Parents

An Interdisciplinary Model of School Absenteeism in Youth to Inform Professional
Practice and Public Policy

Author(s): Christopher A. Kearney
Source: Educational Psychology Review , 2008, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2008), pp. 257-282
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23363891
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23363891?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Psychology Review
This content downloaded from

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
DOI 10.1007/s 10648-008-9078-3
REVIEW ARTICLE
An Interdisciplinary Model of School Absenteeism

in Youth to Inform Professional Practice
and Public Policy
Christopher A. Kearney
Published online: 12 July 2008

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Problematic school absenteeism in youth has long been a complex and vexatiou
issue for psychologists, educators, and researchers from other disciplines. An examination
of problematic school absenteeism from different perspectives over many decades has led t
poor comparability across publications, policies, and assessment and intervention protocols
This article briefly reviews literature from psychology, social/criminal justice, and
education to outline important factors that influence school absenteeism. An interdisciplin
ary model is then proposed with an emphasis on common terminology and definitions
comprehensiveness with respect to proximal and distal influences, fluidity and flexibility t
account for rapid changes in this population, and user-friendliness to generate suggestions
regarding assessment and intervention. Implications of the model are then drawn f
professional practice and public policy, including recommendations for individual an
systemic intervention at multiple levels of risk and severity.
Keywords School absenteeism • Truancy • Youth
Absenteeism in youth aged 5-17 years refers to excused or unexcused absences from
elementary, middle, or high school. Occasional school absenteeism is typically no
problematic, but excessive absenteeism has been linked to serious problems such as
violence, substance use, injury, suicide attempt, risky sexual behavior, and teenage
pregnancy (Almeida et al. 2006; Chou et al. 2006; Denny et al. 2003; Grunbaum et al.
2004; Guttmacher et al. 2002; Hallfors et al. 2002; Henry and Huizinga 2007). Myriad
physical problems such as asthma and psychological problems such as anxiety, depressiv
and disruptive behavior disorders are associated with problematic absenteeism as we
(Borrego et al. 2005; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2004; Egger et al. 2003
Kearney 2008a; Kearney and Albano 2004; McShane et al. 2001; Tinkelman and Schwart
2004).
C. A. Kearney (Kl)
Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas,
NV 89154-5030, USA
e-mail: chris.kearney@unlv.edu
<£} Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
258 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Youths with excessive absenteeism are also at high risk for permanent dropout from
school, which may lead to economic deprivation, detachment from school-based health
services, and social, occupational, and marital problems in adulthood (Hibbett and
Fogelman 1990; Hibbett et al. 1990; Kogan et al. 2005; Tramontina et al. 2001; US
Census Bureau 2005). Comprehensive reviews of absenteeism, including characteristics,
history, and intervention, are available from various literature areas (Heyne et al. 2001;
Kearney 2001, 2008a; King and Bernstein 2001; Lyon and Cotler 2007; Pellegrini 2007;
Reid 2000, 2005; Teasley 2004).
The prevalence of problematic absenteeism is greater than most childhood mental
disorders. Specifically, 7% of fourth and sixth graders in the USA miss at least five school
days per month (National Center for Education Statistics 2006a). This figure, however,
includes only youths who miss a complete school day. Many youths also skip classes, arrive
tardy to school, or surreptitiously miss school without detection; these instances are often
uncounted when deriving absentee prevalence figures. Indeed, one comprehensive survey
indicated that 54.6% of high schoolers sometimes skip classes and that 13.1% often do so
(Guare and Cooper 2003). In addition, the status dropout rate is 10.3% among 16-24-year
olds (National Center for Education Statistics 2006a). In contrast, the median prevalence of
most major mental disorders in children and adolescents is less than 5% (Costello et al.
2005).
The seriousness and prevalence of problematic school absenteeism has led researchers in
several different fields to study and address this population. Predominant and historical
fields of study include psychology, social/criminal justice (broadly defined with social work
and sociology), and education (e.g., Chitiyo and Wheeler 2006; Kearney 2007a; Shoenfelt
and Huddleston 2006; Stroobant and Jones 2006; Zhang et al. 2007). Other fields of study
contributing to the problematic absenteeism literature include child development, family
and ethnic studies, law, medicine/psychiatry, and nursing (e.g., DeSocio et al. 2007; Henry
2007; Ladwig and Khan 2007; Layne et al. 2003; Randolph et al. 2006; Sinha 2007). Much
of this latter literature, however, is closely related to areas of psychology, social/criminal
justice, and education. A key drawback of these divergent approaches to studying
problematic absenteeism has been considerable dispersion among researchers with respect
to use and definition of key terminology. As such, publications across disciplines have very
little comparability in this area. This has led to severe lack of consensus regarding proper
assessment and intervention strategies for youths with problematic absenteeism (Kearney
2003).
The next sections of this article involve a brief review of the major conceptualization
approaches (psychology, social/criminal justice, education) toward problematic absentee
ism. The primary purpose of this article, however, is to propose a comprehensive,
interdisciplinary model to conceptualize youths with problematic absenteeism. This model
is proposed as a means of helping researchers in different fields begin their study from a
common starting point, consider all factors that impact youths with problematic
absenteeism, and develop comparability across publications. In addition, implications are
made from this proposed model for professional practice and public policy, including broad
suggestions for assessment and intervention.
Psychological Approaches Toward Problematic Absenteeism
Psychological approaches toward problematic absenteeism concentrate primarily on child

symptoms, immediate proximal factors, and circumscribed intervention. Key historical
&} Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 259
terms from psychological approaches include school phobia, separation anxiety, school
refusal, and school refusal behavior (SRB; Table 1). Pertinent child symptoms include
anxiety, depression, fear, perfectionism, and manipulativeness (Atkinson et al. 1989; Berg
et al. 1985; Bernstein and Garfinkel 1986, 1988; Bools et al. 1990; Egger et al. 2003;
Honjo et al. 2001, 2003; Kearney and Albano 2004; Kolvin et al. 1984). Key personality
traits and attributional styles linked to absenteeism include introversion and low openness,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (Kee 2001; Lounsbury et al.
2004; Okuyama et al. 1999). Pertinent proximal factors include (1) avoiding stimuli that
provoke negative affectivity (symptoms of anxiety and depression), (2) escaping aversive
social and/or evaluative situations, (3) pursuing attention from significant others, and/or (4)
pursuing tangible rewards such as pleasurable activities outside of school (Kearney 2001,
2007a).
Psychological interventions for youths with problematic absenteeism are typically
circumscribed to focus on key symptoms and proximal variables. Many of these
interventions involve cognitive-behavioral-based manualized or otherwise specific techni
ques such as psychoeducation regarding anxiety, somatic management skills such as
relaxation training or breathing retraining, cognitive therapy, exposure-based practices,
supportive therapy, and parent-based contingency management (Heyne et al. 2002; Kearney
and Silverman 1999; King et al. 1998; Last et al. 1998). These interventions have been
used as well with anxiolytic or antidepressant medication (Bernstein et al. 2000; Layne et
al. 2003). The general goals of these interventions have been to help youths manage anxiety
and boost daily attendance and help parents appropriately consequate school attendance and
nonattendance.
Psychological approaches toward problematic absenteeism have burgeoned in recent
years, but two key criticisms remain. First, psychologists tend to focus on internalizing
symptoms and immediate proximal variables, so many children are excluded from
conceptualization and intervention. Among the major treatment outcome studies referenced
Table 1 Key Definitions Related to Problematic School Absenteeism
Term Definition
School phobia
Fear-based absenteeism, as when a child refuses school due to fear of some specific
stimulus such as a classroom animal or fire alarm (Tyrell 2005)
Separation
Excessive worry about detachment from primary caregivers and reluctance to attend school
anxiety (Hanna et al. 2006)
School refusal A broader term refetring to anxiety-based absenteeism, including panic and social anxiety,
and general emotional distress or worry while in school (Suveg et al. 2005)
School refusal An even broader term referring to any child-motivated refusal to attend school or difficulty
behavior remaining in classes for an entire day, whether anxiety-related or not (Kearney and
Silverman 1996)
Delinquency Akin to conduct disorder, refers to rule-breaking behaviors and status offenses such as
stealing, physical and verbal aggression, property destruction, underage alcohol or
tobacco use, and violations of curfew and expectations for school attendance (Frick and
Dickens 2006; McCluskey et al. 2004)
Truancy Illegal, unexcused absence from school; the term may also be applied to youth absenteeism
marked by surreptitiousness, lack of parental knowledge or child anxiety, criminal
behavior and academic problems, intense family conflict or disorganization, or social
conditions such as poverty (Fantuzzo et al. 2005; Fremont 2003; Reid 2000)
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
260 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
in the previous paragraph, for example, the diagnosis of a child anxiety disorder or
depression or presence of severe emotional upset was mandatory. In addition, key
exclusionary criteria included presence of conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, or antisocial characteristics. Unfortunately, the prevalence of externalizing
problems is quite high among youths with problematic absenteeism, including those
identified with school refusal (McShane et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2007). Thus, many youths
were neglected in these studies.
A second key criticism of psychologists in this area is that broader contextual factors that
impact school attendance, especially school- and community-based factors, are frequently
ignored (Lyon and Cotler 2007; Place et al. 2000). Psychologists have focused some
attention on family and ethnic factors and school climate issues, but such attention remains
sparse (Brookmeyer et al. 2006; Liang et al. 2002; McShane et al. 2001). Pellegrini (2007)
further criticized the use of frequent and overtly clinical language to conceptualize school
nonattendance from a pathological perspective. A comprehensive model of problematic
school absenteeism must therefore include consideration of larger, systemic factors. Such
consideration has been undertaken by researchers and theorists from a social/criminal
justice perspective.
Social/Criminal Justice Approaches toward Problematic Absenteeism
Social/criminal justice approaches toward problematic absenteeism concentrate primarily

