediate micro-environmental support systems from an educator’s vantage point. Elementary school educators observe children across varied, highly demanding academic and social contexts over extended developmental periods. Consequently, teacher perceptions provide an indispensable source of diagnostic variance that often diverges systematically from child self-reports and parental evaluations.

Clinical, Diagnostic, and School-Based Applications

Within applied educational settings, the ESSP Teacher Form fulfills multiple essential clinical and institutional functions:

• Universal Behavioral and Academic Screening: The tool functions as a Tier 1 universal screening mechanism within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks, identifying emerging academic deficits, disengagement, and subclinical behavioral difficulties before they crystallize into chronic academic failure or externalizing disorders.
• Diagnostic Triangulation: When administered concurrently with the ESSP Child Form and the ESSP Parent Form, the teacher instrument allows school psychologists, social workers, and counselors to detect cross-informant discrepancies. For example, a child exhibiting profound academic anxieties at home may present as disengaged or oppositional in the classroom; the ESSP battery isolates the settings in which competencies and impairments manifest.
• Tier 2 and Tier 3 Targeted Intervention Planning: By assessing granular behavioral indicators (e.g., self-regulation vs. peer aggression vs. task concentration) alongside contextual variables (e.g., parent-initiated communication, attendance warnings), student support teams can formulate personalized, multi-systemic intervention plans tailored to a child’s unique ecological profile.
• Program Evaluation and Progress Monitoring: The measure provides standardized baseline and post-intervention metrics to gauge the longitudinal efficacy of behavioral support plans, social-emotional learning (SEL) curricula, and family engagement initiatives across the academic calendar.

Theoretical and Research Rationale

From an academic standpoint, traditional teacher rating scales (such as standard externalizing checklists) have historically focused almost exclusively on individual-level child psychopathology or deficit-oriented behaviors. The ESSP Teacher Form departs fundamentally from this narrow paradigm by adopting an ecological, assets-and-risks approach. It operationalizes educational success not merely as the absence of disruptive conduct, but as the active presence of learning engagement, prosocial peer affiliations, robust self-regulatory capacities, and functional home–school partnerships. The instrument systematically gathers data across both academic competencies and relational ecosystems, enabling researchers to model the direct, mediated, and moderated pathways through which classroom climate and family investment influence elementary school attainment.

Psychological Construct

The ESSP Teacher Form measures a multifaceted constellation of behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and systemic constructs that directly govern a child’s adaptation to the primary school environment. Rather than measuring a single monolithic entity, the instrument captures several distinct psychological and contextual dimensions.

1. Academic Work Orientation and Learning Behaviors

Operationalized primarily in Item 13 (sub-items a through h), this construct reflects a child’s intrinsic motivational orientation toward scholastic tasks, executive functioning in the classroom, and task persistence. Indicators include completing assignments, learning up to cognitive capacity, eagerness to acquire new knowledge, staying on task, sustained concentration, industriousness, attention control, and academic self-reliance. This dimension synthesizes psychological concepts of self-regulated learning and mastery motivation, measuring the behavioral manifestations of cognitive engagement.

2. Social Competence and Prosocial Peer Integration

Encompassed within Item 11 (sub-items a through f) and portions of Item 12, this domain assesses a student’s interpersonal functioning, sociometric standing, and social-cognitive ability. Key dimensions include peer acceptance (being liked and accepted by classmates), social initiative (initiating interactions), cooperative play, and selective affiliation with prosocial peer networks. Prosocial peer integration provides a protective buffer against academic disengagement and internalizing distress, reflecting social capital accessible to the child within the peer microsystem.

3. Emotional Self-Regulation and Impulse Control

Captured across Item 12 (sub-items a through e, g), this construct represents the child’s capacity to modulate affective arousal, delay gratification, and exercise inhibitory control in high-stimulus or frustrating classroom situations. Specific behavioral markers include thinking before acting, offering peer feedback non-coercively (without being “bossy”), self-soothing when overexcited, perspective-taking (empathy/understanding others’ feelings), and managing anger during interpersonal conflict. Effective self-regulation serves as a foundational cognitive infrastructure for both academic learning and classroom harmony.

4. Externalizing Problem Behavior and Rule Non-Compliance

Operationalized across Items 12 (sub-items f, h, i) and 14 (sub-items a through d), this domain measures disruptive, oppositional, and physically aggressive conduct. It delineates between non-violent non-compliance (defiance toward authority, rule violations, stubbornness) and overt behavioral aggression (initiating physical fights, harming others, aggressive play, intentional hitting). Identifying the frequency of these behaviors is clinically paramount, as persistent elementary externalizing behavior represents one of the strongest developmental precursors to longitudinal school drop-out, conduct disorders, and juvenile justice involvement.

