STRONG START: IMPACT OF DIRECT TEACHING OF A SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL
LEARNING CURRICULUM AND INFUSION OF SKILLS ON EMOTION
KNOWLEDGE OF FIRST GRADE STUDENTS
by
SARA AWIllTCOMB
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Special Education
and Clinical Sciences
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor ofPhilosophy
September 2009
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Sara Whitcomb
Title:
"Strong Start: Impact of Direct Teaching of a Social-Emotional Learning Curriculum and
Infusion of Skills on Emotion Knowledge of First Grade Students "
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
by:
Kenneth Merrell, Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Cynthia Anderson, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Elizabeth Stormshak, Member, Counseling Psychology and Human Services
John Seeley, Member, Not from U of 0
Sara Hodges, Outside Member, Psychology
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
September 5, 2009
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
Sara A. Whitcomb
An Abstract ofthe Dissertation of
for the degree of
111
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
to be taken June 2009
Title: STRONG START: IMPACT OF DIRECT TEACHTI\1G OF A SOCIAL-
EMOTIONAL LEARNING CURRICULUM AND TI\1FUSION OF SKILLS ON
EMOTION KNOWLEDGE OF FIRST GRADE STUDENTS
Approved:
Dr. Kenneth W. Merrell
Given the staggering prevalence of 12-22% of school children with mental health
problems and the paucity of effective mental health services available, it is essential that
professionals examine alternative methods for providing social and emotional support to
children (Greenberg, Bumbarger, & Domitrovich, 2001). Rather than continuing with a
service delivery approach that is reactive, fragmented, and inefficient, professionals are
called to consider a more preventive approach that ensures the health of all children. A
public health model of intervention can provide a conceptual framework for mental
health service delivery in its aim to serve an entire population and to provide multi-tiered
support (universal, targeted, indicated) that increases in intensity based on the needs of
individual persons (Coie et aI, 2000).
IV
Members of the Oregon Resiliency Project, a research effort at the University of
Oregon, have spent the last several years developing one such set of SEL curricula,
appropriate for children in grades pre-k-12, the Strong Kids programs, Strong Start: K-2,
(Merrell, Parisi, & Whitcomb, 2007), is a component of Strong Kids, developmentally
applicable to kindergarten through second grade students. The purpose of this study was
to implement a pilot or feasibility study that examined the impact of Strong Start on first
grade students' social-emotional knowledge skills, with a particular emphasis on emotion
knowledge, social behavior and affect. Pretest data collection of Strong Start began in
Fall 2007 in 4 classrooms in a suburban, northwestern school district. Implementation of
the intervention occurred in Winter 2008 and posttest data were gathered in Spring 2008.
Results indicated that Strong Start was implemented with integrity, and that significant
increases in studemts' knowledge about emotion situations and significant decreases in
students' internalizing behaviors were associated with exposure to the program.
Limitations of this study as well as directions for future research are discussed.
vCURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Sara A. Whitcomb
PLACE OF BIRTH: Manchester, CT
DATE OF BIRTH: 3/29/74
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor ofPhilosophy, School Psychology, September 2009, University of Oregon
Master ofEducation, 1998, Harvard University
Bachelor ofArts, 1996, Boston College
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Behavioral Prevention and Intervention in Schools
Mental Health Promotion of Young Children
Teacher Training
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Predoctoral Intern, The May Institute, August 2008-Present
Behavioral Consultant, 4J School District, Eugene, OR, 2006-2007
First Step to Success
Practicum Teaching Supervisor, The University of Oregon, 2006-2008
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, The University ofOregon, 2005
Law and Governance
vi
Kindergarten and Grade 1 teacher, Glastonbury Public Schools, CT, 2002-2004
Classroom Teacher, Valley West Day School, Chicopee, MA, 2001-2002
Special Education Teacher, Belmont Public Schools, MA, 2000-2001
Special Education Teacher, Woodburn Public Schools, OR, 1998-2000
After School Coordinator, Northeast Community School, OR, 1996-1997
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
The Melissa Institute for Violence Prevention and Treatment Dissertation
Research Award, 2007
Project INTEGRATE Leadership Training Grant, University of Oregon, 2005-
2007
ADHD Training Grant, University of Oregon, 2004-2005
Vincent Roberts Award, Boston College, 1996
Skills Leadership Award, Boston College, 1996
Golden Key Honor Society, Boston College, 1996
PUBLICATIONS:
Merrell, K. M., Whitcomb, S.A., & Parisi, D. M. (2008). Strong Start: A social
and emotional learning curriculum for students in Pre-K. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes Publishing.
Merrell, K. M., Parisi, D. M., & Whitcomb, S. G. (2007). Strong Start: A social
and emotional learning curriculum for students in grades K-2. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Whitcomb, S.A.G. (2006). A book review: The reading coach: A how-to manual.
Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2(3), Article 5.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to Drs. Anderson, Stonnshak, Seeley, and
Hodges for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, special
thanks are due to Dr. Kenneth Merrell, whose valuable guidance and support was
instrumental in the realization of this work. I also want to thank: educators, students, and
parents who participated in this study. The investigation was supported by The Melissa
Institute for Violence Prevention and Treatment.
To Stuart, Jack, and Caeli- Thank: you for your endurance. I love you all.
viii
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
The Problem...................................................................................................... 1
Social and Emotional Learning.......................................................................... 3
Strong Start........................ .. 4
The Current Study 6
II. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 8
A Preventive Approach...................................................................................... 8
Social and Emotional Learning in Young Children............................................ 11
Curriculum Design and Delivery....................................................................... 17
The Current State of the Field............................................................................ 19
Conclusion.................................................................... 20
III. Method.............................................................................................................. 22
Participants..................... 22
Recruitment........................................ 25
Procedures................. 26
Interventionist Training................................................................................ 26
Intervention................................................................................................. 27
Research Design........................................................... 32
Chapter
Assessment Procedures ..
Measures .
Independent Variable .
Dependent Variables .
IV. RESULTS .
Analytic Approach .
Repeated Measures Analysis ofVariance .
Chi-Square Analysis .
Difference Scores Analyses .
Magnitude ofEffects .
Social Validity .
Correlations Across Measures .
V. DISCUSSION .
Summary ofImplementation and Feasibility .
Treatment Integrity .
Infusion of Skills .
Acceptability .
Summary ofBehavioral Change .
Research Design .
Findings .
Limitations .
x
Page
33
35
35
40
44
44
51
54
55
56
58
61
63
63
63
64
64
65
65
65
67
Chapter
xi
Page
Design............................................................................................................... 67
Selection........................................................................................................... 68
History.............................................................................................................. 68
Testing and Measurement................................................................................ 68
Future Research :................................................................................. 71
APPENDICES 74
A. PARENT CONSENT, EDUCATOR CONSENT, STUDENT ASSENT ....... 74
B. IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS........................................................... 83
c. BEHAVIORAL DEFINITIONS FOR TEACHER AND STUDENT
BEHAVIOR........................................................................ 95
D. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE MEASURE 98
E. ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN'S EMOTION SKILLS (ACES) 105
F. SCHOOL SOCIAL BEHAVIOR SCALES (pEER RELATIONS) 110
G. SOCIAL SKILLS RATING SYSTEM (pROBLEM BEHAVIOR) 113
H. SOCIAL VALIDITY MEASURES 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................... 120
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. A Triangle ofBehavioral and Emotional Assessment and Intervention Support. 10
2. Percentage ofStrong Start Components Implemented........................ 36
3. Mean Behaviors Observed Across Lessons and Contexts................................... 38
4. Mean Number of Generalization Prompts Given Per Week................................ 39
5. Content Knowledge Mean Scores Across Assessment Periods........................... 49
6. ACES Mean Scores Across Assessment Periods............. 49
7. Peer Relations Mean Scores Across Assessment Periods 50
8. Problem Behavior Mean Scores Across Assessment Periods.............................. 50
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. School Demographics..... . 23
2. Student Demographic Characteristics by Class.................................................. 24
3. Strong Start Lessons.......................................................................................... 29
4. A Within-Subjects Quasi-Experimental Design 33
5. Definitions for Observations ofStrong Start 37
6. Cronbach Reliability Coefficients as Measured at Two Pretest Periods and
Posttest.............................................................................................................. 45
7. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Comparing Measures
Obtained at Two Pretest Periods and Posttest..................................................... 47
8. Means and Standard Deviations ofDependent Measures at Pretest 1, Pretest 2,
and Posttest 48
9. Differences in Mean Scores and Effect Sizes Calculated Across Assessment
Waves 58
10. Social Validity Results Across Educators 59
11. Social Validity Results Across Parents................... .. 60
12. Intercorrelations at Pretest 1.................................................................................... 61
13. Intercorrelations at Pretest 2.................................................................................... 62
14. Intercorrelations at Posttest...................................................................................... 62
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
The prevalence of school-age children with mental health problems across this
nation is alarming, and calls for attention. According to Greenberg, Bumbarger, and
Domitrovich (2001), between 12 and 22 % of children under the age of 18 have social
and emotional problems significant enough to require mental health services;
approximately, 7.5 million children struggle with one or more diagnoses such as
depression, anxiety, or ADHD. Services provided to children are largely reactive and
costly, reaching children once they have spiraled into mental health crises. Given the
large numbers of children in need of services, the limited number of professionals
qualified to provide effective services, and the financial strain such services often place
on families, many children are left under-served (Coie, Miller-Jackson, & Bagwell, 2000;
Merrell, 2001; Roeser & Eccles, 2000).
Compounding such issues is the fact that our nation is growing increasingly more
diverse in terms of culture, SES, disability status, family dynamics etc., and many
children are entering schools having been exposed to varied risk factors. Factors such as
poverty, harsh parenting, maltreatment, and marital conflict/family dysfunction, for
example, all can potentially work to negatively impact a child's social, emotional, and
academic development (Doll & Lyon, 1998; Greenberg et aI., 2001). Given these
2circumstances, many young children are entering school and are not "ready to learn"
(Raver, 2002). A survey of 3,000 teachers, geographically representative of the United
States, for example, indicated that 30% of teachers felt half of the students in their
kindergarten class did not display necessary skills in academics (e.g. pre-literacy and
vocabulary skills) and social-emotional competence. They reported that these children
typically struggled with following directions and working with one another (Rimm-
Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000).
Furthermore, those children who are entering school without appropriate
readiness skills are also less likely to be equipped with emotion knowledge skills (Izard,
Fine, Schultz, Mostow, Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001). Emotion knowledge skills,
defined as one's ability to identify and label emotions in oneself and in others, have been
found to be an important predictor of social behavior, self-reported internalizing
symptoms in later elementary years, attentional control and academic competence(Izard
et aI., 2001; Fine, Izard, Mostow, Trentacosta, & Ackerman, 2003; Trentacosta, Izard,
Mostow & Fine, 2006). Children who struggle with identifying their emotions also
typically have trouble determining appropriate strategies for managing emotions
(Denham & Weissberg, 2004). Those with such emotion regulation/management
problems are more likely to be rated as less well-liked by peers and teachers (Denham &
Weissberg, 2004), and peer rejection has been correlated with negative outcomes such as
school dropout and juvenile delinquency (Raver, 2002).
Given the realities of young children entering school today and national mandates
such as the No Child Left Behind Act, teachers are under significant pressure to foster the
development of children academically, socially, and emotionally. These teachers likely
3experience high levels of stress as they allocate the most time and energy to helping
students meet expectations for academic accountability while simultaneously having to
handle students' diverse behavioral and emotional needs (Berryhill & Prinz, 2003; Roeser
& Eccles, 2000). Although social-emotional competence is an important foundation for
academic success (Elias, Zins, Greenberg, & Weissberg, 2003), academic mandates tend
to dominate school resources in terms of time and money, leaving fewer resources
allocated to promoting social and emotional competence (Raver, 2002).
,
Social and Emotional Learning
Children who acquire emotion knowledge and emotion regulation skills early in
life may be able to respond prosocially to others and may demonstrate attentional control
and academic competence in the classroom (Crick & Dodge; 1994; Denham, Blair,
DeMulder et aI., 2003; Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Trentacosta et aI., 2006; Joseph &
Strain, 2003). For example, Denham et aI., (2003) found that preschoolers' emotion
knowledge uniquely predicted social competence in kindergarten. This relationship might
suggest that students who are able to understand emotions of others may also be able to
be more responsive to peers in the classroom. Furthermore, Trentacosta et aI. (2006)
found that emotion knowledge was related to teacher observations of first and second
graders' competence in attending to academic tasks. This study suggests that emotion
knowledge not only plays a role in one's social competence but also may influence
academic outcomes. To ensure that all children acquire and practice such critical
foundation skills, school professionals are called to recognize and adopt Social and
Emotional Learning (SEL) practices. SEL innovations provide a framework for schools
aiming to prevent student mental health problems and negative outcomes and build social
4and emotional competencies. SEL includes systematic and cohesive instruction designed
to teach social and emotional skills to children and adolescents. The aim of SEL is to
promote wellness and to intervene with mental health issues that have already emerged
(Greenberg, Weissberg, Utne O'Brien, et aI., 2003).
For an SEL program to be most effective it must address students' developmental
needs across multiple years; it must include a direct intervention component; and practice
of relevant skills must be systematically embedded over time and across settings. For
these programs to be acceptable in schools they must have a documented evidence-base,
be reasonable to implement, and be visible to/involve families and community members
(Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Elias, Zins, Greenberg et aI., 2003; Greenberg, Weissberg,
Utne-O'Brien, et aI, 2003).
Strong Start
Strong Start is one such SEL program. Strong Start is part of a continuum of SEL
curricula, appropriate for children in grades k-12, and developed by researchers at the
University of Oregon. Although the components of the curricula geared toward middle
and high school students (e.g., Strong Kids, Strong Teens) have been studied extensively
and have resulted in increases in participants' content knowledge, and small reductions
(in some studies) in depressive symptoms (Merrell, Juskelis, & Tran, 2004), Strong Start
(Merrell, Parisi, & Whitcomb, in 2007), applicable to kindergarten through second grade
students, has only recently been developed. Initial field testing and systematic
implementation efforts regarding Strong Start have been very encouraging; this study
was one of the first more formalized feasibility studies conducted to date.
5Strong Start has been developed to contribute to theory, knowledge, and practice in
the following ways:
1. A SEL curriculum that has been carefully-designed and is developmentally
appropriate will be provided to administrators and teachers ofkindergarten
through second grade students. This curriculum will aid teachers as they educate
children in building relevant skills such as identifying emotions, expanding
emotion vocabulary, recognizing emotions in others, being a good friend, and
resolving conflict.
2. A SEL curriculum that is not resource intensive and that builds on materials and
resources already available to teachers will be accessible to school professionals.
This curriculum is comprised of one small instructional manual that includes an
extensive and easily accessible children's literature list organized by lesson topic,
reproducible activities, and ideas for relevant puppets/stuffed animals, -games and
songs. Ten brief lessons are included with ideas for providing "booster" review
sessions over the course ofthe school year.
3. A SEL curriculum with explicitly stated strategies for infusion ofskills throughout
the school day and across settings will be provided to school professionals.
This curriculum provides extensive tips for teachers as they help children to apply
what they have learned throughout the school day. Parent newsletters delineating
the content of each lesson are available and include strategies for parents as they
help their children use important social and emotional skills and vocabulary at
home.
6The Current Study
The current study was primarily based on the idea that emotion knowledge and
self-management of emotions are critical foundation skills and important predictors of
mental health, school adjustment, and academic success (Denham & Weissberg, 2004).
To interact with others successfully, one must be skilled in the complex process that
includes the identification of emotions, self-management of emotions, recognition of
emotions in others, and decision-making that addresses the emotions and goals of both
parties involved (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Denham, 2006; Denham & Weissberg, 2004;
Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001). Based on this notion, one hypothesis central
to the current study was that children exposed to a developmentally appropriate social-
emotional learning curriculum would experience an increase in emotion knowledge, self-
management of emotions, and social problem-solving skills.
The current study was also grounded in the concept that the skills mentioned
above can be explicitly taught and reinforced by caring adults such as teachers, parents,
and/or community members. Effective and efficient programs that address social-
emotional skills are not simply curricular lessons taught just once per week; rather they
are those that systematically integrate teaching opportunities throughout a variety of
time periods and across numerous contexts (Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Elias et aI.,
2003; Greenberg et aI., 2003). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of an
SEL curriculum, implemented under ideal conditions, on young children's development
of emotion knowledge, self-management of emotions, and social problem-solving skills.
This project also monitored teacher, student, and parent acceptability of the curriculum
and overall fidelity and quality of implementation.
7This study was designed to answer the following questions: (a) Does the
implementation of Strong Start result in increased knowledge of social and emotional
skills in first graders? (b) Does the implementation of Strong Start result in teachers'
perceived improvement in social behavior and affect among children in their classrooms?
(c) Do teachers infuse the concepts presented in Strong Start over time? (d) Do teachers,
students, and parents find Strong Start to be a socially valid intervention? (e) To what
extent is student performance on an assessment of social and emotional knowledge skills
correlated with teacher report of social behavior and affect?
8CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A Preventive Approach
In modem society, many school children are experiencing significant social and
emotional problems, along with increased academic expectations and pressures
(Greenberg et aI., 2001; Roeser & Eccles, 2000). As the United States continues to grow
and diversify culturally and economically, more students are entering schools "at-risk"
for developing social-emotional and behavioral difficulties (Doll & Lyon, 1998). Services
are often costly and inefficient, and the number of mental health service providers is
limited. These current circumstances make it hard for children to access appropriate care,
leaving many underserved, which further increases their risk of experiencing negative
social and academic outcomes, such as academic failure, juvenile delinquency, and
suicide (Coie, Miller-Jackson, & Bagwell, 2000; Merrell, 2001; Roeser & Eccles, 2000).
In addition, public education today often requires teachers to do more with less.
Class sizes are increasing in many cases, and standards to ensure academic accountability
and school safety are emphasized while school budgets are failing to rise in proportion to
the increased demands (Homer, Sugai, Todd et aI., 2005). Considering the current state of
children's mental health and the increased pressures experienced in schools, teachers are
working harder than ever and are experiencing more stress as they attempt to manage and
engage children who are struggling socially and emotionally (Roeser & Eccles, 2000).