on rule-breaking behavior, broader contextual factors, and systemic and legal interventions.
Key historical terms from social/criminal justice approaches include delinquency and
truancy (Table 1). Social/criminal justice researchers have generally concentrated their
attention on factors such as homelessness, poverty, teenage pregnancy, neighborhood
disorganization, family chaos, and association with delinquent peer groups. Homelessness
is a significant barrier to school attendance for many children, and only 77% of homeless
youths regularly attend school (US Department of Education 2002, 2004). In related
fashion, youths from impoverished families are much more likely to miss school than their
peers (Zhang 2003). In addition, teenage mothers complete 1.9-2.2 fewer years of
schooling than nonpregnant peers, and only 60-80% of these mothers complete high school
(Hofferth et al. 2001).
Researchers have also examined neighborhood disorganization and school absenteeism,
claiming that unsafe or unsupportive communities often result in poor adult supervision,
high rates of child self-care, and lack of responsiveness to truancy (Chapman 2003;
Crowder and South 2003; Henry 2007; Reid 2005). Neighborhood disorganization and
excessive school absenteeism may be related as well to family chaos marked by high rates
of divorce, separation, child maltreatment, conflict, foster care, and parental alcohol and
other drug use (Casas-Gil and Navarro-Guzman 2002; Kearney 2001; McShane et al 2001;
Taussig 2002). Youths who associate with delinquent peer groups are at particular risk for
school dropout as well (Farmer et al. 2003). This phenomenon may apply particularly to
youths with poor peer competence, who fail to engage in extracurricular activities or who
seek employment outside of school (Alexander et al. 2001; Jimerson et al. 2000;
McWhirter et al. 1998; Warren and Lee 2003).
Interventions for problematic absenteeism from social/criminal justice perspectives are
thus broader than those from a psychological perspective. Such interventions include (1)
early education, family, and health services, (2) court referral and community services, and
(3) police and other legal strategies. Education, family, and health services to impoverished
'■?_) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 261
families with preschool/early grade youngsters have been developed to enhance academic
and parenting skills as well as resources for at-risk families (Bowen and Richman 2002;
Peterson et al. 2007). To boost school attendance, a focus has been made on early language
and math skill development, structured small-group learning experiences, full-day
kindergarten, and low student-to-teacher ratios. Family outreach and other early
intervention activities have been utilized as well to mobilize resources, provide home
visits, enroll youngsters in school, enhance nutrition, and screen for speech, medical, and
other disorders (Reynolds et al. 2001).
Court referral and community services commonly involve placing truancy court
proceedings and social services within school buildings (Fantuzzo et al. 2005; McCluskey
et al. 2004). Such integration is thought to reduce stigmatization, transportation problems,
and attrition and relapse toward absenteeism. Families are also provided with help at
various levels (financial, social, occupational) to develop a plan to enhance a child's school
attendance. Another option in this regard is to provide home visits and a case management
plan to help youths avoid a legal record as a status offender (Richtman 2007; Shoenfelt and
Huddleston 2006). In particular, obstacles to school attendance such as transportation are
initially addressed before referral to the legal system (Garrison 2006). Finally, programs
have been developed involving wide-scale police sweeps for truant youths in a community.
Youths detained in this manner may then be assigned to a special administrative unit within
a school to address obstacles to attendance or, in more chronic cases, referral is made to a
juvenile justice system (White et al. 2001).
The psychological and social/criminal justice literatures on problematic school
absenteeism have rich and vibrant histories that deeply affect how educators approach
this issue. However, both literatures have focused on individual or broad systemic factors
with less consideration of school variables and parent attitudes toward education. Pertinent
variables in this regard include school violence and victimization, school climate, and
parent involvement. A comprehensive model of problematic absenteeism must consider
school-related factors that help create aversive learning environments and parent and
student disengagement.
Educational Approaches toward Problematic Absenteeism
Educational or institutional approaches toward problematic absenteeism have been greatly

influenced by social/criminal justice (truancy) and psychological (school refusal)
perspectives. For example, many school district policies for absenteeism rely on legal
definitions of truancy and perfunctory referral to juvenile justice systems (Zhang 2004).
This may occur because such referrals are logistically friendly, because state and other
funding is often contingent on student attendance, and because of "zero tolerance" policies
adopted by many schools for tardiness and other forms of poor attendance (James and
Freeze 2006; Reid 2003).
However, school district personnel commonly use counseling and other informal or
nonjudicial methods to address absenteeism because they recognize that many youths have
psychological or otherwise exigent circumstances that impede school attendance (Scott and
Friedli 2002). For many of these latter children, school-based therapy interventions or
groups have been established to help youths increase attendance, manage anxiety and
depression, cope with divorce or family/peer conflict, or boost self-esteem. Emphasis has
been placed as well on addressing school-based factors that contribute to absenteeism (see
below; Lauchlan 2003; Teasley 2004).
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
262 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
A blend of psychological and social/criminal justice perspectives in many school