5. Academic Attainment and Cognitive Discrepancy

Evaluated through Items 1 through 6, this domain captures objective and normative indicators of academic status. It gathers teacher ratings of current performance in reading/language arts and mathematics relative to grade-level standards, actual report card letter grades, history of grade retention, special education classification (e.g., learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral handicaps, ADHD, gifted programs), and, critically, the teacher’s judgment of the child’s latent capability. The divergence between perceived capability and actual performance yields a vital operational index of academic underachievement.

6. School Attendance and Institutional Risk Markers

Measured via Items 7 through 10, this construct tracks administrative vulnerability markers that reflect school disengagement. It quantifies monthly absence rates alongside institutional disciplinary actions (formal warnings issued to parents regarding attendance, grades, and behavioral infractions). These indicators index the degree of friction existing between the child, the family, and the educational institution.

7. Teacher-Perceived Family Engagement and Educational Capital

Represented in Items 15 through 17, this dimension captures the educator’s assessment of the home microsystem and the home–school mesosystem. It assesses parental involvement behaviors across varied formats: logistics (transportation access), formal academic engagement (parent-teacher conferences, information workshops), informal school presence (volunteering, social events), proactive communication, parental expectations for long-term educational attainment, and direct support for learning within the domestic environment.

Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the ESSP Teacher Form is firmly anchored in established developmental, ecological, and psychological theories, integrating cross-disciplinary frameworks to explain the complex transaction between the developing child and their social environments.

Bronfenbrenner’s Social-Ecological Model

The overarching theoretical infrastructure of the ESSP is Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Social-Ecological Systems Theory (and its later evolution, the Bioecological Model). Bronfenbrenner posited that human development is propelled by progressively more complex reciprocal interactions—termed proximal processes—between an active child and the persons, objects, and symbols in their immediate external environment. The ESSP Teacher Form specifically captures:

• The School Microsystem: The immediate physical setting of the classroom where the child interacts with peers and teachers. Constructs such as task focus, self-regulation, and peer acceptance reflect proximal processes within this microsystem.
• The Mesosystem: The network of linkages and processes taking place between two or more major settings containing the developing person. Items 15 through 17 explicitly evaluate the mesosystemic linkage connecting the home and the elementary school (e.g., parent-teacher conferences, mutual communication, shared educational expectations). In Bronfenbrenner’s formulation, strong, concordant mesosystemic ties significantly amplify the developmental potency of microsystemic resources.

The Social Development Model and Social Control Theory

The behavioral subscales of the ESSP are heavily influenced by the Social Development Model (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996), which synthesizes Travis Hirschi’s Social Control Theory with social learning principles. According to this model, children develop strong prosocial bonding to school when they are provided with opportunities for active participation, possess the requisite social and academic skills to succeed, and receive consistent positive reinforcement for prosocial contributions. When bonding occurs, children adopt the conventional behavioral norms of the educational institution. Conversely, deficits in self-regulation, academic frustration, or affiliation with non-normative peer groups disrupt school bonding, leading directly to the externalizing violations and behavioral warnings indexed in Items 8, 10, 12, and 14.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

The ESSP conceptualizes behavioral engagement and self-reliance through the lens of Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, particularly the construct of triadic reciprocal causation. Cognitive factors (e.g., perceived academic capability, executive focus), behavioral patterns (e.g., assignment completion, aggressive outbursts), and environmental influences (e.g., teacher feedback, peer acceptance, parental involvement) continuously exert reciprocal influence upon one another. For example, a student with high self-regulatory competence (cognitive/behavioral) is more likely to be embraced by prosocial peers (environmental), which reciprocally reinforces school belonging and academic effort.

Epstein’s Framework of Parental Involvement

The parental involvement items (Item 15) draw directly upon Joyce Epstein’s typology of family-school partnerships. Epstein identified distinct types of involvement, including communicating, volunteering, learning at home, and collaborating with the community. The ESSP Teacher Form captures the educator’s direct observation of these collaborative typologies, recognizing that educator perceptions of parental involvement frequently act as an invisible filter shaping teacher expectations, grading practices, and instructional accommodations.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the ESSP Teacher Form has been established through a continuum of validity studies conducted during its development and cross-validation within diverse elementary school cohorts (Bowen, Bowen, & Woolley, 2004; Bowen, 2006; Fischer & Corcoran, 2007).