9Given the limited reach of effective mental health services for children and the
strain that this paucity of services puts on students and teachers in schools, some state
departments of education are instituting mental health initiatives that require schools to
implement practices directly targeting all children's healthy social and emotional
development (e.g., Illinois Children's Mental Health Act 93-0495). Professionals are
being called to re-conceptualize service delivery for children in schools. Rather than
continuing with a service delivery approach that is reactive, professionals are challenged
to consider a more preventive approach that ensures the health of all children. A public
health model of intervention, an increasingly accepted model in the education field, can
provide a conceptual framework for school-based mental health service delivery in its
aim to serve an entire population and to provide multi-tiered support that increases in
intensity based on the needs of individual persons. Tiers of support are typically
conceptualized as Universal, Targeted, and Indicated (or Primary, Secondary, and
Tertiary) (Coie et aI, 2000; Horner et aI., 2005; Merrell & Buchanan, 2006). Figure 1
reflects an adaptation of the public health model conceptualized by Merrell and Walker
(2004) for a specific focus on students with behavioral and emotional problems.
10
Figure 1. A Triangle of Behavioral and Emotional Assessment and Intervention Support
A Triangle of Support For Students
With Behavioral and Emotional Problems
SlIumdtll)' Prnoeutwn o Classrooms and Groups
........----.t~ loSpccializL'd Skills Training
o:Mcntoring
-1I1crcased SUJlpr>rt
InteruentiQn
Targeted Specialized
Interventions
Universal Interventions
• Universal Screening
• Teacher nOIJlinati on
• Brief Screening Tools
-School-Wide (beha,;orsupporlj
[>1"/l1li1'" PrewndiJn _Prevention curricula
• -Social Ski!l:i Training
- Positive School Climate
• Brief Functional Asscssment
• School Reeords Re''iew
• Behavior Rating Scales
As.sessment
80%
Students Who Do Not Exhibit
Significant Behavioral or Emotional Problems
Students At-Risk
for Negative Benavioral and
Emotional Outcomes
Tier 1:
Universal Support
A universal level of support is an essential component of a public health model
and aims to provide programming that prevents risk exposure and effectively supports
about 80% of a population. In considering mental health efforts for children, universal
supports must not only work to prevent development of social and emotional deficits but
also to increase wellness (Cowen, 1994). Interventions focusing on wellness
enhancement are those that start early and address normative development in children,
the role of adults in fostering social and emotional growth, and the development of
healthy relationships, environments, and coping skills (Denham & Weissberg, 2004;
Cowen, 1994).
11
Social and Emotional Learning in Young Children
Recent political initiatives addressing children's mental health have propelled
forth a universal level (as defined above) mental health effort in the field of education
known as social and emotionalleaming. SEL programs typically address broad-based
social competencies, such as self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,
relationship management, and responsible decision-making (Denham & Weissberg, 2004;
Greenberg et aI., 2003).
SEL programs focus on individual skill development and specific contexts of
which students are part (e.g. home, school, community, etc). These programs involve
direct instruction of skills as well as purposeful infusion of skills throughout school days
and across settings. SEL programs are not meant to be fragmented, short-term initiatives,
rather they are multi-year innovations that are threaded throughout classroom/school
practices and are systematically monitored (Greenberg et aI., 2003; Denham &
Weissberg, 2004; Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006). Currently, there are several SEL
programs that have been developed and researched. Though few universal SEL curricula
have been researched with extensive replication efforts, those that have been studied have
resulted in increased social competence, academic engagement, and school adjustment as
well as decreased aggressive behavior among students Results have also suggested
improved classroom instruction and management among teachers (Greenberg et aI., 2003;
Joseph & Strain, 2003; Lopes & Salovey, 2003; Payton, Weissberg, DUrlak, et aI., 2008).
In fact, in a technical report recently published by Payton et aI., 180 published studies on
universal SEL interventions were summarized. Mean effect sizes measuring the impact of
12
program use on conduct problems/emotional distress and social-emotional skill
development were .23 and .60 respectively.
One example experimental study conducted by Grossman, Neckerman, Koepsell,
et al. (1997) examined the impact of a SEL program called Second Step: A Violence
Prevention Curriculum (see Committee for Children, 1992a) on second and third grade
children's aggressive, prosocial and neutral behaviors. Second Step consists of 50-minute
lessons that are usually delivered twice a week by classroom teachers. Lessons focus on
teaching empathy, anger management, and social problem-solving. In this study,
systematic observations of student behavior were conducted across less-structured
environments (e.g. cafeteria, playground). Results of observations indicated decreases in
children's use of physical aggression and increases in prosocial and neutral interactions
following intervention implementation.
Webster-Stratton, Reid, and Stoolmiller (2008) also conducted a randomized trial
evaluating the impact of a SEL program called the Incredible Years Dinosaur Curriculum
paired with teacher training in classroom management strategies on preschool,
kindergarten, and first grade student emotion knowledge, emotion regulation, social
competence, and teacher-student interactions. The Dinosaur Curriculum consists of 120
lessons that can be implemented two or three times per week. Results suggested teachers
involved in the study used more language pertaining to social-emotional skills in their
classrooms and used fewer reprimand statements with students. Children involved
showed increases in emotional regulation and social competence as measured by direct
observation and also were able to identify more problem-solving strategies and identify
13
more examples of positive feelings as measured on the Wally Problem Solving and
Feelings Test (see Webster-Stratton, 1990).
As SEL innovations continue to emerge in the literature, it is surprising that few
specifically focus on both issues of implementation feasibility and the unique social and
emotional needs of young children in the early elementary years (grades k-2). The
transition into school and the transition between early grades include several significant
milestones spanning a few short years (Perry & Weinstein 1998). For many children,
kindergarten means an introduction to structured activities and socialization within a
larger peer group. First grade and second grade includes increased academic focus and
expectations. Children enduring these transitions likely possess a wide range of social
and emotional skills and all perhaps experience a wide range of emotions. Prevention of
social and emotional problems begins with effective early education and intervention. In
addition, some leaders in the field of children's emotional and behavior disorders have
argued convincingly that early prevention and intervention is key to successful outcomes,
and that if these problems become well-established by the middle school grades, they are
not really "curable," but require long-term management, much like diabetes or other
chronic illnesses (Walker, Gresham, & Ramsey, 2004).Given that efforts to prevent
mental health problems and build wellness are the goal, developmentally appropriate and
feasibly implemented SEL programs for children in the primary grades are sorely needed
(Raver, 2002).
Research on the emotional development of young children indicates that universal
prevention efforts, such as SEL innovations, that focus on children's development of
emotion knowledge are likely to be an effective starting place (Mostow, Izard, Fine &
14
Trentacosta, 2002). Emotion knowledge, or the ability to identify and label emotions in
oneself and in others, appears to develop over time. As children grow, they become more
fluent at the complex task of discriminating between emotions and understanding that one
can experience multiple emotions at one time (Gross & Ballif, 2001). This development
of emotion knowledge provides a foundation for successful social interactions (Fabes,
Eisenberg, Hanish, & Spinrad, 2001; Izard et aI., 2001). Over time, children seem to use
emotional cues from the social environment to determine action (Denham & Weissberg,
2004). For example, Denham (l986b) coded preschool children's displays of emotion in
the classroom and found that when engaged in an interaction that included a peer smiling,
children responded in kind. When children were confronted with peers who expressed
anger, they walked away (as cited in Gross & Ballif, 1991). In this study, children
appeared to recognize the emotions in others, which aided in determining a response.
Many theorists have continued in pursuit of understanding the relationship
between emotion and social interaction. They have developed models of social and
emotional competence that directly and indirectly include emotion knowledge as an
integral component. For example, the social information processing theory
conceptualized by Crick and Dodge (1994) suggests that each interpersonal interaction
entails a person's ability to (a) receive cues occurring within himselflherself internally
(one's emotions) as well as cues being emitted externally (emotions of others); (b)
accurately understand cues; (c) determine a goal for the interaction; (d) develop a
response; and (e) engage in chosen behavior.
Furthermore, Halberstadt, Denham and Dunsmore (2001) build on this concept in
their proposed theory of Affective Social Competence, which specifically includes a
15
direct emphasis on affect and is based on successfully sending and receiving messages
while experiencing affect. They suggested that with each social message that is sent or
received, an individual experiences awareness of affect, identification of affect,
identification of relevant features within the social context (e.g., similar past
experiences), and management and regulation of affect.
Some theories also consider the impact a child's temperament and the "emotional
environment" of which a child is consistently a part might have on his/her ability to
accurately process emotions. For example, Schultz and Izard (2001) found that a child's
overall emotionality was significantly correlated with his/her ability to accurately process
emotions. A relationship existed between children whose emotionality was described as
"happy" and their ability to accurately identify emotions. Furthermore, a relationship
existed between children identified as "angry" in terms of emotionality and their
likelihood to inaccurately identify emotions. These children demonstrated attribution bias
and more often used the label of "anger" to identify emotions. A partial mediational
relationship also existed between children, rated as "happy" by peers, emotion processing
risk status, and display of aggressive behaviors. In other words, children who were
perceived as happy, were more likely to accurately process emotions and less likely to
engage in aggressive behavior.
Although several promising studies and varied theories of emotional and social
competence have been suggested (see Halberstadt et aI., 2001), all include overlapping
features and an emphasis on the key construct of emotion knowledge. Several studies
conducted with children in primary grades suggest that emotion knowledge is an
important foundation skill that is linked to several important outcomes. Young children
16
who develop the ability to accurately recognize and manage their emotions and the
emotions of others early are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior, experience
academic competence, and be accepted by teachers and peers, while those who do not
develop these skills are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior or social withdrawal
(Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Fine, Izard, Mostow, et aI., 2003; Izard, Fine Schultz et aI.,
2001; Mostow et aI., 2002; Trentacosta et aI., 2006).
For example, Izard, Fine, Schultz et aI. (2001) conducted a longitudinal study in
which predictor data (i.e., emotion knowledge, verbal ability, and temperament) was
gathered when children were 5 years old and outcome data reflecting social behavior and
academic behavior when the sample had reached third grade. When controlling for verbal
ability and temperament, emotion knowledge significantly predicted both teacher-
reported social and academic competence on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS).
Specifically, emotion knowledge accounted for 6-9% of the overall variance, and also
significantly predicted positive behaviors such as assertion and self-control as well as
negative internalizing behaviors.
School age children who complete academic tasks and engage in appropriate
"school behavior" are also those described as having the ability to pay attention. Based
on current literature, emotion knowledge seems to be associated with one's ability to pay
attention. Specifically, Trentacosta et aI.(2006), discovered a predictive relationship
between emotion knowledge and attentional control when controlling for factors such as
age, gender, and verbal ability. First and second grade children who were skilled in
recognizing and identifying emotions were those most likely to be rated as competent in
attending to tasks.
17
Mediational relationships between emotion knowledge and peer acceptance have
also been established. Mostow et aI. (2001) found that the relationship between emotion
knowledge and peer acceptance was mediated by social skills or appropriate "emotion
utilization" and that a uni-directional relationship exists between emotion knowledge and
social skills. Furthermore, use of emotion language also appears to be associated with
peer acceptance. In a study of preschooler's use of emotion vocabulary, Fabes et aI.
(2001) discovered children who used a wider range of emotion words and referred to the
emotions of others more often, were rated as better playmates than those who did not.
Results from the studies mentioned above all have implications for social-
emotionalleaming intervention development for children in primary grades. Programs
that focus on helping children to acquire emotion knowledge and the ability to use
emotion knowledge to interact with others will likely lead to positive outcomes such as
acceptable social behavior and academic competence (Mostow et aI., 2002). In fact, in a
meta-analysis examining relationships between children's social problem-solving skills
and overall adjustment, Denham and Almeida (1987) found that children specifically
trained in components of effective interpersonal problem-solving demonstrated an
increase in social problem solving skills post intervention.
Curriculum Design and Delivery
The role adults play in SEL programming is critical as they are the agents who
promote social-emotional development through positive guidance and curriculum
delivery (Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Doll, Zucker, & Brehm, 2004). SEL programming
provides a framework for integrating important life skills into whole systems such as
classrooms, families, and communities (Greenberg et aI., 2003). Effective SEL programs
18
are carefully designed and include both a direct intervention component and strategies for
infusing skills across various times and contexts.
One approach to developing the direct teaching component of a social and
emotionalleaming curriculum is with careful adherence to principles of effective
instruction. According to Kame'enui and Simmons (1990), effective instruction is that
which emphasizes both the design and delivery of content. Lessons that are designed
effectively are those that carefully consider the precise wording teachers will use to
communicate new concepts. Limiting teacher wording overall, will ensure that students
acquire an understanding of the intended vocabulary associated with the content of the
lesson without confusion (Watkins & Slocum, 2004). The range and sequence of
examples that will be used to demonstrate instances and non-instances of new concepts is
critical. For example, effectively designed lessons build upon simpler skills that students
have already mastered. They also include examples and non-examples of concepts that
are both maximally and minimally different from one another so that students can
accurately understand the scope of the concept being presented (Watkins & Slocum,
2004). Teaching formats, or scripts, may also be included to ensure accurate delivery of
content (Becker, 2001; Watkins & Slocum, 2004).
While effective instructional design is a critical element in the facilitation of
student learning, delivery of a curriculum is equally important. Teachers who are able to
efficiently deliver content are those that maintain a brisk pace, ensure multiple
opportunities for students to respond, and provide immediate and corrective feedback
when necessary (Becker, 2001; Brophy & Good, 1986; Kame'enui & Simmons, 1990;
Watkins & Slocum, 2004). Social and emotional instruction that includes a sequence of
19
modeling, rehearsing, and role-playing of new skills has also been found to enhance
student learning (Joseph & Strain, 2003), and teachers who share relevant examples from
their own lives are more likely to maintain student engagement (Doll, Zucker & Brehm,
2004). Furthermore, as children grow, it is important that they are exposed to literature
that will nurture their social-emotional and cognitive development (Fox, Dunlap,
Hemmeter, Joseph & Strain, 2003). Some of the research on social and emotional
learning curricula for young children involves programs that have included relevant
children's literature (see Joseph & Strain, 2003). Finally, integrating use of skills learned
over time and across contexts is essential in order for students to build fluency and
automaticity in appropriate social and emotional responses (Gresham, 2002).
The Current State ofthe Field
Given the increasing interest in SEL curricula, it is also important to note that
public educators are currently strongly encouraged to embrace materials and intervention
programs that are empirically-supported. Federal mandates such as the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) have
pushed this movement forward, requiring schools to carefully study curricula prior to
adoption and to only implement those with a documented evidence base. Given this
reality, it is crucial that SEL programs are evaluated so that they may meet criteria for
school adoption.
Demonstration of efficacy of a program, however, may not be enough to deem a
program appropriate for adoption (Merrell & Buchanan, 2006). For example, in a recent
review of promising social and emotional learning programs for young children, Joseph·
and Strain (2003) established a criteria for evaluating programs to be adopted in terms of
20
treatment fidelity, treatment generalization and maintenance, social validity, program
acceptability, and replication across investigators, clinical groups, ethnic groups and
settings. While all programs were promising and demonstrated either an increase in
competency-based behavior and/or a decrease in problem behavior (depending on the
questions being asked), none of the programs met all criteria for adoption, as many are in
the primary stages of research in applied settings. Two of the ten programs evaluated
specifically addressed acceptability of the program, and one program addressed social
validity outcomes. Furthermore, all studies sampled from "at-risk" populations and varied
in terms of hours per week and numbers of lessons implemented. Programs included
between 12 and 140 lessons and were implemented between 10 and 120 minutes per
week. Programs also varied in terms of materials included and cost. Four of the programs
were relevant for children in primary grades, while the others were directed toward
preschool-aged children.
Given this review of promising programs, the current political emphasis on
academic accountability, and the call toward preventive practices that promote mental
health, it seems that future social-emotionalleaming curricula and research should
address global questions such as "How much instruction/time/training is enough for
children to benefit?" and "How feasible and acceptable is this program in the current
context?" and "Does this work with typically developing populations?" (Joseph & Strain,
2003).
Conclusion
In summary, professionals are called to shift from a paradigm of reactive and
costly mental health service delivery toward one that is preventive, coordinated, and
21
inclusive of all children. Given that all children attend school, it is crucial that educators
engage in practices that promote healthy social and emotional development and reduce
risk. A focus on helping children in primary grades to develop emotion knowledge skills
is appropriate, as adequate emotion knowledge appears to serve as a foundation for
important positive outcomes such as social skill development, academic and attentional
competence.
The current study aimed to contribute to the current status of social-emotional
learning programs by providing a low-cost, brief SEL method that supports schools in
their effort to integrate wellness-enhancement and critical social-emotional skill-building
for all young children in an efficient manner. Strong Start has been specifically designed
to be easily implemented and low-cost. Practitioners will not have to spend substantial
school funds to implement a program that is hypothesized to enhance children's emotion
knowledge. Ten brief lessons included in Strong Start have specifically distilled complex
concepts (e.g. emotion recognition and social problem-solving) into content that is
palatable for children in primary grades.
22
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Participants
This study was conducted in four first grade classrooms in two public elementary
schools in a large suburban district in the state of Oregon. School 1 included three
classrooms (referred to as Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3) and School 2 included one
classroom (Class 4). A total of 88 students and 5 interventionists participated in the
assessments associated with the study. Data analyzed were based on information gathered
on 83 students, due to the attrition of one student from Class 1, two students from Class
2, and the addition of one student to Class 1 and Class 3 following the initial assessment
period. Data analyzed were based on the assessments of3? males and 46 females.