districts has occurred as well because differentiating children with "school refusal" and
"truancy" is logistically difficult. As several authors have noted, considerable overlap
occurs between these groups with respect to symptomatology, diagnosis, severity of
nonattendance, and school-related factors that contribute to nonattendance (Egger et al.
2003; Kearney 2003, 2008a; Lyon and Cotler 2007; Pilkington and Piersel 1991). An
illustrative example is a child who secretly skips classes to escape aversive evaluative
situations and because the school curriculum is not well-tailored to his academic needs.
Simple labels or definitions of problematic absenteeism such as school refusal or truancy
have not been comprehensive or fluid enough to fully conceptualize this population.
Educators and related researchers have focused substantial recent attention on school
related variables most linked to problematic absenteeism. Key variables in this rega
include school violence and victimization, school climate, and parent involvement. Sch
violence and victimization includes various forms of assault, injury, and theft as well
bullying. Approximately 6% of American students avoided a school activity in the pa
6 months due to fear of attack or harm. In addition, bullied youths are 2.1 times more like
than peers to feel unsafe at school, and 20% of elementary school students reportedly sk
school to avoid bullying (Glew et al. 2005; National Center for Education Statistics 2006
School climate refers to student feelings of connectedness to their school as well as
culture of safety, support, respect, and flexibility regarding academic curricula an
disciplinary practices (McNeely et al. 2002; Shochet et al. 2006). School climate i
significantly related to attendance and inversely to school dropout (Brookmeyer et a
2006). School dropout is also less likely for smaller schools with more challenging courses
positive student-teacher relationships, and grade promotion (Jimerson et al. 2002; Lee and
Burkham 2003). Conversely, inadequate school climate is significantly related to attendanc
problems. Primary reasons include poorly tailored academic curricula and student boredom
rigid disciplinary practices regarding attendance and misbehavior, frequent student-teach
conflict, and neglect of language and cultural differences between families and teache
(Conroy et al. 2006; Guare and Cooper 2003; National Center for Education Statistics
2006a; Weisman and Gottfredson 2001).
Parent involvement in education has also been raised as an issue that influences
attendance. Though less well defined than school violence or climate, parent involvemen
generally refers to actively developing a child's academic progress, monitoring attendance
and homework, and enhancing school quality via participation in parent-teache
associations and other activities. Positive parent involvement relates closely to a child's
success in school, but poor parent involvement obviously does not (Bridgeland et al. 2006
Orfield 2004). Empirical data remain needed as to the causes of poor parent involvement
However, several authors have identified key culpable factors such as language barriers and
cultural differences between families and school officials, lax family attitudes about
academic progress or developmental milestones, family-school official conflict and
mistrust, family resistance toward acculturation, teacher absenteeism, and school-base
racism and discrimination (Brand and O'Connor 2004; Grolnick et al. 1997; Martinez et al
2004; Teasley 2004).
Educators have generally pursued multiple strategies to curb absenteeism, including
legal means and counseling approaches. Other interventions have involved a school-based
focus on variables described in this section. With respect to school violence and
victimization, key systemic interventions include counseling services following shooting
and other traumatic events, conflict resolution practices, skills training groups for
aggressive and victimized children, extracurricular activities to reduce racial tension
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 263
expulsion of violent students, increased school security, and outreach with community
based youth and church groups as well as police and antigang units (Astor et al. 2005;
Mytton et al. 2002; Woody 2001). School-wide programs to reduce bullying include clearly
defined rules and consequences for verbal and physical aggression, increased monitoring of
student intimidation, mediation programs, and social skills training groups (Greene 2005;
Hernandez and Seem 2004; Smith et al. 2003; Vreeman and Carroll 2007).
Programs to enhance school climate include closely matching course content to
individual student cognitive ability and academic needs, flexible course scheduling,
school-wide traditions and ceremonies, clearly stated rules with case-by-case investigations
for appropriate consequences, and high student activity in extracurricular activities (Stone
2006; Worrell and Hale 2001). In related fashion, strategies to boost parent involvement
include improved parent-teacher communication and use of translators, home visits,
reduction in obstacles such as child care and transportation problems, parent participation in
classroom activities, and matching diversity of school personnel to the surrounding
community (Broussard 2003).
Other relevant school-based strategies for problematic absenteeism include restructuring
the role of the homeroom teacher to identify at-risk students, utilizing peers as attendance
monitors and reinforcing agents for attendance, maintaining a student's peer group across
homeroom and initial classes, providing frequent feedback to parents about a student's
attendance, providing school-based rewards for student attendance, instituting summer
bridge and self-contained education units to prevent dropout, and providing school-based
prenatal care (Barnet et al. 2004; Lever et al. 2004). School-wide programs to boost student
health and thus attendance have been implemented as well. These include programs to
manage asthma symptoms, increase handwashing, provide mass flu immunization and lice
management, and institute specialized educational services for youths with chronic medical
conditions (Guevara et al. 2003; Guinan et al. 2002; Meadows and Le Saux 2004; Wiggs
Stayner et al. 2006).
An Interdisciplinary Model of Problematic Absenteeism
Researchers and authors from psychological, social/criminal justice, educational, and other
approaches to problematic absenteeism have produced a vast but incongruent literature with
respect to conceptualization of and intervention with this population. The use of varying
terminology, frameworks, and methods of addressing excessive school absenteeism has led to
exceptionally poor comparability across publications in this area as well as disjointed,
uncoordinated approaches for resolving the problem. In this section, therefore, an
interdisciplinary model of problematic absenteeism is proposed as a common starting point
for all researchers in this area. This model focuses on a comprehensive but practical approach
to define and conceptualize youths with problematic absenteeism. In the following sections,
implications are drawn from this model for professional practice and public policy.
A sufficient model of problematic absenteeism must meet four main criteria. First, the
model must include basic terminology and definitions acceptable to researchers,
practitioners, and lay persons from different viewpoints. Specifically, this terminology
should be easily amenable as a common starting point for researchers, theorists, clinicians,
educators, medical professionals, parents, and students. In essence, the terminology should
serve as an "umbrella" that adequately covers all perspectives. Toward this end, definitions
and terminology should eschew traditional theoretical bents and focus on clarity,
practicality, conciseness, and coverage of all youths with problematic absenteeism. Key
4>) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
264 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
aspects of this criterion must include a clear distinction between problematic and
nonproblematic absenteeism and must include all forms of problematic absenteeism.
Second, the model must be comprehensive enough to account for the myriad risk factors
that impinge upon school attendance. A key drawback of specific literature in this area is
relative neglect of proximal or distal factors that influence a particular child with excessive
absenteeism. A sufficient model of problematic nonattendance must consider child-, parent-,
family-, peer-, school-, and community-based factors that must be addressed to fully resolve
the problem.
Third, the model must be fluid and flexible to account for frequent changes in behaviors,
attendance patterns, and risk factors in this population. Many children, for example, show
varying types of absenteeism in a short period of time, including tardiness, skipped classes, or
complete absence from school. Factors that influence a child's nonattendance change
frequently as well, as when a child's parents insist on attendance one day but not another or
when a bully at school is present or not. The model should also account for compounding,
transactional influences that help lead to worsened school attendance and possible school
dropout over time. Finally, the model must be flexible enough to account for risk factors that
impact school attendance but which have not yet been extensively examined by researchers.
Fourth and finally, the model must be user-friendly to those wishing to develop proper
assessment and intervention strategies for this population. The model should serve as a
basis for recommendations regarding assessment of key areas of functioning and concern as
well as varying levels of intervention for a particular child and for groups of children. The
following sections outline a proposed model of problematic school absenteeism that
addresses these four key criteria.
Criterion one: common terminology and definitions
An adequate foundation for a satisfactory model of school absenteeism must include clear
and operational definitions of nonproblematic and problematic absenteeism. Several
researchers have called for atheoretical definitions of nonproblematic and problematic
school absenteeism to increase consensus, clarity, and comparability across publications
(Egger et al. 2003; Lyon and Cotler 2007; Pilkington and Piersel 1991). Kearney (2003)
provided an initial definition of nonproblematic and problematic absenteeism that may be
instructive. Nonproblematic school absenteeism was defined as formal or informal school
absence agreed on by parents and school officials as legitimate and not involving detriment
to the child. Such a definition covers temporary or short-term absences, as in cases of true
child illness, family emergency, religious holiday, hazardous weather conditions, natural
disaster, or other exigent circumstances. In addition, nonproblematic absenteeism can
include lawful conditions such as home schooling, homebound instruction, vocational
training, work releases, and legitimate part-time, laboratory, or other alternative instruction.
Nonproblematic absenteeism also includes self-corrective behavior, as when a child is
occasionally late to school or misses a small amount of school time but returns
expeditiously. Self-corrective absenteeism is commonly evident following summer or
extended breaks from school when some youths become anxious or resistant regarding
attendance. In many of these cases, anxiety or resistance is appropriately managed by
children or parents, and full-time attendance ensues within 2 weeks (Kearney and Albano
2007a). Finally, cases of nonproblematic absenteeism must be sanctioned by parents and
school officials. Cases of school withdrawal, where parents deliberately and illegitimately
keep a child home from school, are thus excluded. Common reasons for school withdrawal
include concealment of maltreatment, economic purposes such as working or child care,
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 265
unjustified fear of harm or kidnap of the child at school, or assistance of a parent with
psychopathology (Kearney 2001).
The more salient definitional challenge regards problematic absenteeism. Many
researchers and school districts have relied on specific days missed from school or
percentage of days missed from school to define problematic absenteeism. For example,
Lyon and Cotler (2007) reviewed several treatment outcome studies that defined
problematic absenteeism as 10-40% days missed from school. In addition, a common
definition of truancy utilized by school districts is 10 days missed from school in a fall or a
spring semester, often defined as 15-18 weeks or 90 school days. Days missed from school
commonly include complete absences or a significant number of missed classes (Corville
Smith et al. 1998; DeSocio et al. 2007).
Though definitions based only on missed school days or classes are ostensibly clear,
they do not represent the full scope of attendance problems displayed by many youths.
Many youths with problematic absenteeism are completely absent for limited or extended
periods of time, periodically or repeatedly skip classes, are chronically tardy in the
morning, demonstrate ongoing morning misbehaviors in an attempt to miss school, and
attend school under extreme duress that precipitates continued pleas to parents and school
officials for future nonattendance (Kearney 2006a). A simple definition based on days
missed per semester also denies a prompt response to the problem. A child who finally
accumulates ten formal absences by mid-January may not be referred for appropriate
intervention until that time. In addition, a child with eight absences in the fall and eight
absences in the spring may not qualify for intervention at all even if a serious
psychological, family, or other problem is clearly evident.
A satisfactory definition of problematic absenteeism must therefore account for all
aspects of nonattendance, allow for early intervention, and be practical enough for use
by researchers, clinicians, educators, and others. As such, problematic absenteeism could
refer to school-aged youths who (1) have missed at least 25% of total school time for
at least 2 weeks, (2) experience severe difficulty attending classes for at least 2 weeks
with significant interference in a child's or family's daily routine, and/or (3) are absent
for at least 10 days of school during any 15-week period while school is in session
(i.e., a minimum of 15% days absent from school). Regarding the latter situation, days
absent from school would include days a child missed at least 25% of the school day.
A 25% level was chosen for criteria 1 and 3 based on the median used by treatment
outcome researchers and on the rationale that 25% represents a substantial portion of a
school day or 2.5 missed days in a 10-day (2-school-week) span (Lyon and Cotler
2007).
This multifaceted definition has several advantages. First, the definition is atheoretical.
The definition relies neither on traditional notions such as school refusal or truancy nor on
possible etiological pathways. Instead, the definition focuses on practical and inclusive
demarcations that can be utilized by researchers and others from various perspectives.
Second, the definition is specific and institutes a 2-week criterion to exclude self-corrective
or other aspects of nonproblematic absenteeism. Third, the definition includes youths who
display various aspects of problematic absenteeism and who require intervention at an early
stage to address the problem. Fourth, utilizing any 15-week period in criterion 3 allows for
intervention throughout a school year as opposed to only the end of a semester. Fifth, the
criteria allow for intervention with youths whose absenteeism is sporadic but still
problematic. For example, criterion 2 includes youths who, over at least a 2-week period,
display various forms of nonattendance such as tardiness significant enough to trigger
personal or familial distress.
£) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
266 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Table 2 Proximal and Distal Factors Related to Problematic School Absenteeism
Factors
Key child factors Extensive work hours outside of school

Externalizing symptoms/psychopathology
Grade retention
History of absenteeism
Internalizing symptoms/psychopathology
Learning-based reinforcers of absenteeism/functions
Low self-esteem and school commitment
Personality traits and attributional styles
Poor health or academic proficiency
Pregnancy
Problematic relationships with authority figures
Race and age
Trauma
Underdeveloped social and academic skills

Key parent factors Inadequate parenting skills
Low expectations of school performance/attendance
Maltreatment
Problematic parenting styles (permissive, authoritarian)

Poor communication with school officials
Poor involvement and supervision
Psychopathology
School dropout in parents and among relatives
School withdrawal
Single parent
Key family factors Enmeshment
Ethnic differences from school personnel
Homelessness
Intense conflict and chaos
Large family size

Poor access to educational aids
Poor cohesion and expressiveness
Poverty
Resistance to acculturation
Stressful family transitions (divorce, illness, unemployment, moving)
Transportation problems
Key peer factors Participation in gangs and gang-related activity
Poor participation in extracurricular activities
Pressure to conform to group demands for
absenteeism or other delinquent acts
Proximity to deviant peers
Support for alluring activities outside of
school such as drug use
Victimization from bullies or otherwise
Key school factors Dangerousness/poor school climate
Frequent teacher absences
High systemic levels of grade retention
Highly punitive or legal means to address all
cases of problematic absenteeism
Inadequate, irrelevant, or tedious curricula
Inadequate praise for student achievement
and attendance
Inadequate responsiveness to diversity issues
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 267
Table 2 (continued)
Factors
Inconsistent or minimal consequences for

absenteeism
Poor monitoring of attendance

Poor student-teacher relationships
School-based racism and discrimination
Key community factors Disorganized/unsafe neighborhood

Economic pull factors (e.g., plentiful, well
paying jobs requiring little formal education)
Geographical cultural and subcultural values
High gang-related activity
Intense interracial tension
Lack of social and educational support services
School district policies and legal statutes
regarding absenteeism
Pertinent references: Astor et al. 2002; Attwood and Croll 2006; Battin-Pearson et al. 2000; Bridgeland et al.
2006; Broussard 2003; Casas-Gil and Navarro-Guzman 2002; Chapman 2003; Crowder and South 2003;
Dunham and Wilson 2007; Farmer et al. 2003; Gleason and Dynarski 2002; Goldschmidt and Wang 1999;
Grolnick et al. 1997; Henry 2007; Kearney 2001; Lagana 2004; Lee and Burkham 2003; Mattison 2000;
McShane et al. 2001; McWhirter et al. 1998; Nishida et al. 2004; Orfield 2004; Place et al. 2000, 2002; Reid
2005; Stone 2006; Vreeman and Carroll 2007; Warren and Lee 2003; Weisman and Gottfredson 2001;
Worrell and Hale 2001.
Criterion two: comprehensiveness
A satisfactory model of school absenteeism must also fully account for myriad proximal and
distal factors that impinge upon the problem (Table 2). Figure 1 is an illustrative spectrum of
types of absenteeism just described and factors that influence problematic absenteeism,
including child, parent, family, peer, school, and community variables. These key influential
factors are represented and arranged in Fig. 1 in a deliberate way. All factors impinge
concurrently on problematic school absenteeism, which could deteriorate over time from an
acute to a chronic to a permanent state (school dropout). Cases of school absenteeism are
clearly affected by multiple variables as described in this article. In addition, all key
influential factors are linked, as when child and parent psychopathology co-occur or when
association with deviant peers intersects with high levels of school violence or low levels of
school responsiveness to absenteeism.
A reciprocal relationship is represented as well between personal and contextual risk
factors and problematic absenteeism. Ongoing attendance problems can produce systemic
deterioration at different levels. For example, a child's extended absenteeism can lead to
intense conflict and lessened parent involvement within a family system, which can further
aggravate absenteeism. Or, a poorly educated parent may have concerns about sending a
child to a nondiverse and violent school as well as difficulty communicating with teachers
and understanding teacher notes, report cards, and their child's academic work. These
factors could easily intersect with other child, parent, and school factors such as pursuit of
tangible rewards outside of school, meager parental supervision, and poor school climate.
At a more global level, severe, system-wide attendance problems and use of suspensions in
a school district can help destabilize neighborhoods, fuel gang-related activity, and
contribute to malaise among teachers and other school personnel (Eitle and Eitle 2004;
Taylor and Foster 1986).
<£) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
268 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
SCHOOL absenteeism
aria n sgsn
Nonprc: .. ..
■tuuai
Problematic $c .. abse "wis •
School Repeated Repeated Penoda: Repeated • Complete;