Content and Face Validity

The conceptual framework and specific item generation for the ESSP stemmed from extensive reviews of empirical educational literature, cognitive interviews with practicing elementary school educators, and consultations with expert panels comprising school social workers, developmental psychologists, and educational administrators. Item wording was rigorously calibrated to reflect observable, concrete behavioral phenomena occurring within classroom and school yard contexts during a standardized reference window (the “past 30 days”), minimizing educator recall bias and inferential ambiguity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by empirical findings confirming that the instrument’s observed variance aligns with hypothesized developmental frameworks. Studies utilizing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Bowen et al., 2004) demonstrate that items loading onto social competence, externalizing behavior, and academic work orientation represent statistically distinct latent constructs rather than a singular halo effect of “good” versus “bad” student behavior. The multidimensional factor structure remains stable across different demographic subgroups, confirming structural invariance across diverse student populations.

Criterion-Related and Concurrent Validity

The ESSP Teacher Form exhibits robust concurrent validity when evaluated against established, legacy psychometric instruments. Teacher ratings of academic work orientation and current performance correlate significantly with objective student outcomes, including standardized reading and mathematics achievement scores (correlations ranging from r = .52 to .68, p < .001). Conversely, the ESSP Physical Aggression and Conduct Problem items correlate strongly (r > .60) with corresponding clinical externalizing scales on the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) Teacher Rating Scales and the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment Teacher Report Form (TRF).

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

The instrument reliably differentiates between clinical and non-clinical student populations. Analyses comparing students formally identified for special education services (Item 6: Learning Disabilities, Behavioral/Emotional Handicaps, OHI/ADHD) with general education peers demonstrate profound, statistically significant differences across ESSP dimensions. Children identified with behavioral/emotional handicaps score significantly lower on Self-Regulation (Item 12) and significantly higher on Aggression (Item 14) and Discipline Warnings (Item 10) compared to their typically developing peers (p < .001, Cohen’s d > 0.90).

Predictive Validity

Longitudinal investigations tracking elementary cohorts assessed by the ESSP demonstrate that low scores on the Academic Work Orientation subscale and elevated rates of institutional warning notices (Items 8–10) robustly predict subsequent grade retention, disciplinary suspensions, and chronic absenteeism across multi-year tracking intervals, controlling for baseline socioeconomic status.

Reliability

The reliability of the ESSP Teacher Form has been rigorously evaluated across dimensions of internal consistency, test-retest stability, and inter-rater consistency.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) across the instrument’s multi-item composite subscales consistently meet or exceed the rigorous psychometric thresholds required for both group-level research and individual-level clinical decision-making (α ≥ .80). In foundational validation samples (Bowen et al., 2004; Bowen, 2006; Fischer & Corcoran, 2007), the following reliability coefficients were obtained:

• Academic Work Orientation (Item 13, 8 items): α = .92 to .94. This scale demonstrates exceptional internal cohesion, indicating that items tapping assignment completion, persistence, effort, and attention consistently measure a unified construct of learning engagement.
• Physical Aggression (Item 14, 4 items): α = .86 to .89. Despite its brief length, this scale captures overt violent conduct with high internal precision.
• Peer Acceptance and Prosocial Behavior (Item 11, 6 items): α = .88 to .91. This subscale provides a highly reliable metric of positive social standing and peer interaction.
• Emotional Self-Regulation / Social Skills (Item 12, positive items): α = .82 to .86. Items measuring impulse control, calm demeanor, and empathy form a cohesive dimension.
• Teacher-Reported Parental School Involvement (Item 15, 7 items): α = .80 to .84. Demonstrates solid internal consistency for educator perceptions of parental attendance at conferences, volunteering, and institutional communication.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Test-retest assessments over short intervals (2- to 4-week latency periods without intervening clinical intervention) demonstrate strong temporal stability, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = .78 to .88 across the primary behavioral subscales. Longer-term stability (e.g., fall to spring administration within the same academic school year) yields moderate-to-high coefficients (r = .55 to .72), reflecting both construct stability and the expected developmental fluctuations attributable to environmental learning and classroom maturation.