Schools recruited to participate were part of a district that has implemented a
universal tier of positive behavior support (PBS) since the 2000-2001 school year or
earlier. School-wide PBS (SWPBS) is a well-researched and comprehensive educational
approach that is grounded in principles of applied behavior analysis. It specifically
addresses current socially important goals-the creation of school contexts that reflect
safety, health, and achievement. SWPBS emphasizes use of functional behavioral
assessment (FBA) to identify contextual influences that reliably predict and maintain
problem behaviors at a system level. SWPBS is not a packaged curriculum; rather it
relies on consistent implementation of strategic practices that integrate a few, positively-
23
worded behavioral expectations for all students with teaching and reinforcement
strategies that ensure behavioral success. PBS is driven by data collection procedures that
objectively measure behavior and analysis approaches that are team-based and allow for
further intervention planning that will support and enhance the consistent display of
positive behaviors for all children across all school contexts (Homer, Sugai, Todd, &
Lewis-Palmer, 2005; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports et aI., 2000).
During the 2007-2008 school year within this district, 75.74% of students were
identified as White/Caucasian, 13.76% Hispanic/Latino, 2.67% AsianlPacific Islander,
2.55% African American, 2.49% Native American, and 2.79% unknown ethnicity. This.
district provided 50.10% of students with free/reduced lunch, 17.40% of students with
special education, 12.80% of students with Title I services, and 2.80% of students with
English Language services. Table 1 provides further breakdown ofthese demographics
by school. Most notable are differences between the schools in percentages of students
receiving additional services such as free/reduced lunch, special education, Title I and
English language services. Table 2 provides further information on the gender of
participants by classroom.
Table 1
School Demographics
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
School 1
83.88%
8.13%
School 2
58.38%
31.79%
24
Table 1 (continued)
Asian/Pacific Islander 3.44% 0.86%
African American 1.10% 2.31%
Native American 1.10% 5.20%
Unknown 2.35% 1.46%
Additional Services
Free/Reduced Lunch 28.43% 62.72%
Special Education 16.74% 23.99%
Title I 13.80% 22.54%
English Language Development 0.00% 16.47%
Table 2
Student Demographic Characteristics by Class
Male Female Total
Class 1 8 15 23
Class 2 10 11 21
Class 3 11 13 24
Class 4 10 10 20
Total 39 49 88
25
Recruitment. Prior to initiating the recruitment process, the study outlined below
was approved by the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of
Oregon. Upon approval, the principal investigator first contacted the district administrator
responsible for coordinating positive behavior support (PBS) programming. The PBS
district coordinator then presented the proposed study to building administrators in order
to gauge interest. School principals interested in participating received a Strong Start
manual and met individually with the principal investigator in August 2007. Principals
nominated first grade educators within their respective buildings to participate in the
study.
The classrooms ultimately represented in this study were chosen based on
educator willingness, educator qualifications, and grade level of interest. Educators
invited to participate expressed that they place importance on the social-emotional
development of students and were willing to implement social-emotional lessons once
per week. Given that educator quality is a critical element of effective curriculum
implementation, preference was given to educators who had been nominated by building
administrators. Building administrators were asked to nominate educators who they felt
would earn scores of a four or five on a scale of one to five when asked to comment on
educators' overall organization of materials, delivery of instruction, and behavior
management skills. Additionally, educators were required to have at least one year of
experience and have an established classroom management system in place (e.g., defined
behavioral expectations, system for encouraging appropriate behaviors and discouraging
inappropriate behaviors). Finally, participating educators were required to agree to not
implement other formal social-emotional curricula during the course ofthe study. Given
26
that the schools had 30 minutes per week built in for each class to engage in similar types
of instruction with a school counselor, the school counselor for School 1 participated in
implementation of weekly lessons with three of the four participating classrooms. In the
fourth classroom, the teacher implemented lessons during the counselor's typically
scheduled time. All interventionists were female.
Upon obtaining educator consent to participate, the principal investigator sent
letters of passive consent to the parents/guardians of students. The letter described the
details of the study and provided further contact infoffilation, in case parents were
interested in more infoffilation via a telephone call or email correspondence. Given that
the Strong Start curriculum was adopted by both schools for the 2007-2008 school year,
parents only signed letters if they did not want their children to participate in the
assessment process. Though the curriculum and assessments were presented to students
in English only, letters of consent were also offered to parents in Spanish. A total of four
children did not participate in the assessments due to their parents opting to not have
them involved. At the start of the study, students provided signatures on letters of assent,
which described the components of the study in a developmentally appropriate way. All
students whose parents allowed them to participate in assessments, gave assent. Letters of
consent and assent can be located in Appendix A.
Procedures
Interventionist Training. Educators (including the school counselor) involved in
teaching Strong Start were asked to participate in two meetings prior to implementation.
The first meeting occurred two weeks prior to the first assessment period in October 2007
and gave educators an overview of the study and assessment waves that would take place
27
over the course of the school year. Educators signed letters of consent at this meeting. At
a second meeting, occurring one-month prior to the second assessment period and initial
implementation of lessons (December 2007), educators were trained in the conceptual
framework driving this project and in procedures for effective implementation. Several
topics were emphasized during this 2.5 hour training session. Educators were exposed to
the significance of the proposed study through a presentation detailing the social and
emotional development of young children and the current trends concerning the mental
health of young children and service delivery provided in schools.
The second component of the training focused on the implementation of Strong
Start. Educators were presented with a copy and oriented to the Strong Start manual,
materials needed for each lesson, effective use of children's literature, and the importance
of sending weekly newsletters home to parents. Educators were given a detailed
explanation of each lesson and they were presented with information regarding the
importance of fidelity of implementation. The principal investigator provided both a
PowerPoint presentation outlining the lessons and modeled delivery of portions of
lessons. At the close of this training session, educators were provided with details about
the logistics associated with the proposed study. Educators were presented with timelines
for further assessment and intervention phases and also received a $75 honorarium for
participation in the after-school training.
Intervention. Strong Start is a low-cost curriculum, developed under a body of
extensive research, which builds on the materials teachers are likely to have in their
classrooms (e.g. relevant literature choices). It includes 10 forty-minute, activity-based
lessons and 2 optional booster lessons that are easy to implement with children in the
28
primary grades. The Strong Start lessons were implemented during 14 weeks in winter
and spring of 2008. During the ninth week of implementation, spring break occurred and
students received no instruction. One lesson was taught per week unless a holiday, snow
day, or parent-teacher conference day interfered with the regularly scheduled time for
Strong Start lessons. These occasions happened during three weeks for all classrooms.
During these weeks, educators were asked to read one additional book from the literature
list provided in the previously taught Strong Start lesson. For this study, educators did not
implement the booster lessons.
Lessons incorporated in the Strong Start curriculum are designed based on the
principles of effective instruction. For example, each lesson includes clearly stated
objectives, explicit wording to be used to articulate new concepts, relevant examples and
non-examples of concepts taught, practice opportunities, and suggestions for promoting
generalization of concepts across contexts and situations. Objectives stated at the outset
of earlier lessons in the Strong Start curriculum specifically aim to enhance children's
emotion knowledge and management skills by explicitly teaching students to identify a
range of body cues, facial cues, and situational cues that will help them in labeling their
own emotions and emotions of others. The six basic emotions featured in this curriculum
(happy, sad, angry, afraid, surprised, disgusted) are those that are identifiable across
cultures (Ekman & Ellsworth, 1972), and emphasis in early lessons is placed on activities
that aim to build/expand children's emotion vocabulary pertaining to these basic
emotions. Later lessons focus on outlining and practicing more complex strategies for
effectively handling uncomfortable emotions such as anger and anxiety, making and
29
keeping friends, and solving problems with friends. Lessons included in Strong Start are
presented in the Table 3 .
Table 3
Strong Start Lessons
Lesson
Lesson 1: The Feelings Exercise Group
Lesson 2: Understanding Your Feelings,
Part I
Lesson 3: Understanding Your Feelings,
Part II
Lesson 4: When You're Angry
Lesson 5: When You're Happy
Lesson 6: When You're Worried
Lesson 7: Understanding Other People's
Feelings
Lesson 8: Being a Good Friend
Content
Establishing expectations and introduction
to the concept of emotional strength
Introduction to six basic emotions and
identifying which feelings make us feel
"good" or "not good."
Identifying "Ok" and "Not Ok" ways for
handling feelings
Identifying synonyms for anger, body cues
Suggesting anger, and strategies for dealing
with anger
Identifying synonyms for happy, basic
introduction to positive thinking
Identifying body cues suggesting worry,
strategies for letting go of worries
Identifying body clues that show how
someone else is feeling
Strategies for initiating and maintaining
friendships
Table 3 (continued)
Lesson 9: Solving People Problems
Lesson 10: Wrapping Up
Booster Lessons 1 & 2
Strategies for handling emotions and
negotiating conflict
Review of key points in Strong Start
Review of key points in Strong Start
30
Strong Start lessons are scripted in order to provide those implementing the
curriculum with ideas for how to communicate concepts and essential emotion
vocabulary in a systematic, consistent, and developmentally appropriate way. Specific
wording of concepts was carefully chosen and highlighted throughout the curriculum.
Given that learning about emotions is complex and often involves covert processes,
educators participating in this study were encouraged to use consistent wording in an
attempt to provide children with an unambiguous, overt framework through which to
understand these processes.
In addition to paying careful attention to the wording used in Strong Start, equal
attention was given to the construction and arrangement of examples and non-examples
used to teach new concepts. Educators were encouraged to model and engage students in
a discussion regarding positive and negative ways to respond in certain situations and
students were then invited to engage in activities during which they identified examples
and non-examples of a skill. This activity was often a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down
activity that allowed educators to informally assess whether or not children accurately
understood the concept or skill being taught.
31
Several strides were taken in the development of Strong Start to ensure that
generalization opportunities would be offered to students. The principal investigator of
this study encouraged educators to access a stuffed bear (or any other animal) to serve as
a "mascot" for the curriculum. The goal was for the stuffed bear to serve as a reminder of
Strong Start skills that had been presented over time to children in the four classes.
Further visual cues aiming to prompt use of skills included printed posters of some of the
strategies outlined throughout the curriculum. These posters were provided to all
classrooms in an effort to prompt students to use skills when necessary.
Integrating social-emotional skills taught into the academic curriculum and every
day activities is also an efficient and preferred way to ensure students are practicing their
newly acquired knowledge (Langland, Lewis-Palmer & Sugai, 1998; Sugai, Bullis, &
Cumblad, 1997). In Strong Start, lists of relevant children's literature are provided within
the context of each lesson, so that educators can aim discussion of such literature toward
social and emotional topics. During this study, educators were expected to read one book
per week to reinforce concepts taught during that week's Strong Start lesson.
Each lesson also includes a section entitled, Acknowledging What We Learned.
This section provides suggestions to classroom teachers regarding times during the day
and activities within school when it would be useful to help children anticipate a potential
practice opportunity. Further suggestions include possible approaches teachers may take
to help students to remember particular steps of skills learned when they are in a moment
of need. The final portion of this section includes prompts for teachers to provide specific
acknowledgement to students when they use a Strong Start skill in an appropriate
--------------
32
situation. Over the course of this study, educators were strongly encouraged to prompt
students to use skills throughout the day and to track how often they prompted students.
One final component of Strong Start aiming to facilitate children's generalization
of skills is the Strong Start Bulletin. This is a one-page newsletter that accompanies each
lesson and can be sent home to parents/guardians. It is a simple one-page document that
explains examples of skills learned, relevant literature that was read at school and can be
shared at home, and specific tips for promoting use of skills in the home environment.
During this study, the Strong Start Bulletin was sent home each week. Given that some
participants came from Spanish-speaking homes, each bulletin was translated.
In School 1, the counselor facilitated the lesson with three classrooms each week.
Teachers in those classrooms were responsible for reading a book from the literature list,
finishing any hands-on activities that students did not complete during the counselor's
time with their class, and prompting use of Strong Start skills during the week. In School
2, the teacher implemented all of the Strong Start components stated above.
Research Design
This study was based on a within-subjects, quasi-experimental design (Keppel &
Zedeck, 1989) in which all classrooms were assigned to the intervention. The design is
considered quasi-experimental rather than experimental because it did not rely on a
randomly selected or randomly assigned sample of students. All students participated in
the Strong Start intervention. Time served as an element of control. The study included
three data collection periods. Pretest 1data (01) were taken in October 2007, 13 weeks
prior to collection of Pretest 2 data (02) in January 2008. Implementation of the first 10
lessons (X) occurred after the two pretest periods, and posttest data (03) were taken
33
immediately following implementation of the intervention in April 2008. Posttesting
occurred 15 weeks following the second pretest period. Given this design, it was possible
to observe within subject effects and note how typical social and emotional maturation of
first grade students compares with growth that may have occurred due to participation in
the Strong Start intervention. This approach to research design is considered appropriate
when used during pilot trials of recently developed behavioral interventions/therapies
(Rounsaville, Carroll, & Onken, 2001). Table 4 depicts the design used in this study.
Table 4
A Within-Subjects Quasi-Experimental Design
Groups Pretest-l Pretest-2
4 Classrooms
Intervention
x
Posttest
Assessment Procedures. Several assessment instruments were used to measure the
efficacy of Strong Start, user satisfaction, and treatment fidelity. To measure student
emotion knowledge skills, first grade students completed two assessments. Graduate
students from the University of Oregon's school psychology program, were trained in
effectively administering these assessments. Graduate students read test items aloud to
groups of three or four students and students provided answers using a pencil/paper
format. Graduate students then facilitated a "Simon Says" stretch break following
completion of the first assessment. Assessment occurred at small tables just outside the
classrooms and usually required about 15 minutes of students' time. These assessment
activities occurred during pretest and posttest phases. Students were also asked to
complete a social validity questionnaire at posttest phase only.
34
Teachers provided brief reports of the social behavior and affect of students
within their classrooms. This reporting occurred during all pretest and posttest phases.
Teachers were given one week at each assessment phase to complete these measures.
Teachers, the school counselor and parents were also asked to complete a social validity
questionnaire at posttest phase only. Teachers were provided with a 50-dollar gift card to
Borders or Barnes and Noble as incentive for the time investment required for this
activity. The school counselor was comparably compensated, given her involvement in
lesson implementation.
Three graduate students from the University of Oregon's school psychology
program were trained in observing the fidelity of Strong Start implementation. Training
included a one hour session during which students were oriented to fidelity observation
forms and practiced obtaining inter-observer agreement on a video-taped lesson that the
principal investigator had developed. During the training session, all students obtained
100% inter-observer agreement with the principal investigator. Given that there were
only two educators (one teacher and one counselor) who implemented the direct teaching
components of each lesson, five fidelity observations were conducted in School 1 and
four observations were conducted in School 2. Observations occurring in School 1
rotated amongst the three classrooms. To ensure maintenance of inter-observer agreement
established during the training period, two of the observations in each setting included
two observers.
35
Measures
Independent Variable. There was one primary independent variable: time. This is
a qualitative, within-subject independent variable consisting of three levels entitled
Pretest 1, Pretest 2, and Posttest.
Implementation data were gathered to determine integrity of Strong Start
implementation. Trained graduate students from the University of Oregon observed the
direct teaching and student activity components of Strong Start lessons and recorded data
on the Implementation Checklists (see Appendix B). Observation data obtained assessed
the extent to which educators implemented the lesson components as outlined in the
manual. Checklists included a concrete outline of essential topics to be covered within
each lesson. Observations were scheduled. In School 1, 50% of lessons were observed
and the educator's implementation of core lesson components ranged between 93% and
100%. Sixty percent of integrity checks at School 1 included a second observer in order
to obtain inter-observer agreement. Following observations, the principal investigator
calculated inter-observer agreement for lesson components implemented using an overall
agreement method. For School 1, inter-observer agreement was 93% across all sessions.
Reliability was calculated using the following formula:
Agreements X 100
Agreements + Disagreements
Due to scheduling challenges, 40% of lessons were observed in School 2. At this
school, the educator's implementation of lessons ranged between 80% and 93%. The
educator noted that she ran out of time during the one lesson (Lesson 4) that was
observed as being 80% implemented. Inter-observer agreement was calculated based on
36
50% of integrity checks. There was 100% agreement across components of lessons
observed. Further depiction of implementation integrity can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Percentage of Strong Start Components Implemented
100 -,--------------------
90
80
70 -f :~
~ 40
30
20
10 -
o -l--J--'-'-'-'-'.
o Teacher
[;l Counselor
L2 L4 L6
Lesson Number
L7 L8
Additionally, graduate student observers were required to quantify how long the
lessons lasted, how often the educator provided students with opportunities to respond,
how often students responded on-topic, and how often educators provided
individuals/classes with praise and reprimand statements. At both schools, Strong Start
was taught during a thirty-minute block typically allotted for activities with the school
counselor. At School 1, the educator generally concluded lessons after 27 -31 minutes of
instruction. At School 2, the educator concluded lessons after 26-35 minutes of
instruction. Behavioral definitions used for behaviors targeted in Strong Start
observations were adapted with permission from those developed by Martin and Rao (in
preparation). Definitions are further outlined in Table 5 and examples and non-examples
of definitions are provided in Appendix C.
Table 5
Definitions for Observations ofStrong Start
Behavior
Opportunity to Respond (OTR)
Relevant Student Response (RSR)
Educator Praise (PR)
Reprimand/Correction (REP)
37
Definition
A specific, instructional question, statement
or gesture made by the teacher that seeks a
verbal or behavioral response from an
individual or the group.
An oral or behavioral response provided by
a student or group of students related to an
OTR.
An evaluative statement made by the
educator that indicates approval of desired
behavior or response. The interaction
indicates approval based on the behavior of
the student at the time the teacher attends to
him or her, not the tone of the interaction.
Praise statements must include an
evaluative component (e.g., good, great,
nice).
Verbal comments made by the educator
indicating disapproval of student behavior.
The interaction indicates disapproval based
on the behavior of the student(s) at the time
38
Table 5 (continued)
the educator attends to him or her, not the
tone of the interaction.
During the first 10 minutes of each integrity check, observers tallied the behaviors
defined in Table 5. On average, the educator from School 1 provided more opportunities
to respond, experienced more relevant student responses, provided fewer praise and
reprimand statements. Further information regarding these behaviors is provided in
Figure 3. During observations including two observers, inter-observer agreement was
obtained for each behavior. Percent agreement for opportunities to respond ranged from
72% to 100%. Percent agreement for relevant student responses ranged from 94% to
100%. Percent agreement for praise ranged from 71 % to 100% and the range for
reprimands was 80%-100%.
