Participants were students attending elementary public schools (N = 3145) and their teachers (N = 100). The participating students were Saudi from different regions. The KSA is divided into 13 regions, which were all represented in this study (Table 1).

Participating teachers were general education teachers (see Table 2). All teachers knew their students for more than six months before the data collection process began.

After approval was obtained by the Ethics Committee of King Saud University (KSU-HR-22-151, 8-3-2022) and informed consent was obtained from all participants, data were collected from each of the school sites during the 2022-2023 school year. The first researcher created the school’s assessment team from each region by collaborating with the Saudi Association for Special Education (SASE). Each school’s assessment team assisted the first researcher in providing information to the participating teachers on how to complete the SRSS-IE and the

strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) independently.

All participating teachers completed a brief self-report demographic form, the SRSS-IE, and the SDQ. They also completed the social validity form for both the SRSS-IE and the SDQ.

The SRSS-IE is a free-access measure. The original instrument was developed in 1994 by Drummond to identify students who demonstrated early signs of antisocial behavior patterns at an elementary age [22] . The SRSS-IE is a one-step mass screening instrument consisting of twelve items used to identify students who are potentially at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in elementary schools. Seven of these items measure externalizing behavior, and five of them measure internalizing behavior [13] .

The SRSS-IE consists of 12 items that teachers use to rate their classroom of students based on the teacher’s current knowledge and observation of each individual student’s behavior. Teachers rate individual students based on the frequency of each observed behavior. The response options are in four ordered categories: (0 = never; 1 = occasionally; 2 = sometimes; 3 = frequently). Scores are calculated for one of three risk categories: low, moderate, or high risk. The SRSS-IE is considered appropriate for students in elementary schools. The SRSS-IE has been found to be socially valid and psychometrically sound in different school levels and settings [24] - [33] .

Permission for translation was obtained from the copyright holder (the Ci3T Strategic Leadership Team). The SRSS-IE was translated into Arabic and culturally adapted to Saudi culture. The present study followed the translation and cultural adaptation procedure suggested by Wild and colleagues in 2005 [34] ; Sousa and Rojjanasrirat in 2011 [35] ; and Mondrzak and colleagues in 2016 [36] .

The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) was developed in 1997 by Goodman [37] . The SDQ is a brief, free, one-stage behavioral screening tool. The SDQ consists of 25 statements distributed across five subscales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. Each scale comprises five items. Each item is scored on a 3-point Likert-type scale (0 = not true; 1 = somewhat true; 2 = definitely true). The SDQ has been found to be reliable and valid [38] [39] [40] [41] . The SDQ is available in different languages. The Arabic version of the SDQ was used in this study.

The screening tool rating scale (STR) was developed in 2010 by Lane and Oakes [42] to evaluate the level of social validity of screening tools. The STR is made up of eight items. Each item of the STR is rated on a 5-point Likert-type measuring scale (ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). The total scores of the STR are calculated by summing the scores of the eight items. Consequently, the total scores of the STR range from 8 to 40. Higher numbers indicate higher social validity [42] [43] .

Descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis) were used to evaluate items by examining distributions to detect items that might have ceiling or floor problems. According to classical test theory (CTT), items that occur infrequently limit variance and, in extreme cases, cannot be measured reliably [44] . To ensure consistency with prior research on the SRSS-IE’s English version [27] [28] [29] [30] [44] , item-level analyses employed established thresholds of 0.20 for mean, 4 for skewness, and 15 for kurtosis, chosen based on their effectiveness in identifying potential item issues. The psychometric properties of the SRSS-IE items are provided in Table 3.

The SRSS-IE item mean scores range from 0.08 (steal) to 0.72 (low academic achievement), with several items having very low means. The first item (steal) was the only item that scored < 0.20. This item also had a skewness of (5.289) and a kurtosis of (30.806). None of the SRSS-IE items, other than the steal item, were below the 0.20 criteria. In addition, there was no evidence of skewness or kurtosis concerns, as none of the values examined were greater than 4 or greater than 15, respectively. Accordingly, item-level analyses of the current sample supported the retention of all items.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for the SRSS-IE subscales and items. The alpha coefficients for the SRSS-IE subscales, presented in Table 4, were acceptable, as a reliability of 0.70 to 0.80 is recommended for research purposes [45] .

As depicted in Table 5, the internal consistency of the SRSS items was high, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85. There were no item-total correlations less than 0.35, which indicated high reliability.

Convergent validity between the SRSS-IE and the SDQ scores was assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients. The correlation coefficients between the SRSS-IE

and the SDQ total scores, presented in Table 6, exceeds the recommended threshold of 0.50, by Cronbach and Shavelson [45] , demonstrating strong internal consistency. Looking at the individual subscales, we see a consistent pattern of moderate to strong positive correlations between the SRSS-IE and the SDQ. This indicates that the SRSS-IE and the SDQ are measuring similar constructs, which strengthens the validity of the SRSS-IE as a screening tool to effectively capture various aspects of student behavior problems, including both internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Interestingly, the correlation coefficients for the Hyperactivity and Prosocial subscales are relatively low. This suggests that the SRSS-IE may not be as effective in identifying students with hyperactivity or prosocial behaviors. However, it is important to note that these subscales only comprise a small portion of the overall SDQ score.

Teachers’ perceptions of the feasibility and utility of both the SRSS-IE and the SDQ were examined. Social validity was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Specifically, the average scores for each social validity item as well as the total score of the STR were computed. Teachers’ responses are shown in Table 7. Despite both screening tools being valued by teachers, the SRSS-IE ultimately emerged as the favored option. This preference was rooted in both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Teachers found the SRSS-IE more effective, reflected in the statistically significant difference in scores, with SDQ scores averaging 1.95 points lower (t = 14.28, p = 0.0001). This robust statistical backing solidified the teachers’ positive perception, confirming the SRSS-IE’s superior efficacy as a screening tool.