Inter-Rater Agreement

When multiple educators familiar with a child (e.g., a primary classroom teacher and an instructional specialist or Communities In Schools [CIS] worker) independently complete the profile, inter-rater correlations range from moderate to substantial (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] ranging from .62 to .79 for observable behavioral domains like aggression and work orientation). Subjective assessments of family involvement demonstrate slightly lower inter-rater concordance (ICC = .51 to .64), underscoring that different school personnel possess varying degrees of direct contact with students’ domestic caretakers.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the ESSP Teacher Form has been established through rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) modeling procedures (Bowen, Bowen, & Woolley, 2004; Bowen, 2006; Wegmann, Thompson, & Bowen, 2011).

Exploratory Factor Structure (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analyses utilizing principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation on the behavioral item sets (Items 11, 12, 13, and 14) consistently revealed clean, highly interpretable factor solutions. The analyses confirmed four primary underlying latent behavioral dimensions:

1. Factor 1: Academic Work Orientation — Dominated by high factor loadings (> .65) from items measuring task persistence, concentration, assignment completion, and industriousness (Item 13).
2. Factor 2: Prosocial Peer Integration — Characterized by strong loadings (> .60) from items assessing peer popularity, friendship formation, and cooperative play with prosocial peers (Item 11).
3. Factor 3: Emotional and Behavioral Self-Regulation — Marked by loadings (> .55) from items assessing deliberate thinking, anger regulation, calming ability, and perspective-taking (Item 12).
4. Factor 4: Overt Physical and Relational Aggression — Defined by heavy loadings (> .70) from items tapping physical fights, intentional hitting, rough aggressive play, and deliberate harm (Item 14).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Goodness-of-Fit

Subsequent confirmatory factor analytic studies evaluated the fit of this multidimensional measurement model against alternative single-factor or two-factor (internalizing vs. externalizing) conceptualizations. In structural equation modeling conducted on multi-site elementary school samples, the hypothesized four-factor behavioral model exhibited superior goodness-of-fit indices:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values typically ranged from .042 to .053 (with 90% confidence intervals remaining below the .06 threshold), indicating excellent approximation of the model in the population.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely exceeded .94, frequently reaching .96 to .97, confirming that the multi-factor behavioral structure provides a far superior fit compared to a null baseline.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Coefficients consistently fell between .93 and .96.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Maintained low residual variance, typically below .045.

A separate CFA conducted on the family engagement indicators (Item 15) confirmed a distinct unidimensional or two-factor latent structure (formal school-based involvement vs. direct home-school communication) with robust factor loadings ranging from .52 to .81, verifying the empirical legitimacy of summarizing parental involvement as an independent environmental dimension.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The ESSP Teacher Form is organized into an intuitive, clinician-friendly paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire. Below is a structured summary of its structural parameters, administrative requirements, and scoring procedures.

Structural Specifications

• Instrument Type: Standardized multi-informant rating scale (Teacher / School Staff Version).
• Target Population: Students enrolled in primary education (Grade 1 through Grade 6; typically ages 6 to 12).
• Target Informant: Regular classroom teachers, special education teachers, Communities In Schools (CIS) site coordinators, school social workers, guidance counselors, or other student services staff familiar with the child’s daily functioning.
• Total Number of Primary Items: 19 core items (incorporating 38 discrete rating sub-questions).
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes per student.
• Reference Time Window: Standard behavioral items explicitly assess functioning within the past 30 days; attendance and involvement items target typical monthly occurrences or current school year status.

Content Domains and Item Allocations

• Informant Context & Professional Identity: Items “About You”, 18, and 19 (Role, Teacher Race/Ethnicity, Years of Elementary Teaching Experience).
• Academic Performance and Classification: Items 1 through 6 (Current grade, grade repetition, academic achievement in reading/math, report card letter grades, intellectual capability, special education/gifted eligibility).
• School Attendance and Administrative Warnings: Items 7 through 10 (Monthly absence frequency, administrative warning notices issued to parents for attendance, academic performance, and behavior).
• Peer Relations and Prosocial Behavior: Item 11 (6 sub-items: a–f).
• Social Skills and Self-Regulation: Item 12 (9 sub-items: a–i).
• Academic Work Orientation: Item 13 (8 sub-items: a–h).
• Aggressive Behavior: Item 14 (4 sub-items: a–d).
• Family Engagement and Home Support: Items 15 through 17 (7 involvement sub-items, parental educational expectations, home learning involvement).