Figure 3. Mean Behaviors Observed Across Lessons and Contexts
---- ----------------------------------
25 -
21.8
20 - 19.5
:::::::: 15.5
o School 1
SI School 2
5.3
1~31'8· 2
--------------- . . . . ---~
RSR PR REPom
g 15 - :::::::: 13.3
CIl
~
C"
~ 10-
LL
5 -
o
39
To determine how often teachers infused skills presented in Strong Start over
time, all four educators received an email once per week during implementation
(beginning after the completion of Lesson 2) to which they needed to state which book
from the literature list was read and to respond to specific questions such as "How many
times this week have you prompted students to use the Stop, Count, In, Out strategy in
handling anger?" or "How often have you prompted students to recognize the emotions
of their friends this week?" Response choices included 0 times, 1-2 times, 3-5 times,
more than 5 times. Teachers ranged in their responsiveness to emails. The teacher from
Class 1 responded to 67% of emai1s, and the teacher from Class 2 responded to 56% of
emails. The teacher from Class 3 responded to 89% of emails and the teacher from Class
4 responded to 100% of emails. When they responded to emails, teachers all stated that
they had read one book from the literature list during that week. Average weekly prompts
by class are outlined in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Mean Number of Generalization Prompts Given Per Week
o
5 -
4.3 4.39
4 ~
~ 3 -
c:
CIl
::::l 2[ 2 1.88
LL
class 1 class 2 class 3 class 4
40
Dependent Variables. The study included three primary quantitative dependent
variables. Social-emotional knowledge skills were assessed via student completion of two
brief assessments. A rating of student social competence and affect was assessed via
teacher report. Social validity data were gathered from students, educators (four teachers
and one counselor), and parents based on a questionnaire format. The measures used are
described in detail below:
1. The Strong Start Content Knowledge Assessment (SSCK) is a small-group
administered experimental assessment that aims to measure emotion identification,
emotion recognition in others, and basic social problem-solving strategies taught within
the Strong Start curriculum (see Appendix D). The SSCK takes approximately 10 minutes
to administer and is a paper and pencil task. There are 18 items included in the SSCK, and
students received 1 point for each correct response on 18 items. Children responded to
each item by circling or marking the picture or word that best answers the question or
scenario provided. Test items include statements such as "Circle the face that shows
disgust" and "Look at this boy and use body clues to tell how he is feeling. Circle one
feeling." The SSCK was piloted in May 2007 to qualitatively determine whether or not
children understand the format of the test and how many children can be administered the
measure at once. During this pilot phase, the researcher determined that children could
follow along with administration procedures when seated in groups of four or five
students.
2. The Assessment of Children's Emotion Skills (ACES) is a standardized
assessment that measures the accuracy with which children recognize emotions. There
are three subscales included in this measure that pertain to children's understanding of
41
emotions given social behavior cues, social situation cues, and facial cues. For the
purposes of this study, the l5-item social situations subscale was used (see Appendix E).
Within this subscale, children are required to respond to social situations that are read
aloud with "happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling." Items from this scale include
scenarios such as "Tim's parents told him that they would take him to the fair. When it is
time to go, his parents say that none of them can go. Do you think Tim feels happy, mad,
scared, or no feeling?" Previous research studies (Schultz, Izard & Bear, 2004;
Trentacosta et aI., 2006) using the ACES resulted in emotion attribution accuracy scores
that correlated moderately well (Cronbach's alpha = .68-.71).
3. Teacher report data was collected on all participating students from each
classroom using a brief measure of social competence and affect adapted from the School
Social Behavior Scales, Second Edition (SSBS-2) (Merrell, 2002) and the Social Skills
Rating System (SSRS) (Gresham & Elliot, 1990) (see Appendix F and G). The SSBS-2 is
designed to measure social competence and antisocial behavior of students in grades
kindergarten through 12. For the purposes of this study, the peer relations subscale was
used. Items from the SSBS-2 include statements such as "Is sensitive to feelings of other
students" and "Controls temper when angry." Items are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1
meaning that the behavior never occurs and 5 meaning the behavior frequently occurs.
Previous research studies indicate that this tool has strong internal consistency (.95-.96)
and strong test-retest reliability (.86-.94) with elementary school populations. The teacher
rating form that is a part of the SSRS aims to measure a student's behavior in terms of
social skills, problem behaviors, and academic competence. Items adapted from the
SSRS included all questions from the subscales reflecting internalizing and externalizing
42
behaviors. Subscales were developed by means of factor analyses. Item examples include
statements such as "Shows anxiety about being with a group of children," and "Gets
angry easily." Items are rated on a scale of 0 to 2, with 0 meaning the behavior never
occurs, I meaning the behavior sometimes occurs, and 2 meaning the behavior occurs
very often. This measure has been widely studied and also has demonstrated excellent
psychometric properties. Coefficients measuring internal consistency have ranged from
.75 to .93. Studies measuring criterion-related and construct validity of the SSRS as
compared to other similar measures have also been encouraging (see Merrell, 2002).
4. At the end of the 10-lesson Strong Start implementation (posttest phase),
educators, students, and parents were asked to complete a social validity survey to
determine the acceptability and feasibility of the program (see Appendix H). Questions
were developed based on fundamentals of social validity originally outlined by Wolf
(1978) and specifically targeted the social significance of the intervention, social
importance of the intervention, and the social appropriateness of procedures.
The survey developed for educators and parents included statements to which
individuals would respond using a 5-point likert scale. A I on this scale represented
strongly disagree, a 2 was equivalent to disagree, a 3 meant neutral, and 4 and 5 meant
agree and strongly agree respectively. Some types of questions included on the survey for
educators were "My students liked Strong Start," and "The materials for Strong Start
were easy to access." Questions included on the parent survey were "I was aware of what
my child was learning during weekly Strong Start lessons," and "I think the parent
newsletters provided helpful tips for parents/guardians."
43
Students answered three questions on the social validity survey. These included "I
liked Strong Start," "I learned a lot during Strong Start lessons," and "My favorite part
about Strong Start was ." For the first two questions, students circled a picture
indicating yes, no, or kind of For the third question, they were asked to write in a word
or draw a picture.
44
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Analytic Approach
This study was designed to answer the following questions: (a) Does the
implementation of Strong Start result in increased knowledge of social and emotional
skills in first graders? (b) Does the implementation of Strong Start result in teachers'
perceived improvement in social behavior and affect among children in their classrooms?
(c) Do teachers infuse the concepts presented in Strong Start over time? (d) Do teachers,
students, and parents find Strong Start to be a socially valid intervention? (e) To what
extent is student performance on an assessment of social and emotional knowledge skills
correlated with teacher report of social behavior and affect?
The first two questions were addressed via a series of repeated measures analyses
of variance. This approach was chosen because there were three phases of assessment,
which allows the researcher to efficiently examine within-subject effects (Gardner, 2001).
Additional paired t tests were conducted on difference scores and a chi-square was
tabulated to further analyze the impact of the intervention versus typical maturation
alone. The third question was addressed previously with the other features of intervention
implementation. To answer the fourth question, descriptive statistics were generated and
percentages of items endorsed were derived. The last question was addressed by
computing bivariate correlations for all measures used across assessment waves.
45
Prior to running analyses to answer the research questions stated above, a series of
analyses were conducted to estimate the observed reliability of the measures used, an
important consideration in the overall confidence of the validity and generalizability of
results. Table 6 outlines the internal consistency estimates for the behavioral rating
measures at each assessment wave. Internal consistency alphas were not considered
appropriate for the Content Knowledge and the Assessment ofChildren 's Emotional
Skills. Because little variance existed between items on the Content Knowledge measure,
and because the ACES measure was not only brief, but also measured a knowledge of a
variety of feelings across different situations, use of alpha coefficients to estimate
reliability may be misleading and ineffective. In such testing situations, internal
consistency coefficients are not considered as useful as observing the stability of scores
for these measures over time, such as is reflected in Table 7 (Strickland, 1999).
Coefficients for the Peer Relations scale from the SSBS were stable and were consistently
measured at .98. Problem Behavior alphas as measured by the SSRS were also stable and
coefficients ranged from .87-.88. These re-test coefficients indicate adequate to strong
reliability or consistency for the two measures for which internal consistency estimates
were deemed appropriate.
Table 6
Cronbach Reliability Coefficients as Measured at Two Pretest Periods and Posttest
Variable
Peer Relations
Problem Behavior
Pretest 1
.98
.88
Pretest 2
.98
.87
Posttest
.98
.88
46
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were also computed to
determine the relationship between scores on measures across periods of assessment.
Table 7 reflects these coefficients. It is important to note that an extensive period of time
elapsed between testing periods which may limit the strength of the obtained coefficients.
Statistically significant correlations for the Content Knowledge measure were revealed
when comparing Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 (r = .30,p < .01) and Pretest 2 and Posttest (r =
.23,p < .05). The correlation for Pretest 1 and Posttest was not significant (r = .21). For
the ACES measure, statistically significant correlations were revealed for Pretest 1 and
Pretest 2 (r = .35,p < .01) and Pretest 2 and Posttest (r = .36,p < .01). A very weak, non-
significant correlation was found for the association between Pretest 1 and Posttest (r =
.12) on this measure. For the Peer Relations measure, all correlations were statistically
significant. Correlations between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 were highly correlated (r = .62, p
< .01). The correlation between Pretest 1 and Posttest was equal to .22,p < .05, and the
correlation between Pretest 2 and Posttest was equal to .57,p < .01. Correlations for
Problem Behavior were also moderately to highly statistically significant across all
assessment waves and the coefficient for Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 equaled .54, p < .01, the
coefficient for Pretest 1 and Posttest equaled .53,p < .01, and the coefficient for Pretest 2
and Posttest equaled .74,p < .01.
47
Table 7
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Comparing Measures Obtained at
Two Pretest Periods and at Posttest
Variable Pretest 1 VS 2 Pretest 1 VS Post Pretest 2 VS Post
(13 weeks) (28 weeks) (15 weeks)
Content Knowledge .30** .21 .23*
ACES .35** .12 .36**
Peer Relations .62** .22* .57**
Problem Behavior .54** .53** .74**
Descriptive statistics were derived for each of the measures across periods of
assessment. Mean scores and standard deviations are included in Table 8. From Pretest 1
to Pretest 2 and from Pretest 2 to Posttest, participants' scores increased on the Content
Knowledge assessment. On average students received 87%, 91 %, and 93% correct on
Pretest 1, Pretest 2, and Posttest respectively. On the ACES, from Pretest 1 to Pretest 2,
students showed an overall decrease in scores. On average students scored 66% on
Pretest 1 and 63% on Pretest 2. From Pretest 2 to Posttest (following the intervention),
subjects showed an increase. Students scored 72% correct on average at Posttest. On both
ofthese measures, higher scores may be indicative of more skill; however, this
assumption is still somewhat unclear as both measures are essentially experimental
measures. From Pretest 1 to Pretest 2 and from Pretest 2 to Posttest on the Peer Relations
measure, subjects showed an overall increase in scores. Higher scores are indicative of
more skill in relations with peers. On the Problem Behavior measure, subjects showed an
---------
48
increase in problem behavior between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 and a decrease in problem
behavior between Pretest 2 and Posttest. Higher scores on this measure are indicative of
more problem behavior. Visual representations of trends of this descriptive data are
additionally provided in Figures 5 through 8.
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations ofDependent Measures at Pretest 1, Pretest 2 and
Posttest .
Variable Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Posttest
Content Knowledge 15.61 16.43 16.81
(1.55) (0.91) (1.02)
ACES 7.86 7.58 8.60
(1.68) (1.96) (1.90)
Peer Relations 38.90 45.98 51.23
(14.07) (14.38) (13.55)
Problem Behavior 2.39 3.59 2.99
(3.82) (4.14) (3.99)
Figure 5. Content Knowledge Mean Scores Across Assessment Periods
49
18 -
16 -
•
14 -
12 -
10 '
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 '
0 ,
Pretest 1
•
Pretest2
•
Posttest
Figure 6. ACES Mean Scores Across Assessment Periods
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 ~
6 ~
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
o
Pretest 1 Pretest2 Posttest
50
Figure 7. Peer Relations Mean Scores Across Waves of Assessment
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
I
10 -
o---~-------- ------- .-._--------_._.---_._~--_.__._-_._- -----_._----- . ---
Pretest 1 Pretest2 Posttest
Figure 8. Problem Behavior Mean Scores Across Waves of Assessment
•
------.----------
•
..
24 -
22-
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 .-
6c
4 -
2 -
0---------------
Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Posttest
51
Repeated Measures Analyses ofVariance
To answer research question 1, does the implementation ofStrong Start result in
increased knowledge ofsocial and emotional skills in first graders, ANOVAs were
conducted for the Content Knowledge measure and the ACES measure. Prior to
conducting the analyses of variance, distributions were examined to ensure that ANOVAs
would be an appropriate analysis. The distribution for the Content Knowledge measure at
Pretest 1 did present as positively skewed. A "ceiling effect" was detected in that many
students received high scores at Pretest 1. In an attempt to normalize this distribution,
logarithmic transformations were conducted on the Content Knowledge scores. When
examined, this transformation process did not change the skewness significantly. Items
with no variance were excluded, but when an ANOVA was conducted, it did not change
the overall results significantly. Given that the repeated measures ANOVA statistical test
is fairly robust to violations of the assumption of normality, particularly when the
skewness across observations are symmetric and the sample size large, the ANOVA was
conducted based on the mean scores originally obtained (Howell, 1997). The scores from
the ACES met the assumptions of ANOVA.
For the Content Knowledge measure, Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant
(W = .87,p < .05), indicating within subjects effects would likely have a positive bias and
that it was necessary to adjust degrees of freedom. The adjusted degrees of freedom are
reflected in the Huynh-Feldt statistic (Gardner, 2001). The Huynh-Feldt statistic tends to
be more liberal than other statistics aiming at correcting this issue (e.g. Greenhouse-
Geisser) and may be more appropriately used in the context of an exploratory study
(Gardner, 2001). This statistic was used and indicated a significant effect, F = 28.10 (2,
52
148),p < .001. This finding indicates that the change in mean scores from Pretest 1 to
Posttest was likely not due to chance. Given that the omnibus F value was statistically
significant, further contrast analyses were conducted to compare the means·of Content
Knowledge scores between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2, between Pretest 2 and Posttest, and
between Pretest 1 and Posttest. Significance was detected between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2
with F = 22.70 (1, 82), p < .001. A significant difference was also detected between
Pretest 2 and Posttest, F = 8.35 (1, 82),p < .05. Finally, a significant difference was
found between the scores of Pretest 1 and Posttest, F= 43.19 (1, 82),p < .001. It is
critical that the results of these contrasts are interpreted cautiously given that the
assumption of sphericity was violated, making it more likely that a Type I error would
occur when observing contrasts (Howell, 1997).
A similar approach was taken in analyzing the mean scores derived from the
ACES measure. In this case Mauchly's test of sphericity resulted in an insignificant effect
(W = .97,p = .351), meaning that no adjustments needed to be made to degrees of
freedom. Again, the main effect of time was significant, F = 9.45 (2, 164), p < .001.
Tests of within-subjects contrasts were conducted. Differences in mean scores between
Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 were not statistically significant, F = 1.46 (1, 82), p = .23.
Differences between Pretest 2 and Posttest were likely not due to chance, F=18.31 (1,
82),p < .001. Differences between Pretest 1 and Posttest were also statistically
significant, F = 8.15 (1, 82), p < .01.
To answer research question number 2, does the implementation o/Strong Start
result in teachers' perceived improvement in social behavior and affect among children
in their classrooms, analyses of variance were conducted on scores derived from the Peer
53
Relations scale on the SSBS and from the Problem Behavior scale on the SSRS.
Distributions were again examined to ensure that the assumptions of ANOVA would be
met. Like the Content Knowledge measure, the Problem Behavior measure presented a
negatively skewed distribution. Again, given that the ANOVA is generally robust to
violations of the assumption of normality, especially when the skewness is symmetrical
across observations, the test was run based on mean scores, (Howell, 1997).
For the Peer Relations measure, the Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant
(W= .80,p < .001), requiring an adjustment to degrees of freedom used. The Huynh-
Feldt statistic was used and indicated a significant main effect, F = 30.71 (2, 139), p <
.001. This finding indicates that the differences in mean scores derived at different points
in time were likely not due to chance. Within-subjects contrasts were examined.
Differences in mean scores between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 were significant, F = 26.50 (1,
82), p < .001. Differences in scores between Pretest 2 and Posttest were also significant,
F= 13.88 (1, 82),p < .001. Additionally, differences in scores between Pretest 1 and
Posttest were significant, F= 42.23 (1, 82),p < .001. Again, results of the contrasts
should be interpreted cautiously, as the potential for Type I error to occur when sphericity
is violated is likely.
For the Problem Behavior measure, Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant,
(W = .90, p < .05), requiring an adjustment to the degrees of freedom used in the analysis.
This issue was corrected with the Huynh-Feldt statistic. The overall main effect of time
on problem behavior was significant, F= 4.80 (2, 152),p < .05. Within-subjects contrasts
indicated significance between means derived at Pretest 1 and Pretest 2, F = 8.14 (1,82),
p < .01. Contrasts between Pretest 2 and Posttest were not significant, F = 3.53 (1, 82),p
54
=.06. Contrasts comparing means between Pretest 1 and Posttest were also not
significant, F = 2.1 (l, 82), P =.15.
Given that the Problem Behavior measure was comprised of items that reflected
either externalizing behaviors or internalizing behaviors, separate externalizing and
internalizing variables were created and further ANOVAs were conducted on these
variables. Descriptive statistics were derived for the externalizing score across Pretest 1
(M = 0.99, SD = 2.22), Pretest 2 (M = 1.45, SD = 2.76), and Posttest (M = 1.45, SD =
2.47). Descriptive statistics were also derived for the internalizing score across Pretest 1
(M= 1.40, SD = 2.41), Pretest 2 (M= 2.16, SD = 2.41), and Posttest (M= 1.54, SD =
2.24).