■ sbetiaviors tard ness absences or absences absence
with duress in the in the skipping of or shipping fromschoo
classes of classes dunng <
nonattendance avoid school foltowed b^' r xed n th certain
attendance attendance period of the
r c biematic
school absenteeism
Chronic probtematsc
sc .. ;;i-n:eeism
1 S<"» dropout
Fig. 1 Interdisciplinary model of school absenteeism
Criterion three: fluidity and flexibility
A satisfactory model of school absenteeism must also be fluid and flexible enough to
account for rapid changes in attendance patterns, symptoms, and exigent influences. Many
youths with problematic absenteeism frequently modify their attendance patterns; a
common example is a child who misses school completely on Monday, skips two classes
on Tuesday, attends school without difficulty on Wednesday, displays morning misbehav
iors on Thursday prior to arriving to school tardy, and is highly anxious and avoidant of a
key examination on Friday. In related fashion, youths frequently shift their symptoms on a
daily basis, sometimes appearing anxious or withdrawn at school and other times becoming
disruptive or aggressive in an attempt to be sent home. The model illustrated in Fig. 1 fully
accounts for these shifts by allowing educators and others to classify each individual
episode of problematic absenteeism.
The model also accounts for shifts in exigent influences that impact a given child's
school attendance. For example, several contextual risk factors can suppress school
attendance for a child in a certain month, including episodes of bullying, boredom at
school, and conflict with teachers. These risk factors could ease, however, as bullying is
consequated and as class schedule changes lead to greater novelty and diverse teachers. The
model presented in Fig. 1 allows for transactional influences across risk factors as well as
transactional influences across all risk factors and problematic school absenteeism.
*£) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 269
As such, the model allows for longitudinal investigation into developmental pathways
that lead to problematic absenteeism. The model accounts for variables that may compound
over time and, in different transactional ways, to eventually produce problematic
absenteeism or eventual dropout. Such multifaceted pathways are only now being examined
by researchers (Alexander et al. 2001; Attwood and Croll 2006; Jimerson et al. 2000,
Warren and Lee 2003). In one potential pathway, a young child with an anxious or difficult
temperament is placed in a disengaged family or educational system that does not monitor
or value achievement and attendance. During elementary school, this situation could lead to
academic problems, family conflict, inadequate attention to the child's curricular needs, and
child anxiety and depression. Upon entry into middle school, where many cases of
problematic absenteeism begin, other risk factors could be introduced. These include
association with deviant peers, pursuit of tangible rewards outside of school, parent
disengagement, and initial referral to a juvenile justice system. Upon entry into high school,
episodes of absenteeism could increase substantially following academic failure, opportu
nities for outside employment, entry into gang-related activity, drug use, or pregnancy.
Identifying pathways such as this has important implications for assessment and treatment
as well.
Criterion four: user-friendly for assessment and treatment
A satisfactory model of school absenteeism must be user-friendly to allow researchers,

clinicians, educators, and lay persons the opportunity to adequately chart episodes of
nonattendance as well as influential factors that must be addressed. The continuum in Fig. 1
for problematic school absenteeism allows parents, practitioners, and educators to
adequately define a child's past or current history of nonattendance. In many cases,
children's frequency and severity of absenteeism worsen across several school years, as
when a child is chronically tardy one year, misses some classes the following year, and then
skips school entirely. Documenting this pattern for one particular child allows for
intervention at a point that may prevent future pathways toward more problematic
absenteeism.
The interdisciplinary model in Fig. 1 also allows for multiaxial assessment of risk factors
that currently impinge upon one child's case. Measures can be derived that accurately
assess for key child, parent, family, peer, school, and/or community factors present in one
case of problematic absenteeism. Some measures have already been developed to assess
key child factors such as symptoms and function of SRB among youths with problematic
absenteeism (Brandibas et al. 2001; Honjo et al. 2003; Kearney 2002, 2006b; King et al.
2001). Others have utilized more general measures to assess other factors in Fig. 1, though
instruments designed specifically for youths with problematic absenteeism are sorely
needed (Hanna et al. 2006; Kearney 2003).
In a multiaxial assessment approach, evaluators determine the relative influence of each
set of key factors that impact problematic school absenteeism. The field is currently in a
fractured state in that assessors from different perspectives generally emphasize one set of
risk factors to the relative neglect of others. A multiaxial assessment from a common
perspective would necessarily cover all aspects of problematic attendance, influencing
factors, and evaluation approaches. The assessment could proceed in linear fashion from
more proximal child factors to more global community factors.
Even if no standardized assessment is available, researchers, clinicians, educators, and
others can generally evaluate cases of problematic absenteeism in a multiaxial and
systematic manner. Key questions to children, parents, teachers, peers, school officials,
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
270 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Table 3 Key Assessment Questions Regarding Pr
Questions
Is the child's current absenteeism problematic or nonproblematic?

What are the child's current and past forms of specific absenteeism and how do these forms currently change
daily?
What are the child's type and severity of symptoms with respect to his/her absenteeism?
What is the child's function of school refusal behavior and what are the specific problems and behaviors
associated with that function?
What distal child factors are currently impactful, such as pregnancy, outside employment, poor health or
social or academic proficiency, trauma, ethnicity, low self-esteem and school commitment, and boredom at
school, among others?
What proximal parent factors are currently impactful, such as school withdrawal, friction and conflict with
school officials, and poor child supervision and daily parent involvement, among others?
What distal parent factors are currently impactful, such as psychopathology, permissiveness,
authoritarianism, child maltreatment, low expectations regarding education, parent school dropout, and
ethnic differences from school officials, among others?
What proximal family factors are currently impactful, such as daily conflict, marital problems, poor
communication among family members, transportation and financial problems, and single-parent
household, among others?
What distal family factors are currently impactful, such as stressful transitions, poverty, homelessness, poor
access to educational aids or health care, large family size, and resistance to acculturation, among others?
What proximal peer factors are currently impactful, such as daily association with deviant peers, active
participation in gang-related activity, pressure to skip school, and episodes of victimization?
What distal peer factors are currently impactful, such as lack of social support for attendance, inadequate
linkage to extracurricular activities, and disconnection to majority ethnic groups within a school, among
others?
What proximal school factors are currently impactful, such as high levels of bullying and other physical
threat, poor monitoring and recognition of attendance, large student body with inadequate counselor
staffing, and family-school official language barriers, among others?
What distal school factors are currently impactful, such as poor climate and connectedness, high levels of grade
retention, harsh and inflexible disciplinary practices for absenteeism, poor student-teacher relationships, high
teacher absenteeism, and poor linkage of curricula to student academic needs, among others?
What community factors are currently impactful, such as disorganized, unsafe, and unsupportive
neighborhoods, poor availability of health and other important services, and good availability of jobs
requiring little education, among others?
probation officers, and others during this linear assessment process are in Table 3. A
raultiaxial assessment of problematic absenteeism that fully accounts for all impactful
variables will be most useful for increasing comparability of research studies, identifying
key transactional influences and pathways that lead to problematic absenteeism, and
designing an appropriate intervention for a given child. Implications of the interdisciplinary
model of absenteeism for professional practice are detailed at greater length in the following
sections. In general, however, intervention from the proposed interdisciplinary model can
be linked closely to the frequency and severity of a child's problematic absenteeism as well
as the number of influential factors impacting his or her case.
Youths whose problematic absenteeism is relatively circumscribed in scope and have
few if any systemic variables that impact nonattendance may benefit from psychological
intervention only. Youths whose problematic absenteeism has spanned an academic year
and involves substantial peer influence and family dysfunction may require psychological
intervention in addition to consultations with school officials about modifications in class
4^ Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 271
schedules, work, and expectations for academic credit. Youths whose problematic
absenteeism is chronic and very severe and whose nonattendance is linked to substantial
school and community disorganization may benefit from a plethora of psychological,
health, financial, social, and legal services.
Implications for Professional Practice
The proposed model of absenteeism carries several implications for professional practice
with individual cases. An initial comprehensive assessment approach should include (1)
identifying absenteeism as nonproblematic or problematic, (2) determining frequency, type,
and function of current and past absenteeism, and (3) evaluating on a multiaxial basis key
proximal and distal factors that contribute to a child's absenteeism. Recommendations for
assessing youths with problematic absenteeism in clinical practice are available from
multiple sources (Beidel and Turner 2005; Heyne et al. 2004; Heyne and Rollings 2002;
Kearney 2003; Kearney et al. 2005).
The proposed model for problematic absenteeism also allows for intervention
recommendations at various levels of risk and severity (Table 4). At a primary level of
absenteeism, some youths have psychopathology that prevents adequate school attendance
despite supportive parents, families, and schools. Effective clinical interventions have thus
been designed to reduce symptoms and to reintegrate a child into a regular classroom
setting. Several publications, including manuals, outline these procedures at length (Heyne
et al. 2002; Heyne and Rollings 2002; Kearney 2007b; Kearney and Albano 2007a, b;
Kearney and Silverman 1999; King et al. 1998; Last et al. 1998).
As discussed earlier, however, clinicians and educators who address youths with
problematic absenteeism must be cognizant of many other proximal and distal factors that
impact this behavior. At a secondary level, youths with psychopathology intersect with parents
with difficulties responding adequately to the child's absenteeism. Such difficulties may come
in the form of disengagement, belligerence toward school officials, confusion, parent-based
school withdrawal, or parent-based psychopathology, among other possibilities. In these cases,
clinicians must supplement psychological procedures for children with strategies to encourage
active parental participation toward resolving absenteeism (Heyne et al. 2002; Kearney et al.
2007). Problematic absenteeism at this secondary level may also involve substantial marital
and familial dysfunction that must be addressed (McShane et al. 2001; Table 4).
At a tertiary level, youth psychopathology and/or parental/familial dysfunction intersect
with broader contextual variables such as peer and limited school influences (DeWit et al.
2000). A common example is a child who associates with deviant peers who create
opportunities to engage in delinquent behavior. Ongoing absences may then be propelled by
parent and school disengagement, increased desire to pursue tangible rewards outside of
school, and poor linkage to school-based extracurricular activities. School-based disen
gagement may come in the form of overburdened personnel who poorly monitor attendance
and neglect students who leave campus early (Fallis and Opotow 2003). Tertiary-level
intervention must necessarily involve intense coordination with school officials to pursue
initial part-time or alternative attendance programs and other strategies in Table 4.
At a quaternary level, child, parent, family, and/or peer influences intersect with wide
ranging school-based problems such as poor school climate. Reasons for high absenteeism
within a particular school or district were noted earlier, but especially pertinent ones include
high grade retention, inadequate responsiveness to student academic needs, inflexible
disciplinary practices, and teacher absenteeism (Brookmeyer et al. 2006; Jimerson et al.
^ Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
272 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Table 4 Proposed Levels of Intervention for Proble
Levels of intervention
Primary level (child-oriented absenteeism)