Response Scales

• 6-Point Frequency Scale (Items 11, 12, 13, 14): Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Often (4), Very Often (5), Always (6).
• 4-Point Frequency Scale (Item 15): Never (1), Sometimes (2), Often (3), Always (4).
• 3-Point Academic Normative Scale (Items 3 & 5): Below grade level (1), At grade level (2), Above grade level (3).
• 5-Point Report Card Metric (Item 4): Standard letter grades: A (4), B (3), C (2), D (1), F (0).
• Binary Eligibility Scale (Item 6): NO (0), YES (1).
• Categorical Frequency Intervals (Items 7, 8, 9, 10): Ordinal increments (e.g., 0 days, 1–2 days, 3–4 days, 5 or more days; or Never, Once, Twice, More than twice).
• Ordinal Expectation / Involvement Scales (Items 16 & 17): Low expectations / Not involved up to High expectations / High level of involvement, including a Don’t know option.

Scoring Guidelines and Profile Construction

• Reverse Scoring: Negatively phrased behavioral items within Item 12 (Item 12.f: Has trouble accepting authority; Item 12.h: Breaks rules; Item 12.i: Is stubborn) must be reverse-coded (e.g., Never = 6 to Always = 1) if computing an overall positive social competence composite. Alternatively, they may be isolated into an oppositional non-compliance subscale.
• Composite Subscale Calculation: Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean or sum of completed items within each validated dimension (Academic Work Orientation, Prosocial Peer Integration, Self-Regulation, Physical Aggression, Family School Involvement). Prorating is permissible if at least 80% of items within a subscale are completed.
• Ecological Risk and Asset Profiling: In the computerized School Success Profile diagnostic architecture, raw scores are converted into standardized T-scores or categorized into three ecological diagnostic bands: Needs Support (clinical risk band), Cautionary / Borderline, and Asset / Thriving. This ecological profile yields an immediate visual snapshot of where environmental interventions (e.g., parent outreach) versus individual child accommodations (e.g., attention training) are required.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Elementary School Success Profile instrument suite was conceptualized and developed between 2002 and 2005 as a downward extension of the original School Success Profile (SSP) created for middle and high school students (Bowen, Richman, & Bowen, 2002). Key validation publications and public documentation were finalized in 2004, 2005, and 2006, culminating in its formal publication as an open-access clinical measurement tool in the 4th edition of Measures for Clinical Practice and Research: A Sourcebook (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007, Vol. 1, pp. 510–528).

The copyright of the ESSP measurement system is retained by the instrument developers (Natasha K. Bowen, Gary L. Bowen, and their institutional collaborators). The authors have historically made the paper-and-pencil versions of the profile accessible free of charge for non-profit academic research, university-based dissertations, and school-based clinical practice, provided appropriate citation is maintained and the items are administered without unauthorized alteration. The computerized, web-based scoring, diagnostic profiling, and reporting architecture historically operated via the School Success Online platform (formerly accessible via https://www.schoolsuccessonline.com/), which traditionally provided automated scoring algorithms and school-level aggregated reports on a cost-recovery, subscription, or contracted institutional fee basis. Practitioners and researchers seeking formal clinical implementation permissions, commercial licensing, or integration into district-wide educational data portals should direct inquiries to the developers or the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

• Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2002). The School Success Profile: A results management approach to assessment and intervention planning. In A. R. Roberts & G. J. Greene (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (pp. 787–793). Oxford University Press.
• Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., & Bowen, N. K. (2005). The reliability and validity of the School Success Profile. Xlibris.
• Bowen, G. L., Rose, R. A., Powers, J. D., & Glennie, E. J. (2008). The joint effects of neighborhoods, schools, peers, and families on changes in the school success of middle school students. Family Relations, 57(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00518.x
• Bowen, N. K. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Elementary School Success Profile for Children. Social Work Research, 30(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/30.1.51
• Bowen, N. K. (2008). Cognitive testing and the validity of child-report data from the Elementary School Success Profile. Social Work Research, 32(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/32.1.18
• Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2004). Constructing and validating assessment tools for school-based practitioners: The Elementary School Success Profile. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services (pp. 509–517). Oxford University Press.
• Bowen, N. K., & Powers, J. D. (2005). Knowledge gaps among school staff and the role of high quality ecological assessments in schools. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(6), 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731505276077
• Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. J. (2007). Elementary School Success Profile (ESSP). In Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 510–528). Oxford University Press.
• Wegmann, K. M., Thompson, A. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2011). A confirmatory factor analysis of home environment and home social behavior data from the Elementary School Success Profile for Families. Social Work Research, 35(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.117

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)