For the externalizing score, Mauchly's test of sphericity was not significant (W =
0.96,p = .23), meaning that no adjustments needed to be made to degrees of freedom.
The overall main effect oftime on externalizing behavior was not significant, F = 2.60 (2,
164),p = .08, making observations of further contrasts irrelevant. For the internalizing
variable, Mauchly's test of sphericity was again insignificant (W=0.94,p = .07). The
overall main effect of time on internalizing behavior was significant, F = 5.22 (2, 164), P
< .01. Contrasts comparing Pretest 1 to Pretest 2 were significant, F = 8.22 (l, 82), P <
.01. Contrasts comparing Pretest 2 and Posttest were also significant, F = 8.1 0, (l, 82), P
< .01.
Chi-Square Analysis
Given that means derived from the Problem Behavior represented a negatively
skewed distribution and showed an increase in overall problem behavior between Pretest
1 and Pretest 2 and a non-significant decrease in problem behavior between Pretest 2 and
55
Posttest, further analyses were conducted. Forty-two cases that showed no problem
behavior at any of the assessment waves were excluded, leaving 41 cases. Two new
classification variables were derived. One variable coded those cases that showed
increased problem behavior between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 as a 1.0 and no increase in
problem behavior as O. The other variable coded cases that showed decreased problem
behavior between Pretest 2 and Posttest as a 1.0 and no decrease in problem behavior as
O. A cross-tabulation revealed that 21 of the 41 (51 %) students followed the trend in
which they showed an increase in problem behavior between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 and a
decrease in problem behavior between Pretest 2 and Posttest. A chi-square analysis was
conducted, resulting in a statistically significant result, (l = 12.06,p < .01).
Difference Scores Analyses
Given that it is necessary to interpret with caution several of the contrasts in the
ANOVAs that have been described, ~nd because a critical element of this study involved
observing the change in scores between testing periods, analyses of difference scores
were conducted. Paired samples t tests of difference scores allow one to compare the
changes in scores between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 with the changes in scores between
Pretest 2 and Posttest (Keppel & Zedeck, 1989). Rogosa (1988) promoted using
difference scores when research questions target observations of change and suggests that
this is a reliable method when true changes in individual scores are observed. To reduce
experimentwise error, the alpha for each test was lowered to .01 using the Bonferroni
adjustment (Sankoh, Huque, & Dubey, 1997).
The paired t-tests of mean difference scores on the ACES measure (M = 1.30, SD
= 3.54) revealed statistically significant results, t = -3.35,p < .01. This finding indicates
56
that the increase in scores between Pretest 2 and Posttest reflects a statistically significant
change from the decrease in scores between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2. Paired t tests of mean
difference scores on the SSRS (M= -1.81, SD = 5.70) also revealed statistically
significant results, t = 2.90,p < .01. This suggests the decrease in scores on problem
behavior between Pretest 2 and Posttest reflects a statistically significant change from the
increase in scores between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2. No statistically significant differences
in difference scores were derived from the Content Knowledge measure or the Peer
Relations measure.
Magnitude ofEffects
In addition to null hypothesis testing, it was critical that a measure of the
magnitude of the effect of time alone (Pretest 1 to Pretest 2) and time with the Strong
Start intervention (Pretest 2 to Posttest) was obtained. Having a sense of the size of the
experimental effect is essential for experimenters aiming to compare treatment effects
across multiple studies (Thalheimer & Cook, 2002). Effect sizes for paired t-tests (dz)
can be calculated by subtracting the treatment mean from the control mean and dividing
by the pooled standard deviation of the means, while accounting for correlation between
group means (Cohen, 1988). Paired t-tests were conducted to determine effect size
because the design of the current study relied on dependent observations of the dependent
variables. Cohen (1988) recommended guidelines for interpreting effect sizes, in which
he labeled a small effect as .20 to .49, a medium effect as .50 to .79, and a large effect as
.80 or higher. Effect sizes less than .20 may not be as meaningful in this classification
system; however, current discussion in the field has posited that it might be more relevant
to determine "meaningful" effects by comparing effect sizes from previous studies
57
measuring similar interventions or by determining "normative" expectations for growth
given the specific outcome variables being measured (Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey,
2008). Table 9 outlines the differences in means between testing periods and the effect
sizes calculated for the current study. Although small effect sizes were shown (according
to Cohen's heuristic) when comparing Pretest 2 to Posttest for the Content Knowledge
measure and the Peer Relations measure, the effect sizes for these measures were actually
larger when comparing Pretest 1 to Pretest 2, which raises questions about the pre-test to
post-test differences being a function of temporal variance rather than a function of the
power of the intervention. A small-medium effect was found when comparing Pretest 2 to
Posttest on the ACES measure. This effect was a larger effect than that shown between
Pretest 1 and Pretest 2. Finally, a small effect was shown when comparing Pretest 2 to
Posttest on the Problem Behavior measure. Though this was a non-significant difference
in means, this finding could be encouraging given that given the results of the
internalizing versus externalizing data.
In addition to assessing the magnitude of effects, it was also important to assess
the statistical power achieved across analyses. Statistical power refers to the probability
that the analysis used will avoid a Type II error (see Cohen, 1992; Hallahan & Rosenthal,
1995). In other words, power refers to the likelihood that a "non-zero" effect will be
detected (Hallahan & Rosenthal, 1995). Statistical power is derived based on the effect
size, the sample size, and the set a level (Cohen, 1988; Hallahan & Rosenthal, 1995).
Power was calculated using the G * Power statistical program (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang &
Buchner, 2007) and was typically observed at .99 or 1.00. The comparisons that
estimated lower power was that between Pretest 1 and Posttest for Problem Behavior
(.85), the contrast comparisons for internalizing (.80) and main effects for externalizing
(.51).
Table 9
Differences in Mean Scores and Effect Sizes Calculated Across Assessment Waves
58
Variable Pretest I-Pretest 2 Pretest 2-Posttest
Difference t ES Difference t ES
Content Knowledge 0.82 -4.87** 0.48 0.38 -2.91 * 0.35
ACES -0.28 1.10 -0.11 1.02 -4.27** 0.47
Peer Relations 7.07 -5.23** 0.57 5.25 -3.87** 0.31
Problem Behaviors 1.20 -3.00* 0.32 -0.60 1.75 -0.19
*p < .05
Social Validity
To address research question 4, do teachers, students, andparentsjind Strong
Start to be a socially valid intervention, social validity questionnaires were provided to
educators, students and parents at the end of the Strong Start intervention. All
participating teachers and the counselor from School 1 returned completed
questionnaires. Table 10 provides information regarding the extent to which educators
endorsed (agreed or strongly agreed) items or did not endorse (neutral, disagree, or
strongly disagree) items. In general, educators endorsed items. One educator was neutral
when asked whether the materials needed for Strong Start were easy to access. Another
disagreed when asked whether she had adequate time to teach Strong Start lessons.
Table 10
59
Social Validity Results Across Educators
Item
1. My students liked Strong Start.
2. I feel my students learned important skills
From Strong Start.
3. I feel my students use the skills learned from
Strong Start.
4. I enjoyed teaching Strong Start.
5. I found Strong Start easy to teach.
6. I had adequate time to teach Strong Start.
7. The materials needed were easy to access.
8. I felt the training provided prior to Strong
Start was adequate.
9. I would like to teach Strong Start again.
10. I would recommend Strong Start to others.
Endorsed
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
100%
100%
100%
Not Endorsed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
20%
0%
0%
0%
All students completed brief social validity questionnaires at the end of the posttest
assessment period. Of the 84 students surveyed, 78% of students reported that they liked
Strong Start and 68% of students reported they learned a lot during lessons. Eleven
parent social validity questionnaires were completed and returned. Table 11 provides
60
information regarding the extent to which educators endorsed (agreed or strongly agreed)
items or did not endorse (neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree) items. Again, parents
generally endorsed most items. Four parents reported that they were neutral when asked
whether they have tried the tips provided in parent newsletters. Two parents reported as
neutral when asked whether their children liked Strong Start. Two parents endorsed
neutral when asked whether they felt their children learned from Strong Start, and one
parent was neutral when asked whether his/her child uses the skills learned in the
curriculum. One parent returned an incomplete questionnaire with the message, "Sorry, I
don't remember what Strong Start is, but I am sure it is great."
Table 11
Social Validity Results Across Parents
Item
1. I was aware of what my child was learning
Weekly during Strong Start lessons
2. My child liked Strong Start.
3. I feel my child learned important skills from
Strong Start.
4. I feel my child uses the skills learned from
Strong Start.
5. I think the parent newsletters provide helpful
tips.
6. I have tried the tips provided in parent newsletters.
Endorsed
100%
82%
82%
82%
91%
100%
64%
Did Not Endorse
0%
18%
18%
18%
9%
0%
36%
61
Correlations Across Measures
To address research question 5, to what extent is student performance on an
assessment ofsocial and emotional knowledge skills correlated with teacher report of
social behavior and ciffect, bivariate correlations were conducted for each assessment
wave. Tables 12 through 14 depict this data. Across all three assessment periods the
Content Knowledge measure was not significantly correlated with either the Peer
Relations or the Problem Behavior scales. The ACES did not consistently correlate with
either the Peer Relations or Problem Behavior scales. The Peer Relations and the
Problem Behavior scales were consistently related with moderate, inverse correlations.
Table 12
Intercorrelations at Pretest 1
Variable Content Knowledge ACES
Content Knowledge
Peer Relations Problem Behavior
ACES
Peer Relations
Problem Behavior
*p < .05
.31 **
.06
-.03
.23*
-.04 -.46**
Table 13
Intercorrelations at Pretest 2
Variable Content Knowledge
Content Knowledge
62
ACES Peer Relations Problem Behavior
ACES
Peer Relations
Problem Behavior
*p < .05
Table 14
.03
.16
-.06
.19
-.27* -63**
Intercorrelations at Posttest
Variable Content Knowledge
Content Knowledge
ACES Peer Relations Problem Behavior
ACES
Peer Relations
Problem Behavior
*p < .05
.30**
.21
-.15
.03
-.16 -.70**
63
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
According to Rounsaville, Carroll, and Onken (2001), research on newly-
developed behavioral therapies should occur across three primary stages. The focus of
Stage I research should be on assessing the feasibility of implementation and on
gathering preliminary efficacy information. Stage II emphasizes large-scale randomized
control trials that will ensure the efficacy of treatment while Stage III highlights issues
related to external validity, cost-benefit analyses, etc.
The current study on the implementation of Strong Start can be considered a
Stage I study according to the research framework outlined by Rounsaville et al. (2001).
During such preliminary studies, investigators work to conceptualize and produce
manuals, identify procedures for implementation of the therapy, target populations for
treatment and hypothesize about specific mechanisms of behavioral change. The
following discussion will summarize the findings of the current pilot study within the
framework of Stage I research.
Summary ofImplementation and Feasibility
Treatment Integrity. One primary purpose of the current study was to develop a
better understanding of how professionals might best implement a brief social-emotional
learning curriculum within the context of heavily-scheduled primary grade classrooms. In
both schools, it was determined that it would be most feasible to implement lessons
64
during the weekly 30-minute period when the school counselors were scheduled to visit
the four classrooms. In School 1, the counselor implemented the direct teaching
component of each lesson while in School 2 the teacher was the interventionist. Overall,
both the counselor and the teacher implemented lessons with a high degree of fidelity.
Both interventionists also were observed providing students with multiple opportunities
to engage with the curriculum and students responded on topic frequently. Both
interventionists were also observed providing more praise than reprimands on average.
The counselor tended to provide more opportunities for students to share ideas and her
students tended to share more frequently.
Infusion ofSkills. All teachers were expected to report to the researcher weekly on
whether or not books from the Strong Start literature list were read and how often and in
what contexts they prompted students to use skills learned during Strong Start lessons.
Teachers ranged in responsiveness to emails. According to emails, all teachers appeared
to consistently read books from the literature list to students. On average, teachers of
Class 2 and Class 4 prompted students to use Strong Start skills more often. Anecdotally,
these teachers also verbalized to the researcher that they had several students with
challenging behaviors in their classes. Overall, teach~rs tended to prompt students less
than one time per day and tended to prompt students during conflict situations or when
children showed that they were upset.
Acceptability. According to measures of social validity, teachers, the counselor,
parents and children found Strong Start to be an acceptable intervention overall. The
teachers and counselor felt that their students learned, that their students used skills
learned, that they felt adequately trained and that they would use Strong Start again. One
65
teacher felt that the books from the literature list were sometimes hard to access and the
teacher in School 2 reported that she often ran out of time when teaching lessons.
Students overall endorsed that they liked and learned from Strong Start. Parent response
was relatively limited, but all of those who responded reported that they were aware of
Strong Start and that they found parent newsletters helpful. Fewer parents endorsed that
they tried the tips provided in newsletters.
Summary ofBehavioral Change
Research Design. Another primary purpose of the current study was to identify
how Strong Start might impact students' social and emotional knowledge and their social
behavior and affect. To help identify the specific mechanism of change, a within-subjects
repeated measures design was employed. Two waves of pretest assessments occurred 13
weeks apart in order to identify changes in assessment scores that might reflect typical
maturation for first graders. The intervention was implemented and posttest assessments
were given 15 weeks following the second pretest. Comparing scores obtained during the
pretest phase and intervention phase enabled the researcher to hypothesize about changes
in knowledge and social behavior and affect due to exposure to the Strong Start
curriculum versus those due to typical maturation alone.
Findings. According to the results of the Assessment ofChildren 's Emotion Skills
(ACES), students on average showed lower scores at Pretest 2 than at Pretest 1. Their
scores increased significantly between Pretest 2 and Posttest and a moderate effect size
was observed. In addition, the change in scores between pretest periods and the
intervention period was statistically significant. These results indicate that exposure to
66
Strong Start may have contributed to increased knowledge in accurately matching
emotions to varied situations.
According to the Problem Behavior measure taken from the Social Skills Rating
System, on average students showed a statistically significant increase in problem
behavior between Pretest 1 and Pretest 2. A decrease in mean scores between Pretest 2
and Posttest was observed, but these were not found to be significantly different
statistically. The small effect size observed may be meaningful, however, given that the
primary aim of Strong Start is prevention and large, immediate changes in behavior may
not be intended (Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001). Change in scores between pretest
periods and the intervention period was found to be statistically significant. Furthermore,
when this trend in means was examined by type of behavior, internalizing versus
externalizing, it was found that internalizing behaviors decreased during the intervention
period while externalizing behaviors remained the same. When students who showed no
problem behavior during the school year were eliminated from the analysis, it was
additionally found that a statistically significant proportion of students with problem
behavior showed an increase during the pretest period and a decrease during the
intervention period. These analyses support the idea that Strong Start may have
contributed to a small, but meaningful decrease in problem behavior, particularly
internalizing behaviors. Furthermore, Strong Start may be providing an intervention
effect for students who already display some problem behavior versus those who do not.
The Strong Start Content Knowledge measure is an experimental measure aiming
to assess student knowledge ofthe concepts presented in the curriculum. A "ceiling
effect" occurred, where students received high scores right at Pretest 1, making it so there
67
was little room for growth post intervention. Analyses of change scores revealed that
there was likely no difference between the change in scores during the pretest periods and
intervention period, even though scores increased slightly with each testing period.
The Peer Relations measure also showed increases in mean scores across each
testing period, however, the change in scores between pretest periods and posttest was
not significantly different from one another. In fact, the difference in scores between
Pretest 1 and Pretest 2 was greater than the difference between Pretest 2 and Posttest.
Limitations
Design. Although the current study was designed to measure within-subjects
change (an appropriate design for a feasibility study) there are some limitations to the
design as it was implemented. Given that the study essentially spanned an entire school
year and it was designed to measure typical maturation versus "learning" as a result of
curriculum implementation, it was difficult to feasibly stagger waves of
assessment/implementation across classrooms. If staggering had been feasible, it could
have helped to identify what maturation versus intervention outcome looks like in general
across a school year versus what maturation looks like from October to January when the
two pretests were conducted for all participants. Another option would have also been to
employ a true experimental design which would have involved obtaining a larger sample
and randomly assigning classrooms to intervention or control. A control group could
have provided another opportunity to observe typical maturation versus the impact of the
intervention. In this case hierarchical linear modeling may have helped to control for the
statistical bias that can occur when participants are nested within classrooms and schools
(Raudenbush & Byrk, 1986).
68
Selection. Another potential threat to the validity of the current study involves the
selection of participants. Although all schools involved were from the same school
district and have school-wide Positive Behavior Support programs in place, the
demographics of student participants varied dramatically by school. For example, one
school had a higher percentage of English language learners than the other. Given that the
curriculum was only delivered in English, students with limited English proficiency may
have been at a disadvantage. Furthermore, although teacher participants were nominated
by building principals and asserted that they were committed to implementing the
intervention, the school counselor did complete the direct teaching of lessons for three of
the four classrooms. Though treatment integrity for both the school counselor and the
teacher who did implement Strong Start was comparably high, there may have been
nuanced differences in their delivery and facilitation of lessons.
History. Administrators and educators agreed not to implement any other
universal social-behavioral interventions during the course of Strong Start
implementation. In theory, this would help to limit competing interventions that might
serve as a confounding variable; however, there remains a distinct possibility that other
secondary or tertiary social-behavioral supports could have impacted student growth. For
example, students that displayed more problem behavior seemed to benefit more from the
Strong Start intervention, and yet, these same students could have simultaneously been
benefiting from individualized behavior support plans, family therapy, etc.
Testing and Measurement. Several limitations to the current study involve issues
of testing and measurement. Students and teachers were involved in three waves of
assessment across the school year. Though relatively long periods of time elapsed
69
between testing periods, students' scores could have been impacted, (particularly with the
continuous improvement observed on the Content Knowledge measure), by general
practice with the measure itself. Furthermore, student scores could also have been
impacted by the procedural format through which testing occurred. Given the resources
available, (e.g. time, graduate student availability, etc), students were tested in small
groups. Though every effort was made to ensure that students looked at their own papers,
they were seated at small tables and may have been able to share answers with one
another.
Teachers provided input using indirect ratings of student behavior and their own
behavior regarding their infusion of Strong Start skills throughout the week. These
ratings essentially measured teacher perceptions of behavior at particular points in time,
but teacher perceptions could have differed from behavioral reality. For example, it is
possible that teachers tended to perceive and rate the behaviors of individual children as
generally "positive" or "negative" across the different points in the year based on their
initial impressions of the children at the start of the year. This may have been reflected in
the reported increase and stability of externalizing behaviors over time. On the other
hand, teachers may have also reported in a socially desirable way given that they knew·
the objective of Strong Start was to teach students about feelings and coping strategies
found to be generally effective for internalizing symptoms. In this way, the ratings may
not have objectively demonstrated what was actually occurring.
Though the results of this study may provide hints about potential behavioral
change mechanisms (e.g. decreased internalizing behaviors, increased knowledge about
emotion-laden situations), it is also necessary to question the measures used given the
70
variability and limited correlations found across assessment waves between measures.
Measures of Peer Relations and Problem Behavior demonstrated consistent internal
consistency and were correlated with one another over time. The measures of emotion
knowledge, Strong Start Content Knowledge and ACES, were not consistently correlated
with one another or with teacher-rated behaviors. The Content Knowledge assessment
aimed to measure student knowledge ofparticular skills included in Strong Start. Given
that students scored relatively high on this measure with the first pretest, indicates that
the measure may not exactly be tapping what the intervention does, it requires more
questions that are more complex, or the intervention itself may be more developmentally
appropriate for younger students or students with more social-emotional skill deficits.
It may also be useful to examine how reliably young students perform on brief
social-emotional knowledge measures such as the ACES over a shorter window of time
(e.g. gathering test-retest data) and to better examine the validity of such instruments in
general. Denham (2006) suggests that there are some technically sound direct measures
of emotion knowledge and emotion regulation available for preschool populations;
however, most are resource intensive and require children to be individually assessed.
Denham calls for further research and assessment development that addresses more
advanced emotion knowledge skills, considers behavioral outcomes that may be linked to
emotion knowledge and emotion regulation, and considers the role that context might
play in assessment of emotion regulation and behavioral responses. The 30-item Emotion
Knowledge Questionnaire, developed by Ribordy, Camras, Stefani, and Spaccarelli
(1988), was validated for use with children five and six years old and may be another
option for use in future research projects. The current study was limited by the dearth of
71
technically sound, developmentally appropriate, and feasibly administered direct
measures of emotion knowledge for children in primary grades.
Future Research
According to the stage model of intervention research delineated by Rounsaville
et al. (2001), the current study was able to gather some appropriate preliminary
information necessary in Stage I research. The educators, parents, and students involved
in this study found Strong Start to be a useful and acceptable intervention. Educators
were able to implement lessons with fidelity based on measures developed to monitor
implementation. A training protocol for those monitoring fidelity was developed and
observers were reliable in their observations of teacher and student behaviors during
lesson implementation. The current study also helped to elucidate how core features ofa
curriculum can be flexibly implemented to accommodate the scheduling needs of those
involved. Given that school counselors in the district involved in this study all have 30
minutes per week to spend with classes, implementation ofcurricula such as Strong Start
might be a very effective use of time.
In spite of the obvious measurement limitations observed in the current study,
there are promising glimpses in the realm of behavioral change. Based on data gathered,
ratings of internalizing behaviors did decrease following the intervention and a
significant percentage of students who displayed any problem behavior over the course of
the year according to teacher report showed a decrease in such behavior following the
intervention. These results are consistent with the findings from a recent study on Strong
Start conducted with second grade students by Calderella, Christensen, Kramer, and
Kronmiller (in press). In this study including one treatment and control classroom,
72
Calderella et al. found that on average students in the treatment group showed a
statistically significant difference in internalizing symptoms as measured by the SSRS
when compared to peers in the control condition. Peers in the control condition showed
an increase in such symptoms while those in the treatment condition showed a decrease
following Strong Start implementation. Within group t-tests for dependent means were
used to measure within subject change for members of the treatment group whose
problem behavior scores on the SSRS fell within the highest 20% of the class at pretest.
Following Strong Start implementation, these students showed statistically significant
decreases in internalizing symptoms and no change in externalizing symptoms.
Given the initial promise gleaned from the current study, future research is needed
on the systematic implementation of Strong Start, a brief, social-emotional learning
curriculum for young children. The brevity (10 lessons) of this curriculum should be
considered as advantageous if lessons are implemented well and if practice of skills
taught is prompted and reinforced over the course of the day in a variety of settings. To
ensure generalization of skills is appropriately facilitated, future research should include
more intensive training and consultation for educators on how to consistently prompt use
of skills. Along this vein, more reliable methods for assessing educators' integration of
social-emotional skill practice should be generated. Future research could also include a
better model for informing parents about the Strong Start curricula. For example, if
educators shared an overview of the curriculum and the importance of parent newsletters
at "open house" or "curriculum night" at schools, parents may be more aware of its
purpose and may be more likely to read and even practice tips provided in newsletters.
73
The current study included several measurement challenges that should certainly
be considered in future research. To better pinpoint specific mechanisms of behavioral
change that may result from implementation of Strong Start, a combination of indirect
and direct measurement should be used. Indirect measures might include teacher and
parent ratings of both students' social and emotional assets and limitations (Merrell, in
press). Direct measurement may even involve targeting specific behaviors associated
with emotion regulation (e.g. using appropriate words to express frustration, generating a .
prosocial solution to a problem) and developing a system of direct observation to code
frequency of such behaviors over time. Future research may also include development
and validation of brief, developmentally appropriate emotion knowledge measures for
elementary school students.
Finally, future research on Strong Start should involve examination of its use with
a variety of populations. The current study included first grade classrooms. This
curriculum is intended for students in kindergarten through second grade. Future studies
should include these grade levels. The current study also suggested an intervention effect
for students already displaying some type of problem behavior. Future studies should
further examine this population and should also examine the potential preventative
impact Strong Start may have on general populations over time.
In sum, the current investigation of the impact of Strong Start on first grade
students resulted in meaningful information that is worth future study. A great deal was
learned about feasible implementation, acceptability, and potential behavioral impact.
Prior to moving toward Stage II research, next steps in Stage I research should work to
replicate and further refine how Strong Start is used and observed.
APPENDIX A
PARENT CONSENT
EDUCATOR CONSENT
STUDENT ASSENT
74
75
Strong Start Parent/Guardian Consent
Dear Parents/Guardians:
My name is Sara Whitcomb and I am a graduate student in the school psychology
program at the University of Oregon. During the 2007-2008 school year, I am planning
on conducting a research study with first grade students. I have helped to develop a
curriculum, Strong Start, which aims to help young children learn about identifying and
handling emotions and basic problem-solving with peers. Strong Start includes 10 forty-
minute, activity-based lessons that are easy to implement with children in the primary
grades. Games/songs/activities, parent/guardian newsletters and relevant examples of
children's literature are included with each lesson. Each lesson also includes "Henry," a
bear that helps to communicate the specific content. Your child's teacher has agreed to
teach Strong Start lessons in her class this year. The purpose of my research study is to
better understand if Strong Start helps to increase children's knowledge of emotions and
social skills. I am also interested in learning if teachers, parents/guardians, and children
find Strong Start lessons to be worthwhile and enjoyable.
There are several assessments that will help me to achieve the purposes set forth in this
study. There are two assessments that I would like to tryout with the first graders in your
child's class. Each assessment will take about 10 minutes to complete. Both require
students to circle answers to questions that ask about identifying emotions and handling
social situations. Assessment items appear in both a written and picture format. Graduate
students from the University of Oregon will be reading the questions aloud to small
groups of children in the classroom while others are working on typical daily classroom
activities. These assessments will be given at three different times during the study. The
assessments are intended to be fun, but your child's participation is voluntary. Children
are not required to participate and will not be penalized in any way if they do not
participate. As both assessments and Strong Start lessons encourage children to think
generally about their feelings and friendships, students could potentially experience
feelings of discomfort, such as stress or embarrassment. If completing the assessments or
lessons is upsetting to your child in any way, he/she can stop answering the questions and
can talk to his/her teacher or me. I will not be asking children to write any identifying
information on their papers other than a subject code number. I will have a class list with
corresponding code numbers during each assessment period. Once all of the assessments
have been completed, I will destroy the class list. At that point, code numbers will make
it so that I cannot link any data collected back to individual children. All children in
participating classrooms will celebrate the end ofthis project with an ice cream or pizza
party with their classmates.
I will also be asking your child's teacher to rate each individual student's general affect
and social behavior at three different points in time. This assessment will consist of 25
statements about peer relationship skills and social behaviors that are problematic.
76
Teachers will rate each child's behavior on a scale. For example, on some items Teacher
will circle "1" if the behavior never happens, a "2," "3," or "4" if the behavior sometimes
happens, and "5" if the behavior frequently happens). Again your child's code number
will be used so as to maintain his/her confidentiality.
Finally, I will be asking teachers, children, and parent/guardians to rate their experience
with the Strong Start program upon its completion. Teachers and children will be directly
in contact with the lessons each week and can provide important information about
whether or not Strong Start should be used in the future. Given that parents/guardians
will receive weekly newsletters that tell about the lessons; their feedback is just as
important. Reading the newsletters should take you no more than 5 minutes per week,
and completing the evaluation of Strong Start will likely take about 10 minutes.
Your child's participation and your assistance in this project will help to inform use of
effective and efficient instructional and assessment procedures for future use of Strong
Start, a tool developed to enhance the mental health and social competence of young
children. If you are interested in looking at the types of questions being asked or lessons
being delivered in this project, I will leave copies of the assessments and curriculum with
your child's teacher. If you have further questions about this project, please contact me at
svvhitcom0>uoregon.edu/ 206-8714 or my advisor, Dr. Kenneth Merrell at
kmerrell0>uoregon.edu/346-24 14. If you have questions about your child's rights as a
research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the
University of Oregon at 346-2510.
If you are not willing to allow your child to participate in completing the assessments
described above, please sign your name oil the line below and return this letter to your
child's teacher by . Please keep a copy of this letter for your own
records. Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information
provided above, that you decline consent to participate without penalty, that you have
received a copy ofthis form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or
remedies.
Thank you for helping me to move forward with my research project.
Sincerely,
Sara Whitcomb
I DO NOT give consent for my child (name) to participate in
this study
Please print your child's name: _
Please print parent/guardian name: _
Parent/guardian signature: _
77
Comienzo Fuerte, Consentimiento/Permiso del Padre Familiar/Tutor
Estimados Padres/Tutores:
Mi nombre es Sara Whitcomb y soy una estudiante graduada del programa de psicologia
escolar en la Universidad de Oregon. Durante el afio escolar 2007-2008, planeD iniciar
un estudio de investigaci6n con los estudiantes del primer grado escolar. He ayudado a
desarrollar el curriculo (0 plan de estudios) lIamado Comienzo Fuerte, 10 cual se enfoca a
ayudar a los jovencitos a aprender como identificar y manejar emociones y como resolver
problemas basicos con compafieros. Comienzo Fuerte incluye 10 tumos de cuarenta y
cinco minutos, en actividades basadas en lecciones que son faciles de implementar a
nifios en los grados primarios. Juegos/canciones/actividades, cartas a padres
familiares/tutores y ejemplos relevantes de la literature de los nifios son incluidos con
cada lecci6n. Cada lecci6n tambien incluye "Henry," un oso que ayuda a comunicar el
contenido especifico. El maestro de su hijo/a ha estado de acuerdo en ensefiar lecciones
de Comienzo Fuerte en su sal6n de clases este afio. El prop6sito de mi investigaci6n de
estudios es para entender mejor si el programa Comienzo Fuerte ayuda a aumentar el
conocimiento de los nifios en las emociones y habilidades sociales. Tambien, estoy
interesada en aprender si los maestros/as, padres de familialtutores, y los nifios
encuentran las lecciones de Comienzo Fuerte interesantes yagradables.
Hay varias evaluaciones que me ayudaran a lograr los prop6sitos hechos para este
estudio. Hay dos evaluaciones que me gustarian intentar con los del primer grado en la
clase de su hijo/a. Cada evaluaci6n se tomara aproximadamente 10 minutos para
completar. Los dos requieren que los estudiantes circulen sus respuestas que son
identificar sus emociones y como manejan sus situaciones sociales. Estas evaluaciones
se presentan en formato de dibujo y escritura. Los estudiantes graduados de la
Universidad de Oregon estaran leyendo las preguntas en pequefios grupos de nifios en la
clase, mientras que otros siguen trabajando en sus tipicas actividades de clases diarias.
Estas evaluaciones seran dadas en tres diferentes tiempos durante el estudio. Las
evaluaciones son intentadas a ser divertidas, pero la participaci6n de su hijo/a es
voluntaria. Los nifios no son requeridos a participar y no seran penalizados de ninguna
manera si ellos no participan. Como las dos evaluaciones y las lecciones de Comienzo
Fuerte animan a los nifios en pensar generalmente sobre sus sentimientos y amistades,
pueda ser que los estudiantes sientan 0 experimenten un nivel de incomodidad, tal como
estres, 0 pena. Si el completar la evaluaci6n 0 las lecciones es incomodo para su hijo/a
en cualquier manera, el/ella puede parar de contestar las preguntas y puede hablar con su
maestro/a 0 yo. No les estare pidiendo a los nifios escribir cualquier imformaci6n
identificadora en sus papeles con excepci6n de un nllinero de c6digo con sujeto. Tendre
una lista de clase con los numeros de c6digo correspondientes durante cada peri6do de
evaluaci6n. Una vez que todas las evaluaciones hayan sido completadas, yo destruire la
lista de clase. En ese instante los nllineros de c6digo 10 haran de modo que yo no pueda
relacionar cualquier dato coleccionado de los estudiantes individuales. Todos los nifios
78
participantes de los salones celebranin el final de este proyecto con nieve 0 una fiesta de
pizza con sus compafieros de clase.
Tambien Ie pedire al maestro/a de su hijo/a que califique cada afecto general del
individuo y comportamiento social en tres puntos diferentes durante ese tiempo. La
evaluaci6n consistini de 25 declaraciones sobre las habilidades de relaciones de los
compaiieros y comportamientos sociales que son problematicos. Los maestros calificaran
el comportamiento de sus hijos/as en una escala (Por ejemplo, en algunos articulos el
maestro circulara "1" si el comportamiento nunca paso, un "2," "3," 0 "4," si el
comportamiento algunas veces paso, y un "5," si el comportamiento paso
frecuentemente). De nuevo, el numero de c6digo de su hijo/a sera usado para mantener
su confidencialidad. Finalmente, les pedire a los maestros, niiios y padres de
familialtutores que califiquen Sl.l experiencia con el programa Comienzo Fuerte a su final.
Los maestros y los niiios estaran directamente en contacto con las lecciones cada semana
y puede proveer informaci6n importante sobre si el programa Comienzo Fuerte se debera
usar en el futuro 0 no. Como dicho, se les enviara a los padres de familia cartas
semanales de noticias que les dira sobre las lecciones, su opini6n es tan importante. El
leer estas cartas no debera tomarle ni 5 minutos por semana, y completar la evaluaci6n de
Comienzo Fuerte Ie tomaran unos 10 minutos.
La participaci6n de su hijo/a y su asistencia en este proyecto ayudara a informar al uso
eficaz y eficiente de los procedimientos educacionales y de la evaluaci6n para el uso
futuro del Comienzo Fuerte, una herramienta para engrandecer la salud mental y
capacidad social de los jovencitos. Si usted esta interesado/a en ver los tipos de
preguntas que les seran preguntadas a los niiios or las lecciones que les enseiiaran en este
proyecto, dejare copias de las evaluaciones y el curriculo con el maestro de su hijo/a. Si
usted tiene mas preguntas sobre este proyecto, por favor comuniquese conmigo a
swhitcombC2Vuoregon.edu 1206-8714 or mi consejero, Dr. Kenneth Merrel a
k111errell(a~uoregon.edu 1346-2414. Si usted tiene preguntas sobre losderechos de su
hijo/a como participante de investigaci6n, por favor contacte ala oficina de "Protection
of Human Subjects" en la Universidad de Oregon al 346-2510.
Si usted no permite que su hijo/a participe en completar esta evaluaci6n dicho
anteriormente, por favor firme su nombre en la linea de abajo indicada y regrese esta
forma al maestro de su hijo/a el . Por favor guarde una
copia de esta forma de permiso/consentimiento para sus archivo. Su firma indica que
usted ha leido y entendido la informacion dada, que usted no permite que su hijo/a
participe en completar esta evaluaci6n, y que no habra castigo por 1a falta de
consentimiento.
Gracias por ayudarme a seguir con mi proyecto de investigaci6n.
Sinceramente,
Sara Whitcomb
Por favor, escriba el nombre de su hijo/a:
Por favor, escriba el nombre del padre familiar 0 tutor:
Firma del padre familiar 0 tutor:
79
80
Strong Start Teacher Consent
October 2007
Dear First Grade Teachers:
My name is Sara Whitcomb and ram a graduate student in the school psychology
program at the University of Oregon. Next fall, ram planning on conducting a
dissertation study with first grade students. rhave helped to develop a curriculum, Strong
Start, which aims to help young children learn about identifying and handling emotions
and basic problem-solving with peers. It includes 10 forty-minute, activity-based lessons
that are easy to implement with children in the primary grades. The purpose of my
research study is to better understand if Strong Start helps to increase children's
knowledge of emotions and social skills. r am also interested in learning if teachers,
parents/guardians, and children find Strong Start lessons to be worthwhile and enjoyable.
This fall, r will provide training to you and other first grade teachers who are willing to
implement this curriculum during winter and spring and complete brief assessments that
measure students' social behavior and affect. Weekly preparation for lessons will take a
maximum of 15-20 minutes. The training will require 3-4 hours of your time and can be
completed on different days (e.g. weekly grade-level meetings). Assessments will be
completed at three points in time and will take approximately 5 minutes per child to
complete. Data collectors from the University of Oregon will be trained to observe
implementation of 4-5 lessons. Weekly emails assessing your use of Strong Start skills
over time will also be included and will likely take approximately 5 minutes to complete.
r will also be providing you with copies of Strong Start parentlguardian newsletters to
send home with students. You will be compensated with two, $50 dollar certificates to a
bookstore and local restaurant over the course ofthe study. You will also be provided
with your own copy of Strong Start.
Given that students in your classroom will be involved in the study, they will also be
asked to complete two measures that assess their knowledge of the content at three points
in time. Each assessment will take about 10 minutes for students to complete. Graduate
students from the University of Oregon will be reading the questions aloud to small
groups of children in the classroom while others are working on typical daily classroom
activities. Children will celebrate the end of this project with and ice cream or pizza party
with their classmates. r will work with you to find an appropriate time for graduate
students to come into your class to facilitate assessment administration and ice
cream/pizza parties.
Finally at the conclusion ofthe study, rwill be asking you, the children, and
parentiguardians to rate their experience with the Strong Start program. These
81
questionnaires will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. I will provide you with
copies of the rating forms to send home with students.
The assessments and lessons are intended to be fun, but your participation is voluntary.
Your decision to participate will not affect your job, and you will not be evaluated for
employment purposes. In order to maintain confidentiality throughout the study, teacher
data collected during observations and over email will be marked with a code number and
your name will be removed.
In agreeing to participate, you are expressing that you place importance on the social-
emotional development of students and are willing to implement social-emotional lessons
once per week and participate in the assessment activities. Finally, your participation
indicates that you agree to not implement other formal social-emotional curricula during
the course of the study.
If you have questions about this project, please contact me at (541) 206-8714 or
swhitcomra;uoregon.edu.
Sincerely,
Sara Whitcomb, Ed.M.
Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided
above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your consent at any
time and discontinue participation without penalty, that you have received a copy of this
form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies.
Print Name:
---------------
Signature: _
82
Strong Start Student Assent
Dear Student:
My name is Sara Whitcomb and I am a student at the University of Oregon. I am working
on a project that will help me to learn more about how children in elementary school
understand feelings and friendship. Soon, your teacher will begin teaching lessons once a
week from a book called Strong Start. During these 10 lessons, you will be learning with
my friend, Henry the bear. He hopes to help you to learn about understanding feelings
and being a good friend.
Today, and on two other days several weeks from now, I will also be asking you to circle
some answers to questions on two tests. These tests will each take about 10 minutes to
complete. Please answer the questions the best you know how. You will not get a grade
on these papers and your teacher won't even see them. You do not even need to write
your name on these papers. Instead, I am going to give each of you your own number to
write on these papers. When I look at these papers later, I will not know who circled the
answers. In other words, your answers will be kept secret. If the questions I read make
you feel uncomfortable in any way, you can talk to me, your teacher, or your parents
about it. You do not have to participate in these activities if you do not want to, and you
will not be in trouble if you do not want to participate.
If you choose to participate in these Strong Start activities, your class will celebrate with
a pizza or ice cream party when the project is over.
If you do want to participate, write your name here: _
Thank you,
Sara Whitcomb
APPENDIXB
IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS
83
84
Implementation Checklist
Lesson 2: Understanding Your Feelings, Part I
Observation start time: _
Observation end time:
----
Tally of opportunities to respond Tally of student responses
Tally of total praise statements Tally of total reprimands given
I. Review
Minutes:
--------
o Referred to previous lesson describing the Feelings Exercise Group
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
II. Introduction
Minutes: _
o Communicates that students will talk about naming feelings.
o Communicates that there are feelings that make us feel good or not good on the
inside.
Fully Imple)11entedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
III. Feelings Identification
Minutes:
--------
o Communicates that we all have feelings wherever we go.
o Generates a list of feelings.
o Identifies feelings as those that make us feel good and not good.
85
o Engages children in practice activity (thumbs up/thumbs down).
o Describes that it is hard to determine whether some feelings make us feel good or
not good on the inside.
o Encourages students to pay attention to feelings in their bodies, expressions on
their faces, and thoughts in their minds that help them name feelings.
Circle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
Partially Implemented Fully Implemented
IV. How do you feel?
Minutes:
--------
o Brainstorms times/situations when we might have certain feelings.
o Engages students in Think/Pair/Share activity.
o Mentions that students will engage or engages students in drawing activity.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
V. Closure
Minutes: _
o Teacher reviews with students that naming feelings is important.
o Teacher reminds students that we have feelings everywhere we go.
o Teacher reviews that some feelings make us feel good and others make us feel
not good.
Circle One: Not Implemented Partially Implemented Fully Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
Observation finish time:
---
Percentage of Components Not Implemented: _
Percentage of Components PartiaHy 1mplemented :__
Percentage of Components Fully Implemented: _
86
Implementation Checklist
Lesson 4: When You're Angry
Observation start time:
----
Tally of opportunities to respond Tally of student responses
Tally oftotal praise statements Tally of total reprimands given
I. Review
Minutes:
--------
D Refers to previous lesson Understanding Your Feelings.
D Refers to feelings that make us feel good and not good on the inside.
D Refers to Ok and Not Ok ways of showing feelings.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
II. Introduction
Minutes:
--------
D Communicates that students will talk about anger.
D Communicates that students will learn about what anger looks like and feels like.
D Communicates that students will learn about when anger might occur and how
they can deal with their anger.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
III. Read a Book from the literature list
Minutes:
--------
D Teacher reads appropriate book.
87
D Teacher engages students in a discussion about feelings characters experienced in
the book with a particular emphasis on anger.
Circle One: Not Implemented Partially Implemented Fully Implemented
Notes: _
III. Show and Define Anger
Minutes:
--------
D Shows pictures or gives examples of what angry faces look like.
D Encourages students to share what their bodies feel like when they are angry.
D Encourages children to share times when they experienced anger.
D Brainstorms synonyms for anger.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
IV. Ways of HandIing Anger
Minutes:
-------
D Introduces Ways that Help and Ways that Hurt in handling anger.
D Uses an overhead or visual of Supplement 4.2 to show the Stop, Count, In, Out
strategy.
o Provides multiple examples (Ways that Help) and non-examples (Ways that
Hurt) for handling anger.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
V. Activity
Minutes:
-------
o Introduces hands-on activity that children will complete showing Ways that
Help.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
V. Closure
Minutes:
--------
D Teacher reviews with students that everyone feels angry sometimes.
o Teacher reminds students to use Ways that Help in handling anger.
Partially Implemented Fully ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
Observation finish time:
---
Percentage of Components Not Implemented: _
Percentage of Components Partially Implemented:__
Percentage of Components Fully Implemented: _
88
89
Implementation Checklist
Lesson 6: When You're Worried
Observation start time:
----
Tally of opportunities to respond Tally of student responses
Tally of total praise statements Tally of total reprimands given
I. Review
Minutes: _
D Refers to previous lesson When You're Happy.
D Refers to positive (happy) thinking.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
II. Introduction
Minutes:
--------
D Communicates that students will talk about feeling worried.
D Communicates that students willleam about how to deal with worries.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
III. Show and Define Worry
Minutes: _
D Shows pictures or gives examples of what worried faces look like.
D Encourages students to share what their bodies feel like when they are worried.
D Encourages children to share times when they experienced worry.
D Brainstorms synonyms for worry.
90
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
IV. Letting Go of Worries
Minutes: _
o Uses the ABC's of Positive Thinking and Stop, Count, In, Out strategies to
explain how to let go of worries.
o Provides multiple examples and non-examples for Letting Go of Worries.
o Engages students in problem-solving how to let go of worries when non-
examples are provided.
o Engages in relaxation exercise or explains that students will engage in one in the
near future.
Partially Implemented Fully ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
V. Closure
Minutes:
--------
o Teacher reviews with students that everyone feels worried sometimes.
o Teacher reminds students to use ABC's of Positive Thinking and Stop, Count,
In, Out strategies to let go of worries.
Partially Implemented Fully ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
Observation finish time:
---
Percentage of Components Not Implemented: _
Percentage of Components Partially Implemented:__
Percentage of Components Fully Implemented: _
91
Lesson 7: Understanding Other People's Feelings
Observation start time:
----
Tally of opportunities to respond Tally of student responses
Tally' of total praise statements Tally oftotal reprimands given
I. Review
Minutes:
--------
o Refers to previous lesson When You're Worried.
o Reviews ABCs of Positive Thinking, and the Stop, Count, In, Out strategy.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
II. Introduction
Minutes:
--------
o Communicates that students will talk about understanding how other people feel.
o Communicates that students will learn to notice what other people's bodies and
faces look like when they are feeling different ways.
Circle One: Not Implemented Partially Implemented Fully Implemented
Notes: _
III. Name and Define Skill / Modeling / Charades
Minutes:
-------
o Explains how to tell other's feelings by looking for visual cues of face and body.
o Shows faces from supplement 7.1, identifies visual cues.
o Models body clues for various emotions.
o Has students act out feelings for each other.
o Points out how understanding others' feelings helps us get along better.
92
Circle One: Not Implemented Partially Implemented Fully Implemented
Notes: _
IV. Read a Book from Literature List
Minutes: _
Book Title/Author: _
D Identifies characters' feelings and behaviors.
D Notes how different characters have different feelings in same situation.
D Uses relevant questions to guide discussion.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
---------,---------------------------
V. Real World Examples
Minutes:
--------
D Reviews how same experience can lead to different feelings in different people.
D Provides examples of when this might occur.
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
VI. Closure
Minutes: _
D Reviews ways to tell how others are feeling.
D Explains how to look for visual cues.
D Reminds students that others may have different feelings and understanding them
helps to be good friends.
Partially Implemented Fully ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
Observation finish time:
---
Percentage of Components Not Implemented: _
Percentage of Components Partially Implemented: __
Percentage of Components Fully Implemented: _
93
Implementation Checklist
Lesson 8: Being a Good Friend
Observation start time:
----
Tally of opportunities to respond Tally of student responses
Tally of total praise statements Tally of total reprimands given
I. Review
Minutes:
--------
D Refers to previous lesson Understanding Other People's Feelings.
D Reviews body clues that telI us how others are feeling
FulIy ImplementedPartialIy ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
II. Introduction
Minutes:
--------
D Communicates that students will talk about being good friends.
D Communicates that students willleam about how to show how to be a good
friend with their bodies.
Fully ImplementedPartialIy ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
-------------------------------
III. Talking and Listening
Minutes:
--------
D Encourages students to use a nice voice (soft and gentle) when talking to friends.
D Encourages students to use their eyes, ears, and bodies to show that they are
listening to friends.
D Models examples of using a nice voice and being a good listener.
94
Fully ImplementedPartially ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
IV. Approaching Others
Minutes:
-------
o Explains how to begin a friendship or activity with friends.
o Brainstorms list of ways to show others you want to be afriend.
Partially Implemented Fully ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes: _
V. Sharing and working together/Activity
Minutes:
--------
o Explains that good friends share and work together.
o Encourages students to think of a time when they have shared or worked
together.
o Engages students in making a class book based on Supplement 8.1 or explains
this"as an activity that will be completed later.
Partially Implemented Fully ImplementedCircle One: Not Implemented
Notes:
------------------------------
o Reviews concepts relating to being a good friend (e.g. using nice voices, listening
ears, kind words.
o Reviews that being a good friend makes it easier to work together and share.
VI. Closure
Minutes:
--------
Observation finish time:
---
Percentage of Components Not Implemented: _
Percentage of Components Partially Implemented:__
Percentage of Components Fully Implemented: _
APPENDIXC
BEHAVIORAL DEFINITIONS FOR TEACHER AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR
95
96
Definitions for Observations of Strong Start (Adapted from
Martin & Rao, in preparation)
Opportunities to Respond (OTR): A specific instructional question, statement or gesture
made by the teacher that seeks a verbal or,behavioral response from an individual or the
group
o Examples:
o "Raise your hand if you have ever felt mad before."
o "Who can tell me ifthis is an OK or NOT OK way to handle a feeling?"
o "Give me a thumbs-up if you think this is a good feeling."
o "Have you ever felt mad before? What did your body look like when you
were mad?"
o "Tell the person next to you about a time when you felt surprised."
o Non~examples:
o Non-specific questions such as "Do you understand?"
o Behavioral directions such as "Please sit down in a circle."
o Non-instructional questions such as "Remember Hemy?"
o "Pull out a pencil."
Relevant Student Responses: An oral or behavioral response provided by a student or
group of students related to an OTR.
o Examples:
o Children in the class raise hands when asked if they have felt mad.
97
a "That is an OK way to handle a feeling."
a Children give thumbs-up sign as an answer to teacher's OTR.
a Teacher directs children to get into pairs and share. ~80% or more of the
class comply with teacher request.
a Child responds accurately without being called upon and response is
followed by a reprimand such as "Please don't call out. 1am looking for
raised hands."
a Non-examples:
a Teacher asks "Tell me how your body felt when you were mad." Child
responds "I was mad when my sister wouldn't share."
Teacher praise: will be defined as an evaluative (qualitative) statement made by the
teacher that indicates approval of desired behavior or response/performance. The
interaction indicates approval based on the behavior of the student at the time the teacher attends
to him or her, not the tone of the interaction. Praise statements must include an evaluative
component (i.e. good, great, nice, etc)
Reprimand! Correction: Verbal comments made by the teacher indicating disapproval
of student behavior. The interaction indicates disapproval based on the behavior of the
student(s) at the time the teacher attends to him or her, not the tone of the interaction.
Examples may include statements such as no, please stop, don't, etc. or may include
explicit behavioral redirection such as "please keep your feet on the floor. "
APPENDIXD
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE MEASURE
98
99
Strong Start
Content Knowledge Assessment
Directions for Administration
Read the following script aloud to students:
Today I am going to ask you to listen carefully as I read directions for 18
items on these two pieces ofpaper. I will ask you to circle pictures or put
"x" marks on pictures or next to words. I will read one item at a time. When
you are done marking an answer, please put your pencil down and look up
at me so that I know you are ready. Please work quietly and do not say your
answers out loud. Remember, ifyou do not know an answer, that is ok. Just
take your best guess. Are there any questions?...Please put your finger on
number 1 and look at me. (Help any child who cannot find number 1). Let's
begin.
Read aloud assessment items.
Strong Start
Content Knowledge Assessment
•1) Circle the © © ®happy face.
2) Circle the @ 00 ©angry face.
3) Circle the (I) © 00surprised face. (1
4) Circle the (I) @ ©disgusted (1face.
5) Circle the 00 ® @afraid face.
6) Circle the @ (I) ©sad face. (1
100
7) Circle the feeling that makes you feel not good on the inside.
101
8) How do you feel when you are asked to eat something you
don't like?
9) Put an X on the picture showing a way that hurts.
Circle the way that helps.
10) Henry was lying in bed and heard a loud noise. Circle the
faces that show the feelings that he might have.
@MOO ® 00© ® 8G~ Happy ;-.-. Sad ~ Scared
• Surprised
11) Last week Henry did not do well on his spelling test. This
week he is so worried about the test on Friday that he can't sleep,
he has a stomach ache, and can't stop thinking about the test. Is he
Letting Go or Not Letting Goof his worries?
Mark the right box.
o He is Letting Go.
o He is Not Letting Go.
102
12)
Look at this boy and use body clues to tell hc;>w he is feeling.
Circle one feeling.
®® ® 00~ Happy ;.-.. Sad @ 8G
• SurprisedMad Seared
13)
Last year, Henry's family moved and Henry went to a new school.
He did not know any of the kids in his new class. During indoor
recess, Henry wanted to join two kids playing legos but he did not
know how. He did not ask if he couldplay, but he tipped over a
lego tower and laughed. Was Henry using an OK or NOT OK way
to join the game?
o OK
o NOTOK
14)
When Henry tipped over the Lego tower, how do you think the
kids who were playing with them felt? Circle the feelings.
@ ® ®®© 88~ Happy ~ Sad
-- Mad
~ Scared
• Surprised
15)
When Henry tipped over the Lego tower, the kids who were
playing both counted to 10 and took a deep breath. They asked
Henry to help pick it up. Henry helped and asked if he could play.
Were they Problem-Solving or Not Problem-Solving?
o Problem-Solving
o Not Problem-Solving
103
16) Henry felt disgusted when she saw her friend sneeze all over
the lunch table. He got up and said "Ewwwwwwww!" very loudly.
Was this an OK or NOT OK way to handle his feelings?
o OK
o NOTOK
17) Henry was worried about meeting his new teacher on the first
day of school. He let his teacher know how he was feeling. Was
this an OK or NOT OK way to handle his feelings?
o OK
o NOTOK
18) Henry felt angry when his friend did not want to share a toy.
Henry took the toy and played with it when his friend was not
looking. Was this an OK or NOT OK way to handle his feelings?
o OK
o NOTOK
104
APPENDIXE
ASSESSNIENT OF CIllLDREN'S EMOTION SKilLS (ACES)
105
106
Assessment of Children=s Emotion Skills (ACES): SITUATIONS
Subject _
I=m going to tell you about some kids your age, and I want you to tell me if you think they would feel happy,
sad, mad, or scared. Sometimes you might think they feel two emotions, like both mad and sad. If so, I
want you to pick the feeling you think they would have more strongly. Sometimes they may not feel any
emotion strongly, and you can tell me that by saying, "no feeling." Don't say "no feeling"just because you're
not sure how they would feel, though. If you think they would feel anything, I want you to take a guess at
what it is, okay?
1. Tim=s parents told him that they would take him to the fair. When it is time to go, his parents say that
none of them can go. Do you think Tim feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
2. Kelly just finished coloring a picture. You tell her that it looks Anice.@ Do you think Kelly feels happy, sad,
mad, scared, or no feeling?