Clinical techniques to reduce anxiety, depression, and other pertinent symptoms
Gradual reintegration into a regular classroom setting
Consequences for attendance and absenteeism
Regular therapist-school official collaboration to monitor progress and resolve new obstacles to school
attendance
Restructure role of homeroom teacher to identity at-risk students

Educate school personnel about warning signs of school refusal behavior
Enhance parent-school official cooperation to immediately address evolving cases of absenteeism
Secondary level (child+parent+ family-oriented absenteeism)

Primary level strategies
Mediating differences between parents and school officials
Educating parents about the importance of their involvement in intervention
Resolving parent concerns about their child's school attendance
Clinical techniques and appropriate referrals to reduce marital dysfunction, family conflict and
communication problems, inconsistent supervision and disciplinary practices, and pertinent family stressors
Use of peer mentors to contact a child when an absence occurs, encourage resumption of school attendance,
and advocate for the child to a school absenteeism team as appropriate
Increased supervision of a child during flight risk times
Informal classroom-based consequences for inappropriate behavior
Conflict resolution
Tertiary level (child+parent+family+peer-oriented absenteeism)

Primary and secondary level strategies
Intense therapist-school official collaboration to pursue alternative or part-time attendance programs, monitor
attendance daily, develop plans for immediately addressing premature exits from campus, and provide
regular feedback to parents about new absences
Coalescing health, mental health, family, financial, legal, and early education services in one school-based
setting to reduce stigmatization and transportation burdens and enhance coordination of services
Development of individualized educational or 504 plans to modify class schedules, accumulated make-up
work, and expectations regarding grades and academic credit
Maintain a student's peer group across homeroom and initial classes
Quaternary level (child+parent+family+peer+school-oriented absenteeism)

Primary and secondary and tertiary level strategies
Examine whether a child's safety and educational needs are being addressed
Possible switching of teachers, class schedules, or schools; linkage to more stimulating classes or teachers
Consider whether a child's complaints about a school's inadequacy, inflexibility, dangerousness, and poor
responsiveness are truly legitimate; address legitimate school-based threats and student grievances
Delay referrals to a juvenile justice system until some semblance of school attendance is achieved
Modify and customize curricula and instruction and provide mentors to youth with social and academic
problems and unmet special education needs
Design school-based incentive programs to recognize and reward attendance
Resolve student-student and student-teacher conflicts
Coordinate parent and child support groups
Institute self-contained educational units for youths with chronic absentee problems
Develop summer bridge and other transitional programs to help youths adjust to newer, larger facilities
Systemwide reduction of violence
|j Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 273
Table 4 (continued)
Levels of intervention
Increase diversity of school faculty and increase communication with ethnically diverse families within a
school district
Quinary level (child+parent+family+peer+school+community-oriented absenteeism)

Primary and secondary and tertiary and quaternary level strategies
Wide-ranging, research-based interventions such as multisystemic therapy
Link school-based teams to outside resources such as police, court, social services, churches, and community
organizations that address diverse youth
Police sweeps and special administrative units within schools for students with chronic absenteeism
Place absenteeism or truancy courts within school settings
Legal consequences that still require attendance within a sanctioned academic setting; consequence examples
include detention, in-school suspension, school-based community service, and other methods allowing for
easier transition to a regular classroom setting
Pertinent references: Bamet et al. 2004; Broussard 2003; DeSocio et al. 2007; Epstein and Sheldon 2002;
Fantuzzo et al. 2005; Garrison 2006; Gibson and Bejinez 2002; Heyne and Rollings 2002; Jones 2004;
Kearney 2008b; Kearney and Albano 2007a; Kearney et al. 2001; Lehr et al. 2003; Lever el al. 2004;
McCluskey et al. 2004; Mueller and Stoddard 2006; Oros et al. 2000; Portwood et al. 2005; Reid 2006,
2007; Reynolds et al. 2001; Richtman 2007; Shoenfelt and Huddleston 2006; Sinclair et al. 2005; Southwell
2006; Teasley 2004; White et al. 2001.
2002; Lee and Burkham 2003). Youths with severe personal and familial problems may not
find strong social and academic support in schools with these characteristics, which
increases likelihood for school dropout. Clinicians and parents may also find difficulties
navigating intense bureaucracies that can be unresponsive to absentee problems of
individual students (Bimler and Kirkland 2001). Clinical intervention at a quaternary level
must necessarily involve a close examination of whether a child's safety and educational
needs are truly being met in addition to other strategies in Table 4 (Astor et al. 2005;
Hernandez and Seem 2004; Vreeman and Carroll 2007).
At a quinary level, many if not most of the influential factors in Fig. 1 pertain to individual
cases of problematic absenteeism. At this level, the addition of severe community factors
conspires with other factors to produce widespread absenteeism in a given area or school.
Many of these students will not find access to mental health services, and clinicians rarely
see these cases in their practice. Clinical intervention for quinary problematic absenteeism
will likely involve wide-ranging, research-based programs such as multisystemic therapy
(Thomas 2006). Multisystemic therapy involves an intensive, home- and community-based
intervention to address antisocial behavior at multiple levels, including individual, family,
peers, school, and community (Brown et al. 1999). The intervention has been effective for
improving school performance and attendance (Barth et al. 2007; Henggeler et al. 1999).
Clinical interventions for youths with problematic absenteeism continue to evolve and
must be broadened in many cases to address exigent circumstances related not just to
children but also parents, families, peers, schools, and communities. In the long run, the
most effective forms of clinical intervention for all cases of problematic absenteeism will
likely have to intersect with key public and school-related policies and interventions related
to nonattendance. In the next section, these broader variables are discussed with
recommendations for school-based personnel distribution.
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
274 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Implications for Public Policy
As with conceptualization and intervention, public policy regarding school absenteeism

among youths in general is relatively fractured among individual disciplines and
educational districts. Perhaps the main public policy that spurs the creation of compulsory
education and antitruancy laws is public order policy. Public order policy generally refers to
implementing laws and crime prevention strategies to reduce social chaos and insecurity.
For example, compulsory education laws were originally established in Europe and the
USA in response to needs for an educated workforce and social order in the face of rapid
changes in urbanization, industrialization, and immigration (Kearney 2001; Mangan 1994;
Paterson 1989; Zhang 2004). Many public order policies have recently concentrated as well
on lower-level infractions and status offenses such as truancy (Homqvist 2004).
Antitruancy laws have been passed in several jurisdictions to fine parents for youth's
absenteeism, link welfare payments to youth attendance, deprive youths of driver licenses
for extended absenteeism, and encourage zero tolerance and other practices to propel legal
action toward absentees (Ethridge and Percy 1993; James and Freeze 2006; Southwell
2006; Washington State Institute for Public Policy 1996; Zimmerman and Fishman 2001).
In addition, many jurisdictions provide funding to school districts based partly on their
judicial responses to absenteeism (Reid 2003). This practice may accelerate following
passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, of which one "other indicator" of
"adequate yearly progress" is graduation rates for public secondary school students (US
Department of Education 2007). Public policy changes toward status offenses such as
truancy have also led to more deinstitutional interventions such as community-based
treatment (Steinhart 1996). In general, however, many jurisdictions and schools adopt a
criminalist model of absenteeism (Bazemore et al. 2004; Pell 2000).
A particular downside to either a fractured set of policies or reliance only on public order
policy regarding absenteeism is that the substantial heterogeneity and complexity of youths
with attendance problems is ignored or neglected. Many youths with psychological
problems that prevent school attendance, for example, are included in police sweeps or
juvenile detention facilities following referrals from school personnel. In addition, youths
whose absenteeism is linked to unsafe, rule-oriented, academically addled schools are
treated the same as delinquent youths who engage in gang-related activity. Little or no
attempt is made in the fractured literature to consider all relevant factors that affect a given
youth's absenteeism, and little or no attempt is made in truancy prevention literature to
differentiate youths based on personal, familial, school, or community factors.
The interdisciplinary model presented in this article has important public policy
ramifications. The model eschews a global, one-size-fits-all approach such as public order
or zero tolerance policy in favor of a more nuanced method for addressing problematic
absenteeism on a systemic scale. Indeed, some authors have called for a triage strategy
within schools or absenteeism prevention programs to identify various types of youth and
assign appropriate intervention (Kearney 2008b; Kearney and Bates 2005; Reid 2007).
School district policy regarding problematic absenteeism based on a triage strategy would,
as with professional practice, involve intervention at various levels. These levels would
depend not only on severity and frequency of absenteeism but also on severity, frequency,
and type of influential factors involved. These levels would also involve differential
allocation of resources such as number of school officials, time, and consultations with
outside agencies. Illustrative levels also linked to Table 4 are described here.
At a primary level, benign measures could be implemented by a single school official to
address cases of budding absentee problems, mild symptomatology, and few contextual risk
"£) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 275
factors. Prototypical examples include children with difficulty transitioning from

