The purpose of this diagnostic accuracy study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity (among other indicators) of three universal screening approaches, including the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS), a SAEBRS-based teacher nomination tool, and a multiple gating procedure (MGP). Each screening approach was compared to the BASC-2 Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (BESS), which served as a criterion indicator of student social-emotional and behavioral risk. All data were collected in a concurrent fashion. Participants included 704 students (47.7% female) from four elementary schools within the Midwestern United States (21.6% were at risk per the BESS). Findings yielded support for the SAEBRS, with sensitivity = .93 (95% confidence interval [.89-.97]), specificity = .91 (.89-.93), and correct classification = .92. Findings further supported the MGP, which yielded sensitivity = .81 (.74-.87), specificity = .93 (.91-.95), and correct classification = .91. In contrast, the teacher nomination tool yielded questionable levels of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity = .86 [.80-.91], specificity = .74 [.70-.78], and correct classification = .76). Overall, findings were particularly supportive of SAEBRS diagnostic accuracy, suggesting the MGP might also serve as an acceptable approach to universal screening. Other implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed.