Anthony J. Roberson

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in tele-mental health care availability in the United States. Although this change has the potential to help alleviate unmet need for mental health care in underserved areas, there are system and policy challenges to sustain tele-mental health models beyond the pandemic. The United States Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) has long been a national leader in offering tele-mental health care. Using data from the National Mental Health Services Survey from 2010 to 2020, this brief report describes growth in tele-mental health care in VA and non-VA mental health facilities over a decade. The study used a sample of approximately 12,000 VA and non-VA mental health facilities in the United States and examined the availability of tele-mental health among facilities. Tele-mental health offerings increased dramatically in 2020, growing from 12% to 35% of facilities across 2010-2019 and then to 69% of facilities in 2020. Nearly, 90% of VA facilities offered tele-mental health during the same time period, and this percentage increased to 98% in 2020. Adapting tele-mental health innovations in the VA for other underserved populations and building a national infrastructure for tele-mental health may promote ongoing use of virtual care models to meet mental health care access challenges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The Student Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire (SSWQ) is a 16-item measure of school-specific subjective wellbeing intended for mental health screening applications. We extended past validation work to scrutinize the SSWQ's previously proposed factor structure (i.e., four group factors; one general factor) and score reliability using two random subsets of data from a sample of 1,020 adolescents in grades 9-12. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the four items related to the educational purpose [EP] group factor did not cohere as expected, unlike the items for the other three-group factors. Revised 12-item models that excluded the EP items were defensible across both subsamples. Model-based reliability indices for the 12-item general factor scores were consistently strong and showed exceptionally high correlation with the original 16-item version (r = .98), yet unique reliability of the group factor scores was comparatively weaker. We recommend future research reevaluate the SSWQ item content and factor structure and consider using model-based factor scores at least in addition to sum scores for analyses when operating in a latent factor framework. We emphasize relying on the general rather than the group factor scores to parse individual differences in student subjective wellbeing or to make critical decisions regarding intervention resource allocation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

This chapter orients readers to the landscape of mindfulness and mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) in schools. First, definitions and examples of the key constructs are given: mindfulness and MBI. Next, a discussion is provided on the empirical support and contemporary issues surrounding two aspects of evidence-based practice related to mindfulness in schools: MBI and mindfulness measurement. Following, major considerations are highlighted related to the practical application of mindfulness in schools, focusing on the benefit of a multireed service delivery and the relevance of diversity and developmental considerations when applying mindfulness for the benefit of all in schools. On the whole, this chapter offers a realistic yet optimistic perspective on mindfulness and MBI—suggesting a promising, empirically supported approach for promoting desirable positive psychological functioning among students and their caregivers. Yet much is still unknown; thus, much work remains to inform a thoroughgoing evidence-based approach to using mindfulness and MBI in schools.

This chapter makes the conceptual and empirical case for using acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with youth in school settings. We provide background for this project by making a logical, evidence-based case for school-based mental health services more generally. We then outline a public health approach to using ACT in schools via multitiered system of supports (MTSS), which emphasizes scaled prevention at universal, targeted, and intensive levels. Following, we review the existing literature on ACT in schools—concluding there is adequate evidence to support use at the targeted level, encouraging yet weaker evidence supporting use at the universal level, and promising yet extremely limited evidence for use at the intensive level. We close the chapter by discussing the limitations and challenges of using ACT in schools, offering future directions for progressing research and practice. We suggest future work in this area might especially benefit from (a) enhancing the methodological rigor of research designs in school-based studies, (b) testing the viability of brief or focused ACT at the targeted level in schools, (c) investigating the treatment utility of ACT-related process measures in schools, and (d) expanding the scope of ACT in schools to promote the wellbeing of teachers and other educators.

The Student Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire (SSWQ) is a 16-item measure of school-specific subjective wellbeing intended for mental health screening applications. We extended past validation work to scrutinize the SSWQ’s previously proposed factor structure (i.e., four group factors; one general factor) and score reliability using two random subsets of data from a sample of 1,020 adolescents in grades 9–12. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the four items related to the educational purpose [EP] group factor did not cohere as expected, unlike the items for the other three group factors. Revised 12-item models that excluded the EP items were defensible across both subsamples. Model-based reliability indices for the 12-item general factor scores were consistently strong and showed exceptionally high correlation with the original 16-item version (r = .98), yet unique reliability of the group factor scores was comparatively weaker. We recommend future research reevaluate the SSWQ item content and factor structure and consider using model-based factor scores at least in addition to sum scores for analyses when operating in a latent factor framework. We emphasize relying on the general rather than the group factor scores to parse individual differences in student subjective wellbeing or to make critical decisions regarding intervention resource allocation.

We evaluated the usefulness of scores from two transdiagnostic scales—the 8-item version of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y8) and the second edition of the Avoidance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II)—for estimating symptom severity on two measures of depression and anxiety. Responses to both measures of psychological inflexibility were analyzed to determine how well scores estimated anxiety and depression above or below a given severity level and at specific categories of symptom severity. Findings indicated that scores from both measures were acceptable to excellent screeners of concurrent ratings of anxiety and depression. Results varied somewhat depending on the measure used, level of severity targeted, and scope of screening. By investigating the screening accuracy of these transdiagnostic measures and potential cut scores to ease in interpreting results, we hope these measures might prove useful for addressing barriers in public health screening endeavors.

Trustworthy scientific evidence is essential if school psychologists are to use evidence-based practices to solve the big problems students, teachers, and schools face. Open science practices promote transparency, accessibility, and robustness of research findings, which increases the trustworthiness of scientific claims. Simply, when researchers, trainers, and practitioners can ‘look under the hood’ of a study, (a) the researchers who conducted the study are likely to be more cautious, (b) reviewers are better able to engage the self-correcting mechanisms of science, and (c) readers have more reason to trust the research findings. We discuss questionable research practices that reduce the trustworthiness of evidence; specific open science practices; applications specific to researchers, trainers, and practitioners in school psychology; and next steps in moving the field toward openness and transparency.

Bullying involvement among youth has consistently been linked to potentially serious consequences for both perpetrators and victims. To help clarify the nature and scope of youth bullying involvement, empirically validated assessment instruments measuring victimization and perpetration behaviors are needed for use in research and practice. The present study investigated the latent factor structure of the 22 victimization and perpetration items within the 2009-2010 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) self-report survey. Structural validity analyses were conducted using a representative sample of U.S. youth in Grades 5 to 10 (N = 11,449) obtained from the national administration of the HBSC self-report survey. Results suggested a two-factor latent structure comprised of bullying victimization and perpetration was the most theoretically and psychometrically sound measurement model for these data. In addition, multigroup measurement and structural invariance analyses showed that this model functioned equitably across student race/ethnicity, sex, and grade level, supporting the measure’s use with diverse student populations.