elementary to middle school, those with school-related distress for the first time, or those
with mild disruptive behavior to be sent home. In these cases, few learning, family, or other
problems are evident. School-based intervention in these cases may involve those in Table 4.
At a secondary level, more substantial measures could be implemented by a small,
informal team of school officials for students whose absenteeism has worsened or who have
some contextual risk factors. Prototypical examples include youths who have skipped some
classes without parental knowledge, those with more intense adjustment problems, and
those approaching a threshold for illegal absenteeism or criterion 3 from the problematic
absenteeism definition proposed earlier. A small team of school officials for these cases
could include a primary teacher, guidance counselor, and peer mentor (Pritchard and
Williams 2001; Reid 2003). School-based intervention at this secondary level may involve
use of peer mentors and other strategies in Table 4.
At a tertiary level, a formal school-based team could be assigned to track and address
severe cases of problematic absenteeism at or beyond a legal threshold or criterion 3 from
the problematic absenteeism definition proposed earlier. Prototypical examples include
youths who regularly miss school, are failing several classes, or have intense distress about
attending school accompanied by in-school misbehavior. A formal school-based team could
involve a key administrator (principal, dean), guidance counselor, school psychologist,
teachers, and lay persons as appropriate. Key school-based interventions at this tertiary
level might involve regular consultations with outside mental health and other professionals
and other strategies in Table 4.
At a quaternary level, a potentially separate but also formal school-based team could be
designed to investigate the utility of school-based changes to help lower widespread
absenteeism. This team could be responsible for customizing curriculum and instruction
and pursuing other strategies in Table 4. At a quinary level, these formal school-based
teams must link with many outside resources to address extremely high systemic levels of
problematic absenteeism (Table 4).
The interdisciplinary model presented in this article may also have ramifications for state
and federal policies regarding school absenteeism. Funding for schools could be partly
based on a formula that includes degree of absenteeism, innovative development of
alternative educational programs, and use of a triage strategy to differentially evaluate and
address youths with various types of absenteeism and school-related factors that contribute
to this absenteeism. In addition, grants could be made available to multidisciplinary
research teams to investigate the utility of addressing problematic absenteeism on different
levels. Finally, public education programs could be implemented to educate parents,
teachers, and others about the potential dangers of absenteeism and about available
resources to address the problem in a given area. An ancillary but key goal of these
initiatives would be to further encourage lay persons and professionals across disciplines to
coordinate efforts, share knowledge, and develop greater comparability across published
literature regarding problematic absenteeism in youth.
Final Comments
A main purpose of this article was to provide an interdisciplinary model to help develop
consensus among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Professionals in this area are
strongly encouraged to test and modify the model by working across disciplines to
coordinate efforts, share knowledge, and develop greater comparability across published
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
276 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
literature. Toward this end, professionals must develop common assessment strategies such
as interviews and questionnaires that fully consider child, parent, family, peer, school, and
community factors. Professionals must also come together to design grant applications and
practical strategies to address problematic absenteeism and its pertinent risk factors. This
will likely involve a multifaceted approach to arrive at efficient methods of preventing and
reducing absenteeism at individual and systemic levels.
References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective:
Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760-822.
Almeida, M. C., Aquino, E. M., & de Barros, A. P. (2006). School trajectory and teenage pregnancy in thre
Brazilian state capitals. Cadenios de Saude Publico, 22, 1397-1409.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A., & Vinokur, A. (2002). School climate, observed risky behaviors,
and victimization as predictors of high school students' fear and judgments of school violence as a
problem. Health Education and Behavior, 29, 716-736.
Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005). School safety
interventions: Best practices and programs. Children and Schools, 27, 17-32.
Atkinson, L., Quarrington, B., Cyr, J. J., & Atkinson, F. V. (1989). Differential classification in schoo
refusal. British Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 191-195.
Attwood, G., & Croll, P. (2006). Truancy in secondary school pupils: Prevalence, trajectories and pupil
perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 21, 467-484.
Barnet, B., Arroyo, C., Devoe, M., & Duggan, A. K. (2004). Reduced school dropout rates among adolescent
mothers receiving school-based prenatal care. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 262-268.
Barth, R. P., Greeson, J. K. P., Guo, S., Green, R. L., Hurley, S., & Sisson, J. (2007). Changes in family
functioning and child behavior following intensive in-home therapy. Children and Youth Services
Review, 29, 988-1009.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000).
Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
568-582.
Bazemore, G., Stinchcomb, J. B., & Leip, L. A. (2004). Scared smart or bored straight? Testing deterrence
logic in an evaluation of police-led truancy intervention. Justice Quarterly, 21, 269-299.
Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2005). Childhood anxiety disorders: A guide to research and treatment. New
York: Routledge.
Berg, I., Casswell, G., Goodwin, A., Hullin, R., McGuire, R., & Tagg, G. (1985). Classification of severe
school attendance problems. Psychological Medicine, 15, 157-165.
Bernstein, G. A., Borchardt, C. M., Perwein, A. R., Crosby, R. D., Kushner, M. G., Thuras, P. D., et al.
(2000). Imipramine plus cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of school refusal. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 276-283.
Bernstein, G. A., & Garfmkel, B. D. (1986). School phobia: The overlap of affective and anxiety disorders.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 235—241.
Bernstein, G. A., & Garfmkel, B. D. (1988). Pedigrees, functioning, and psychopathology in families of
school phobic children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 70-74.
Bimler, D., & Kirkland, J. (2001). School truants and truancy motivation sorted out with multidimensional
scaling. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 75-102.
Bools, C., Foster, J., Brown, I., & Berg, I. (1990). The identification of psychiatric disorders in children who
fail to attend school: A cluster analysis of a non-clinical population. Psychological Medicine, 20, 171-181.
Borrego, L., Cesar, M., Leiria-Pinto, P., & Rosado-Pinto, J. (2005). Prevalence of asthma in a Portuguese
countryside town: Repercussions on absenteeism and self-concept. Allergologia et Immunopathologia
(Madrid), 33, 93-99.
Bowen, G. L., & Richman, J. M. (2002). Schools in the context of communities. Children and Schools, 24,
67-71.
Brand, C., & O'Connor, L. (2004). School refusal: It takes a team. Children and Schools, 26, 54-64.
Brandibas, G., Jeunier, B., Gaspard, J.-L., & Fouraste, R. (2001). Evaluation des modes de refus de l'ecole
Validation francaise de la SRAS (School Refusal Assessment Scale). Psychologie et Psychometrie, 22,
45-58.
"£l Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 277
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (

dropouts. Seattle, WA: Bill and Mclinda Gates Fo
Brookmeyer, K. A., Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, G.
multilevel, ecological analysis. Journal of Clinica
Broussard, C. A. (2003). Facilitating home-school p
workers collaborating for success. Children and S
Brown, T. L., Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K.,
treatment of substance abusing and dependent ju
posttreatment and 6-month follow-up. Children's Se
Casas-Gil, M. J., & Navarro-Guzman, J. I. (2002)
parents. Psychological Reports, 90, 341-348.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Asth
Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and H
Chapman, M. V. (2003). Poverty level and school perf
inform intervention. Children and Schools, 25, 5-1
Chitiyo, M., & Wheeler, J. J. (2006). School phob
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs,
Chou, L.-C., Ho, C.-Y., Chen, C.-Y., & Chen, W. J.
surveyed via street outreach. Addictive Behaviors
Conroy, J. L., Conroy, P. M., & Newman, R. J. (2
unnecessary school regulations that keep children
Corville-Smith, J., Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., & D
from regular attenders: The combined influence of
and Adolescence, 27, 629-640.
Costello, E. J., Egger, H., & Angold, A. (2005). 10-y
and adolescent psychiatric disorders. I. Methods a
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 9
Crowder, K.., & South, S. J. (2003). Neighborhood dis
community context. Social Science Research, 32,
Denny, S. J., Clark, T. C., & Watson, P. D. (2003). Com
alternative high schools from New Zealand and th
33-39.
DeSocio, J., VanCura, M., Nelson, L. A., Hewitt, G., Kitzman, H., & Cole, R. (2007). Engaging truant
adolescents: Results from a multifaceted intervention pilot. Preventing School Failure, 51, 3-11.
DeWit, D. J., Offord, D. R., Saaford, M., Rye, B. J., Shain, M., & Wright, R. (2000). The effect of school
culture on adolescent behavioural problems: Self esteem, attachment to learning, and peer approval of
deviance as mediating mechanisms. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 16, 15-38.
Dunham, R., & Wilson, G. (2007). Race, within-family social capital, and school dropout: An analysis of
Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 207-221.
Egger, H. L., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2003). School refusal and psychiatric disorders: A community
study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 797-807.
Eitle, T. M., & Eitle, D. J. (2004). Inequality, segregation, and the overrepresentation of African Americans
in school suspensions. Sociological Perspectives, 47, 269-287.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through
family and community involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 308-318.
Ethridge, M. E., & Percy, S. L. (1993). A new kind of public policy encounters disappointing results:
Implementing Learnfare in Wisconsin. Public Administration Review, 53, 340-347.
Fallis, R. K., & Opotow, S. (2003). Are students failing school or are schools failing students? Class cutting
in high school. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 103-119.
Fantuzzo, J., Grim, S., & Hazan, H. (2005). Project start: An evaluation of a community-wide school-based
intervention to reduce truancy. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 651-667.
Farmer, T. W., Estell, D. B., Leung, M.-C., Trott, H., Bishop, J., & Cairns, B. D. (2003). Individual
characteristics, early adolescent peer affiliations, and school dropout: An examination of aggressive and
popular group types. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 217-232.
Fremont, W. P. (2003). School refusal in children and adolescents. American Family Physician, 68, 1555—
1560, 1563-1564.
Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8,
59-72.
Garrison, A. H. (2006). "I missed the bus:" School grade transition, the Wilmington Truancy Center, and
reasons youth don't go to school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 204-212.
^ Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
278 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Gibson, M. A., & Bejinez, L. F. (2002). Dropou

youth. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1, 1
Cileason, P., & Dynarski, M. (2002). Do we know
dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Pl
Glew, G. M., Fan, M.-Y., Katon, W., Rivara,
adjustment, and academic performance in ele
Medicine, 159, 1026-1031.
Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When can s
analysis. American Educational Research Jou
Greene, M. B. (2005). Reducing violence and aggre
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & A
in children's schooling. Journal of Educationa
Grunbaum, J. A., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Ross, J.,
surveillance - United States, 2003. MMWR Sur
Guare, R. E., & Cooper, B. S. (2003). Truancy
Scarecrow.
Guevara, J. P., Wolf, F. M., Gram, C. M., & Clark, N. M. (2003). Effects of educational interventions for
self-management of asthma in children and adolescents: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British
Medical Journal, 326, 1308—1309.
Guinan, M., McGuckin, M., & Ali, Y. (2002). The effect of a comprehensive handwashing program on
absenteeism in elementary schools. American Journal of Infection Control, 30, 217-220.
Guttmacher, S., Weitzman, B. C., Kapadia, F., & Weinberg, S. L. (2002). Classroom-based surveys of
adolescent risk-taking behaviors: Reducing the bias of absenteeism. American Journal of Public Health,
92, 235-237.
Hallfors, D., Vevea, J. L., Iritani, B., Cho, H., Khatapoush, S., & Saxe, L. (2002). Truancy, grade point
average, and sexual activity: A meta-analysis of risk indicators for youth substance use. Journal of
School Health, 72,205-211.
Hanna, G. L., Fischer, D. J., & Fluent, T. E. (2006). Separation anxiety disorder and school refusal in
children and adolescents. Pediatrics in Review, 27, 56-63.
Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Randall, J., Ward, D. M., Pickrel, S. G., Cunningham, P. B., et al. (1999).
Home-based multisystemic therapy as an alternative to the hospitalization of youths in psychiatric crisis:
Clinical outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1331-1339.
Henry, K. L. (2007). Who's skipping school: Characteristics of truants in 8th and 10th grade. Journal of
School Health, 77, 29-35.
Henry, K. L., & Huizinga, D. H. (2007). Truancy's effect on the onset of drug use among urban adolescents
placed at risk. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 358.e9-358.el7.
Hernandez, T. J., & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe school climate: A systemic approach and the school
counselor. Professional School Counseling, 7, 256-262.
Heyne, D., King, N. J., & Tonge, B. (2004). School refusal. In T. H. Ollendick, & J. S. March (Eds.), Phobic
and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: A clinician's guide to effective psychosocial and
pharmacological interventions (pp. 236-271). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heyne, D., King, N. J., Tonge, B. J., & Cooper, H. (2001). School refusal: Epidemiology and management.
Paediatric Drugs, 3, 719-732.
Heyne, D., King, N. J., Tonge, B. J., Rollings, S., Young, D., Pritchard, M., et al. (2002). Evaluation of child
therapy and caregiver training in the treatment of school refusal. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 687—695.
Heyne, D.. & Rollings, S. (2002). School refusal. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Hibbett, A., & Fogelman, K. (1990). Future lives of truants: Family formation and health-related behaviour.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 171—179.
Hibbett, A., Fogelman, K., & Manor, O. (1990). Occupational outcomes of truancy. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 60, 23-36.
Hofferth, S. L., Reid, L., & Mott, F. L. (2001). The effects of early childbearing on schooling over time.
Family Planning Perspectives, 33, 259-267.
Honjo, S., Nishide, T., Niwa, S., Sasaki, Y., Kaneko, H., Inoko, K., et al. (2001). School refusal and
depression with school nonattendance in children and adolescents: Comparative assessment between the
Children's Depression Inventory and somatic complaints. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 55,
629-634.
Honjo, S., Sasaki, Y., Kaneko, H., Tachibana, K., Murase, S., Ishii, T., et al. (2003). Study on feelings of
school avoidance, depression, and character tendencies among general junior high and high school
students. Psychiatiy and Clinical Neurosciences, 57, 464-471.
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 279
Homqvist, M. (2004). The birth of public order policy

James, S., & Freeze, R. (2006). One step forward, two ste
tolerance in inclusive schools. International Journal o
Jimerson, S. R., Anderson, G. E., & 'Whipple, A. D.
Examining the relation between grade retention and
Schools, 39, 441-457.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B
school dropouts examining multiple predictors across d
525-549.
Jones, T. S. (2004). Conflict resolution education: The field, the findings, and the future. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 22, 233-267.
Kearney, C. A. (2001). School refusal behavior in youth: A functional approach to assessment and treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kearney, C. A. (2002). Identifying the function of school refusal behavior: A revision of the School Refusal
Assessment Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 235-245.
Kearney, C. A. (2003). Bridging the gap among professionals who address youth with school
absenteeism: Overview and suggestions for consensus. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 34, 57-65.
Kearney, C. A. (2006a). Dealing with school refusal behavior: A primer for family physicians. Journal of
Family Practice, 55, 685-692.
Kearney, C. A. (2006b). Confirmatory factor analysis of the School Refusal Assessment Scale-Revised:
Child and parent versions. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 139-144.
Kearney, C. A. (2007a). Forms and functions of school refusal behavior in youth: An empirical analysis of
absenteeism severity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 53-61.
Kearney, C. A. (2007b). Getting your child to say "yes " to school: A guide for parents ofyouth with school
refusal behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kearney, C. A. (2008a). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: A contemporary review.
Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 451^171.
Kearney, C. A. (2008b). Helping school refusing children and their parents: A guide for school-based
professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kearney, C. A., & Albano, A. M. (2004). The functional profiles of school refusal behavior: Diagnostic
aspects. Behavior Modification, 28, 147-161.
Kearney, C. A., & Albano, A. M. (2007a). When children refuse school: A cognitive-behavioral therapy
approach/Therapist's guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kearney, C. A., & Albano, A. M. (2007b). When children refuse school: A cognitive-behavioral therapy
approach/Parent's workbook (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kearney, C. A., & Bates, M. (2005). Addressing school refusal behavior: Suggestions for frontline
professionals. Children and Schools, 27, 207-216.
Kearney, C. A., Chapman, G., & Cook, L. C. (2005). Moving from assessment to treatment of school refusal
behavior in youth. International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy, 1, 46-51.
Kearney, C. A., LaSota, M. T., Lemos-Miller, A., & Vecchio, J. (2007). Parent training in the treatment of
school refusal behavior. In J. M. Briesmeister, & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Handbook of parent training:
Helping parents prevent and solve behavior problems (pp. 164—193, 3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kearney, C. A., Pursell, C., & Alvarez, K. (2001). Treatment of school refusal behavior in children with
mixed functional profiles. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 8, 3-11.
Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1996). The evolution and reconciliation of taxonomic strategies for
school refusal behavior. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 339-354.
Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1999). Functionally-based prescriptive and nonprescriptive treatment
for children and adolescents with school refusal behavior. Behavior Therapy, 30, 673-695.
Kee, T. T. S. (2001). Attributional style and truancy. Early Child Development and Care, 169, 21-38.
King, N. J., & Bernstein, G. A. (2001). School refusal in children and adolescents: A review of the past
10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 197-205.
King, N. J., Heyne, D., Tonge, B., Gullone, E., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). School refusal: Categorical
diagnoses, functional analysis and treatment planning. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 8, 352
360.
King, N. J., Tonge, B. J., Heyne, D., Pritchard, M., Rollings, S., Young, D., et al. (1998). Cognitive
behavioral treatment of school-refusing children: A controlled evaluation. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 395^103.
Kogan, S. M., Luo, Z., Murry, V. M., & Brody, G. H. (2005). Risk and protective factors for substance use
among African American high school dropouts. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 382-391.
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
280 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Kolvin, I., Berney, T. P., & Bhate, S. R. (1984). C

British Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 347—357.
Ladwig, R. & Khan, K. A. (2007). School av
Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 12, 210-212.
Lagana, M. T. (2004). Protective factors for inner
and social support. Children and Schools, 26,
Last, C. G., Hansen, C., & Franco, N. (1998). Cog
the American Academy of Child and Adolescen
Lauchlan, F. (2003). Responding to chronic n
Educational Psychology in Practice, 19, 133-1
Layne, A. E., Bernstein, G. A., Egan, E. A., & K
anxious-depressed adolescents with school re
Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 319-326.
Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2003). Dropping o
structure. American Educational Research Jou
Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christe
completion: An integrative review of data-base
Lever, N., Sander, M. A., Lombardo, S., Randall
prevention program for high-risk inner-city y
Liang, H., Flisher, A. J., & Chalton, D. O. (2002)
South African township. European Child and
Lounsbury, J. W., Steel, R. P., Loveland, J. M., &
in relation to adolescent school absenteeism. J
Lyon, A. R., & Cotler, S. (2007). Toward reduce
refusal behavior: The case for divergent sample
44, 551-565.
Mangan, J. A. (1994). A significant social revolution: Cross-cultural aspects of the evolution of compulsory
education. Portland, OR: Woburn.
Martinez, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic success among Latino youths.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 128—151.
Mattison, R. E. (2000). School consultation: A review of research on issues unique to the school
environment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatiy, 39, 402—413.
McCluskey, C. P., Bynum, T. S., & Patchin, J. W. (2004). Reducing chronic absenteeism: An assessment of
an early truancy initiative. Crime and Delinquency, 50, 214—234.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138-146.
McShane, G., Walter, G., & Rey, J. M. (2001). Characteristics of adolescents with school refusal. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatiy, 35, 822-826.
McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, A. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (1998). At-risk youth: A
comprehensive response for counselors, teachers, psychologists, and human service professionals.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Meadows, E., & Le Saux, N. (2004). A systematic review of the effectiveness of antimicrobial rinse-free
hand sanitizers for prevention of illness-related absenteeism in elementary school children. BMC Public
Health, 4, 50.
Mueller, D., & Stoddard, C. (2006). Dealing with chronic absenteeism and its related consequences: The
process and short-term effects of a diversionary juvenile court intervention. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 11, 199-219.
Mytton, J. A., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D. A., Taylor, R. S., & Logan, S. (2002). School-based violence
prevention programs: Systematic review of secondary prevention trials. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 156, 752—762.
National Center for Education Statistics (2006a). The condition of education 2006. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2006b). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education.
Nishida, A., Sugiyama, S., Aoki, S., & Kuroda, S. (2004). Characteristics and outcomes of school refusal in
Hiroshima, Japan: Proposals for network therapy. Acta Medica Okayama, 58, 241-249.
Okuyama, M., Okada, M., Kuribayashi, M., & Kaneko, S. (1999). Factors responsible for the prolongation of
school refusal. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 53, 461—469.
Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
<£l Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282 281
Oros, M. T., Perry, L. A., & Heller, B. R. (2000). Scho

neighborhood transformation. Family and Communit
Paterson, F. M. S. (1989). Out of place: Public policy a
Pell, C. E. (2000). Pre-offense monitoring of potential ju
County Probation Department's novel solution to th
crime. Southern California Law Review, 73, 879-925
Pellegrini, D. W. (2007). School non-attendance: De
Educational Psychology in Practice, 23, 63—77.
Peterson, C. A., Luze, G. J., Eshbaugh, E. M., J eon, H
interactions through home visiting: Promising pr
Intervention, 29, 119-140.
Pilkington, C. L., & Piersel, W. C. (1991). School phobia:
and an alternative conceptualization. Psychology in
Place, M., Hulsmeier, J., Davis, S., & Taylor, E. (2000).
a change of approach? Clinical Child Psychology an
Place, M., Hulsmeier, J., Davis, S., & Taylor, E. (2002
refusal. Journal of Research in Special Education N
Portwood, S. G., Ayers, P. M., Kinnison, K. E., Waris,
from a school-based mentoring program. Journal of
Pritchard, C., & Williams, R. (2001). A three-year com
work family service to reduce truancy, delinquency an
Family Law, 23, 23—43.
Randolph, K. A., Fraser, M. W., & Orthner, D. K. (2006).
family risk factors on high school dropout. Journal
Reid, K. (2000). Tackling truancy in schools: A practic
York: Routledge.
Reid, K. (2003). The search for solutions to truancy and
21, 3-9.
Reid, K. (2005). The causes, views and traits of school ab
59-82.
Reid, K. (2006). The views of education social workers on the management of truancy and other forms of
non-attendance. Research in Education, 75, 40-57.
Reid, K. (2007). The views of learning mentors on the management of school attendance. Mentoring and
Tutoring, 15, 39-55.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early
childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low
income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2339-2346.
Richtman, K. S. (2007). The truancy intervention program of the Ramsey County Attorney's Office: A
collaborative approach to school success. Family Court Review, 45, 421^437.
Scott, D. M., & Friedli, D. (2002). Attendance problems and disciplinary procedures in Nebraska schools.
Journal of Drug Education, 32, 149-165.
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an
underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170-179.
Shoenfelt, E. L., & Huddleston, M. R. (2006). The Truancy Court Diversion Program of the Family Court,
Warren Circuit Court Division III, Bowling Green, Kentucky: An evaluation of impact on attendance
and academic performance. Family Court Review, 44, 683-695.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban
secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 465-482.
Sinha, J. W. (2007). Youth at risk for truancy detour into a faith-based education program: Their perceptions
of the program and its impact. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 246-257.
Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying. Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry, 48, 591-599.
Southwell, N. (2006). Truants on truancy—a badness or a valuable indicator of unmet special education
needs? British Journal of Special Education, 33, 91—97.
Steinhart, D. J. (1996). Status offenses. Future of Children, 6, 86-99.
Stone, S. (2006). Correlates of change in student reported parent involvement in schooling: A new look at the
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 518-530.
Stroobant, E., & Jones, A. (2006). School refuser child identities. Discourse: Studies in the Culture Politics
of Education, 27, 209-223.
Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00
282 Educ Psychol Rev (2008) 20:257-282
Suveg, C., Aschenbrand, S. G., & Kendall, P. C.

school refusal. Child and Adolescent Psychiatr
Taussig, H. N. (2002). Risk behaviors in maltre
protective and vulnerability factors. Child Ab
Taylor, M. C., & Foster, G. A. (1986). Bad boy
Black males. Sociological Inquiry, 56, 498-506
Teasley, M. L. (2004). Absenteeism and truancy:
social workers. Children and Schools, 26, 117
Thomas, C. R. (2006). Evidence-based practice fo
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 4
Tinkelman, D., & Schwartz, A. (2004). School-ba
455-462.
Tramontina, S., Martins, S., Michalowski, M. B., Ketzer, C. R., Eizirik, M., Biederman, J., et al.
School dropout and conduct disorder in Brazilian elementary school students. Canadian Jour
Psychiatry, 46, 941—947.
Tyrell, M. (2005). School phobia. Journal of School Nursing, 21, 147-151.
US Census Bureau (2005). Educational attainment in the United States: 2004. Washington DC: US
Bureau.
US Department of Education (2002). The education for homeless children and youth program: Learning to
succeed. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
US Department of Education (2004). Education for homeless children and youth program. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education.
US Department of Education, (2007). NCLB Title I, Part A Sec 1111 (b) 2 C. Retrieved December 12, 2007,
from http://www.ed.gOv/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html#secl 111.
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent
bullying. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78-88.
Warren, J. R., & Lee, J. C. (2003). The impact of adolescent employment on high school dropout:
Differences by individual and labor-market characteristics. Social Science Research, 32, 98-128.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (1996). Truancy petition update: September 1995-June 1996.
Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Weisman, S. A., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Attrition from after school programs: Characteristics of
students who drop out. Prevention Science, 2, 201-205.
White, M. D., Fyfe, J. J., Campbell, S. P., & Goldkamp, J. S. (2001). The school-police partnership:
Identifying at-risk youth through a truant recovery program. Evaluation Review, 25, 507-532.
Wiggs-Stayner, K. S., Purdy, T. R., Go, G. N., McLaughlin, N. C., Tryzynka, P. S., Sines, J. R., & Hlaing, T.
(2006). The impact of mass school immunization on school attendance. Journal of School Nursing, 22,
219-222.
Woody, D. (2001). A comprehensive school-based conflict-resolution model. Children and Schools, 23
123.
Worrell, R C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school clim
school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 370-388.
Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., Barrett, D. E., & Willson, V. (2007). Truancy offenders in the juvenile ju
system: Examinations of first and second referrals. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 244—256.
Zhang, M. (2003). Links between school absenteeism and child poverty. Pastoral Care in Education, 2
17.
Zhang, M. (2004). Time to change the truancy laws? Compulsory education: Its origin and modem dilemma.
Pastoral Care, 22, 27-33.
Zimmerman, K., & Fishman, N. (2001). Roadblock on the way to work: Driver's license suspension in New
Jersey. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.
<£) Springer

103.4.65.37 on Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:23:59 +00:00

Parents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Interdisciplinary Model of School Absenteeism in Youth to Inform Professional

Practice and Public Policy

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23363891

This content downloaded from

An Interdisciplinary Model of School Absenteeism

and Public Policy

Published online: 12 July 2008

Keywords School absenteeism • Truancy • Youth

This content downloaded from

Psychological Approaches Toward Problematic Absenteeism

Psychological approaches toward problematic absenteeism concentrate primarily on child

This content downloaded from

Table 1 Key Definitions Related to Problematic School Absenteeism

This content downloaded from

Social/Criminal Justice Approaches toward Problematic Absenteeism

Social/criminal justice approaches toward problematic absenteeism concentrate primarily

This content downloaded from

Educational Approaches toward Problematic Absenteeism

Educational or institutional approaches toward problematic absenteeism have been greatly

This content downloaded from

A blend of psychological and social/criminal justice perspectives in many school

This content downloaded from

An Interdisciplinary Model of Problematic Absenteeism

This content downloaded from

Criterion one: common terminology and definitions

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 2 Proximal and Distal Factors Related to Problematic School Absenteeism

Key child factors Extensive work hours outside of school

Underdeveloped social and academic skills

Problematic parenting styles (permissive, authoritarian)

Large family size

Inadequate responsiveness to diversity issues

This content downloaded from

Inconsistent or minimal consequences for

Poor monitoring of attendance

Key community factors Disorganized/unsafe neighborhood

Criterion two: comprehensiveness

This content downloaded from

Problematic $c .. abse "wis •

School Repeated Repeated Penoda: Repeated • Complete;

Fig. 1 Interdisciplinary model of school absenteeism

Criterion three: fluidity and flexibility

This content downloaded from

Criterion four: user-friendly for assessment and treatment

A satisfactory model of school absenteeism must be user-friendly to allow researchers,

This content downloaded from

Table 3 Key Assessment Questions Regarding Pr

Is the child's current absenteeism problematic or nonproblematic?

This content downloaded from

Implications for Professional Practice

This content downloaded from

Table 4 Proposed Levels of Intervention for Proble

Primary level (child-oriented absenteeism)

Restructure role of homeroom teacher to identity at-risk students

Secondary level (child+parent+ family-oriented absenteeism)

Tertiary level (child+parent+family+peer-oriented absenteeism)

Quaternary level (child+parent+family+peer+school-oriented absenteeism)

This content downloaded from

Quinary level (child+parent+family+peer+school+community-oriented absenteeism)

This content downloaded from

Implications for Public Policy

As with conceptualization and intervention, public policy regarding school absenteeism

This content downloaded from