3. Jasmine took care of her kitten, which she loved very much. One day the kitten disappeared and never
came back. Do you think Jasmine feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
4. Juan walks down the hall. A big kid walks right at Juan and tells him to get out of the way. Do you think
Juan feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
5. Melissa is building a big tower of blocks. Another kid comes over and knocks it over and laughs. Do you
think Melissa feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
6. Scott lets Ryan play with his favorite toy. Ryan plays with the toy, and it breaks. Do you think Scott feels
happy, ,sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
7. Lonnie is in line for lunch. Darren steps in front of him without asking. Do you think Lonnie feels happy,
sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
8. Sarah was riding her bike. She went down a big hill and started going faster than she wanted. Do you
think Sarah feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
9. Alex made a nice card for his friend Josh. Josh likes the card a lot. Do you think Alex feels happy, sad,
mad, scared, or no feeling?
10. Mary=s grandfather died. Do you think Mary feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
11. Adrian=s parents are having a fight in the bedroom. He can hear them yelling. Do you think Adrian
feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
12. Brian was at the park, and his mother bought him an ice cream cone. Brian took one lick and then
accidentally dropped the ice cream cone. Do you think Brian feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
13. James brings his favorite candy bar to school in his book bag. A boy sees the candy bar, takes it, and
eats it. Do you think James feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
14. Michael is playing in the woods with Andy. Andy runs away and leaves Michael alone in the woods. It=s
getting dark. Do you think Michael feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
15. It is the first day of school. Your friend Maria hasn=t seen you all summer. She sees you in class. Do
you think Maria feels happy, sad, mad, scared, or no feeling?
Assessment of Children's Emotion Skills (ACES): Situations
Subject: Pre: Pre:2 Post:. _
Boy:__ Girl:. _
107
0\
\8Happy
~
\dsad
(@\
~ Scared
No
Feeling
2@©@00". ~",. ~~~ W ®~ Happy ~ Sad ..... Mad .. Scared
3@ ~ @@"• 'T~j' (0 W ®~ Happy ~ Sad ..... Mad .. Scared
5© ~ @ oo~• 'T~j' . (0 W ®~ Happy ~ Sad ..... Mad .. Scared
No
Feeling
No
Feeling
No
Feeling
No
Feeling
6. ©.r'i' ~ @ ~~ \d ... ~Happy Sad Mad Scared
108
No
Feeling
7.@"• •
0- Happy
8. r:J\
\0 Happy
o
\dsad
~
\dsad
~~~ Mad~ Scared
~~~ Mad~ Scared
No
Feeling
No
Feeling
9. r:J\ ® ~ (®\~ Happy ,,---- Sad~ Mad~ Scared NoFeeling
10 © ® @ ® NoFeeling
Happy Sad Mad Scared
11 © ® @ @ NoFeeling
Happy Sad Mad Scared
109
No
Feeling
Happy Sad Mad Scared
13 ® © @ @ NoFeeling
Happy Sad Mad Scared
14 ® © @ @ NoFeeling
Happy Sad Mad Scared
No
Feeling
Happy Sad Mad Scared
Total Score:
----
APPENDIXF
SCHOOL SOCIAL BEHA VIOR SCALES (PEER RELATIONS)
110
------------ ------------
111
Student Code Number: Classroom, _
Pre-test 1 Pre-test 2 Pre-test 3
--- ----- -----
School Social Behavior Scales
Kenneth Merrell, 2002
Directions: After you have completed the identifying information section, please rate this
student's behavior using all of the items below. Ratings should be based on your
observations of this student's behavior during the past three months. The rating points
after each item are based on the following format:
Never: If the student does not display a particular behavior, or if you have
not had the opportunity to observe a particular behavior, circle 1, which indicates Never.
Frequently: If the student often exhibits a particular behavior, circle 5, which
indicates Frequently.
Sometimes: Circle the numbers 2, 3, or 4, (which indicate Sometimes) ifthe
student exhibits the behavior somewhere between the two extreme rating points, based on
your judgment ofhow frequently it occurs.
Please complete all items, and do not circle between numbers.
Never Sometimes Frequently
1. Offers help to other students when needed. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Participates effectively in group discussions and activities. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Understands problems and needs ofother students. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Invites other students to participate in activities. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Has skills or abilities that are admired by peers. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Interacts with a wide variety of peers. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Is good at initiating or joining conversations with peers. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Is sensitive to feelings ofother students. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Enters appropriately into ongoing activities with peers. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Has good leadership skills. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Notices and compliments accomplishments of others. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Is assertive in an appropriate way when he/she needs to be.
13. Is invited by peers to join in activities.
14. Is "looked up to" or respected by peers.
112
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Total Score
----
APPENDIXG
SOCIAL SKILLS RATING SYSTEM (PROBLEMBEHAVIOR)
113
Social Skills Rating System
Gresham and Elliott, 1990
114
Directions: This questionnaire is designed to measure how often a student exhibits
problem behaviors.
Never Sometimes Very Often
1. Fights with others. 0 1 2
2. Has low self-esteem 0 2
3. Threatens or bullies others. 0 2
4. Appears lonely. 0 1 2
5. Shows anxiety about being with a group of children. 0 1 2
6. Is easily embarrassed 0 2
7. Argues with others. 0 2
8. Talks back to adults when corrected. 0 1 2
9. Gets angry easily. 0 2
10. Has temper tantrums. 0 2
11. Likes to be alone. 0 1 2
12. Acts sad or depressed. 0 1 2
Total Score
-----
APPENDIXH
SOCIAL VALIDITY MEASURES
115
Kind of
//~/ ,O
r' \1 I
/ I
, i
1) I liked Strong
Start.
Strong Start
Social Validity Questionnaire/Students
Yes
\ /
116
2) I learned a lot
during Strong Start
lessons.
3) My favorite part
about Strong Start
was:
,/)
~/ «(~
r' \i /
( (
Strong Start
Social Validity Questionnaire
Teachers
117
Please rate the
following questions
based on your
experience with
Strong Start
1) My students liked
Strong Start.
2) I feel my students
learned important skills
from Strong Start.
3) I feel my students use
the skills learned from
Strong Start.
4) I enjoyed teaching
Strong Start.
5) I found Strong Start
easy to teach.
6) I had adequate time to
teach Strong Start.
7) The materials needed
for Strong Start were
easy to access.
8) I felt the training
provided prior to using
Strong Start was
adequate.
9) I would like to teach
Strong Start again in the
future.
10) 1 would recommend
Strong Start to other
teachers.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
Additional Comments:
--------------------------
Dear Parents/Guardians,
Below is a questionnaire about the Strong Start curriculum. Please answer the
questions and return to your child's teacher within the next week. Thanks!
Strong Start
Social Validity Questionnaire
Parents/Guardians
118
Please rate the
following questions
based on your
experience with
Strong Start
1) 1 was aware of what
my child was learning
during weekly Strong
Start lessons.
2) My child liked Strong
Start.
3) 1 feel my child learned
important skills from
Strong Start.
4) 1 feel my child uses
the skills learned from
Strong Start.
5) I think the parent
newsletters (Strong Start
Bulletin) provide helpful
tips for
parents/guardians.
6) I have tried the tips
provided in the parent
newsletters.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neutral
4
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
Additional Comments:
._------:------------------
Estimados Padres/Guardianes Legales,
Este es un cuestionario sobre el programa/las lecciones de Strong Start. Por favor
responda las preguntas y regrese el cuestionario al (a la) maestro(a) durante la
proxima semana. jMuchas Gracias!
Strong Start
Cuestionario de Validez Social
Padres/Guardianes Legales
Por favor responda 1 2 3 4 5
las siguientes Totalmente
Desacuerdo Neutral De Acuerdo Totalmente
en de Acuerdo
preguntas en base a Desacuerdo
SU experiencia con
Strong Start
1) Yo estaba enterado(a)
de 10 que mi hijo(a)
estaba aprendiendo
durante las lecciones
semanales de Strong
Start.
2) Ami hijo(a) Ie gusto
el programa de Strong
Start.
3) Siento que mi hijo(a)
aprendio destrezas
importantes en Strong
Start.
4) Siento que mi hijo(a)
usa las destrezas que
aprendio en Strong Start.
5) Pienso que los
boletines de Strong Start
para los padres ofrecen
ideas que ayudan a los
padres/guardianes.
6) Yo he utilizado las
ideas que aparecen en los
boletimis para padres.
Comentarios Adicionales:
---------------------
119
120
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Becker, W.C. (2001).Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What
we have learned from research. Journal ofDirect Instruction, 31-52.
Berryhill, J.C. & Prinz, RJ. (2003).Environmental interventions to enhance student
. adjustment: Implications for Prevention. Prevention Science, 4 (2), 65-87.
Bloom, H.S., Hill, C.J., Black, A.R, & Lipsey, M.W. (2008). Performance trajectories
and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational
interventions. Journal ofResearch on Educational Effectiveness, 1 (4),289-328.
Caldarella, P., Christensen, L., Kramer, T.J., Kronmiller, K. (in press). Promoting
social and emotional learning in second grade students: A study of the
Strong Start curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). New
York: Academic Press.
Coie, J.D., Miller-Jackson, S., & Bagwell, C. (2000). Prevention science. In A.J.
Sameroff, M. Lewis, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofdevelopmental
psychopathology (pp. 93-108). New York, NY: Kluwer AcademiclPlenum
Publishers.
Committee for Children. (1992a). Second Step.' A violence prevention curriculum;
Grades 1-3. Seattle, WA: Author.
Cowen, E.L. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness: Challenges and
Opportunities. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 22, 149-179.
Crick, N.R & Dodge, K.A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information
Processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115 (1), 74-101.
Denham, S.A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness:
What is it and how do we assess it? Early Education and Development, 17(1),
57-89.
Denham, S.A., Blair, K.A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., et al. (2003). Preschool emotional
competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74 (1),238-256.
121
Denham, S.A., & Weissberg, R.P. (2004). Social-emotional learning in early childhood:
What we know and where to go from here. In E. Chesebrough, P. King, T.P.
Gullota, & M. Bloom (Eds.), A blueprintfor the promotion ofprosocial behavior
In early childhood (pp. 13-50). New York: Kluwer AcademiclPlenum Publishers.
Doll, B., & Lyon, M.A. (1998). Risk and resiliency: Implications for the delivery of
educational and mental health services in schools. School Psychology Review,
27(3),348-367.
Doll, B., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004). Resilient classrooms: Creating healthy
Environments for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Durlak, J.A, DuPre, E.P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 41, 327-350.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Ekman, P. & Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the humanface, guidelines for research
and an integration offindings. New York: Pergamon Press.
Elias, M.J., Zins, J.E., Graczyk, P.A., & Weissberg, R.P. (2003). Implementation,
Sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations
in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3),303-319.
Fabes, R.A., Eisenberg N., Hanish, L.D., Spinrad, T.L. (2001). Preschoolers'
spontaneous emotion vocabulary: Relations to likeability. Early Education &
Development, 12 (1), 11-27.
Fabes R.A, Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Bernzweig, J. Speer, AL., & Carlo, G. (1994).
Socialization of children's vicarious emotional responding and prosocial behavior:
Relations with mothers' perceptions of children's emotional reactivity.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 44-55.
Fine, S.E., Izard, C.E., Mostow, AJ., Trentacosta, C.J., Ackerman, B.P. (2003). First
grade emotion knowledge as a predictor of fifth grade internalizing behaviors in
children from economically disadvantaged families. Development and
Psychopathology, 15,331-342.
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M.L., Joseph, G.E., & Strain, P.S. (2003). The teaching
pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challenging
behavior in young children. Young Children, 58 (4),48-52.
122
Gardner, RC. (2001). Psychological statistics using SPSS for windows. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, M.T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental
disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention and
Treatment, 4, 1-48. Retrieved December 15,2004 from
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume4.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R P., Utne O'Brient, M. T., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L.,
Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth
development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning.
American Psychologist, 58,466-474.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Teaching social skills to high-risk children and youth: Preventive
and remedial strategies. In M. R Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.),
Interventions for academic and behavior problems II' Preventive and remedial
approaches (pp. 403--432). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists
Gross, AL., & Ballif, B. (1991). Children's understanding of emotion from facial
expressions and situations: A review. Developmental Review, 11 (4), 368-398.
Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell, T.D., Liu, P.Y., Asher, K.N., Beland, K., et
al. (1997). The effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in
elementary school. Journal ofthe American Medical Association, 277, 1605-1611.
Halberstadt, A.G., Denham, S.A, Dunsmore, J.C. (2001). Affective social competence.
Social Development, 10(1), 79-118.
Hallahan, H. & Rosenthal, R (1996). Statistical power: Concepts, procedures, and
applications. Behavior Research and Therapy, 34 (5/6), 489-499.
Homer, RH., Sugai, G., Todd, AW., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive
behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. Bambara
& L. Kern (Eds.). Individualized supports for students with problem behavior:
Designing positive behavior plans. (pp.359-390), New York,: Guilford Press.
Howell, D.C.(1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 34 C.F.R 300 (2004).
Illinois Children's Mental Health Act, 93-0495 (2003).
123
Joseph, G.E., & Strain, P.S. (2003). Comprehensive evidence-based social-emotional
curricula for young children: an analysis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics
in early childhood special education, 23 (2), 65-76.
Kame'enui, E.1., & Simmons, D.C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The
Prevention ofacademic learning problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Keppel, G. & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysisfor research designs. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Langland, S., Lewis-Palmer, T. & Sugai, G. (1998). Teaching respect in the classroom:
An instructional approach. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 8 (2), 245-262.
Lopes, P.N., & Salovey, P. (2004). Toward a broader education: Social, emotional and
practical skills. In Zins, J.E. et al. (Eds). Building academic success on social
and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 76-92).
Merrell, K.M. (in press). The link between prevention science and social-emotional
learning: Contributions of the Oregon Resiliency Project. Psychology in the
Schools.
Merrell, K.M (2002). School social behavior scales. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical
Psychology Publishing Company, Inc.
Merrell, K.M. (2001). Helping students overcome depression and anxiety: A practical
guide. New York: Guilford Press
Merrell, K.M. (1994). Preschool and kindergarten behavior scales. Brandon, Vermont:
Clinical Psychology Publishing Company, Inc.
Merrell, K. W., Carrizales, D. C., Fuerbom, L., Gueldner, B. A., & Tran, O. K. (2007).
Strong Kids-E: A social and emotional learning curriculum for students in grades
3-5. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Merrell, K. W., Carrizales, D. C., Fuerbom, L., Gueldner, B. A., & Tran, O. K. (2007).
Strong Kids-M' A social and emotional learning curriculum for students in
grades 6-8. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Merrell, K. W., Carrizales, D. C., Fuerbom, L., Gueldner, B. A., & Tran, O. K. (2007).
Strong Teens: A social and emotional learning curriculum for students in grades
9-12. Baltimore, Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
124
Merrell, KM., Juskelis, M. & Tran, O.K (2004). Evaluation ofthe strong kids and
Strong teens curricula for promoting social-emotional resilience. Presented
At the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu,
Hawaii.
Merrell, K M., Parisi, D. M., & Whitcomb, S. G. (2007). Strong Start: A social and
emotional learning curriculum for students in grades K-2. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.
Merrell, KM. & Walker, H. (2004). Deconstructing a definition: Social maladjustment
versus emotional disturbance and moving the field forward. Psychology in the
schools, 41 (8),899-910.
Mostow, A.J. Izard, C.E., Fine, S. & Trentacosta, C.J. (2002). Modeling emotional,
cognitive, and behavioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development, 73
(6),1775-1787.
No Child Left Behind Act of2001, P.L. 107-110.
OSEP Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2000). Applying
Positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools.
Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.
Payton, J., Weissberg, RP., Durlak, l.A., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., Schellinger,
K.B., & Pachan, M. (2008).The positive impact ofsocial and emotional learning
for kindergarten through eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific
reviews. Chicago, IL.: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning.
Perry, K.E. & Weinstein, R S. (1998). The social context of early schooling and
children's school adjustment. Child Development, 33 (4), 177-194.
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A.S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects.
Sociology ofEducation, 59 (l), 1-17.
Raver, C.c., Izard, C.E., & Kopp, C.B. (2002).Emotions matter: Making the case for the
role of young children's emotional development for early school readiness. Social
Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth DevelopmentKnowledge Away, 16 (3), 3-
18.
Ribordy, S.C., Camras, L.A., Stefani, R, & Spaccarelli, S. (1988). Vignettes for emotion
recognition research and affective therapy with children. Journal ofClinical Child
Psychology, 17 (4),322-325.·
125
Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Pianta, R C, & Cox, M.J. (2000). Teachers' judgements of
problems in the transition to kindergarten Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
15, 147-166.
Roeser, RW., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Schooling and mental health. In AJ. Sameroff, M.
Lewis, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofdevelopmental psychopathology (pp.
135-151). New York, NY: Kluwer AcademiclPlenum Publishers.
Rogosa, R (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In. Schaie, K.W., Campbell, R.T.,
Meredith, W., & Rawlings, S.C. (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging research.
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Rounsaville, RJ. Carroll, K.M., & Onken, L.S. (2001). A stage model of behavioral
therapies research: Getting started and moving on from Stage 1. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practices, 8 (2), 133-142.
Sankoh, AJ., Huque, M.F., & Dubey, S.D. (1997). Some comments on frequently used
multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 16,
2529-2542.
Schultz, D., Izard, C.E., & Bear, G. (2004). Children's emotion processing: Relations to
emotionality and aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 16 (2),371-387.
Spinrad, T.L, Eisenberg, N.., Cumberland, A., Fabes, R.A., Valiente, C., Shepard, S.A,
et al. (2006). Relation of emotion-related regulation to children's social
competence: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 6 (3),498-510.
Sprague, J. R & Horner, R. H. (in press). Schoolwide Positive Behavior Supports. In S.
R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The Handbook ofSchool Violence and School
Safety: From Research to Practice. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Strickland, O.L. (1999). When is internal consistency reliability measurement
inappropriate? Journal ofNursing Measurement, 7 (I), 3-4.
Sugai, G., Bullis, M., & Cumblad, C. (1997). Provide ongoing skill development and
support. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 55-64.
Sugai, G. & Lewis, T.J. (1996). Preferred and promising practices for social skills
instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(4), 11-36.
Thalheimer, W, & Cook, S. (2002, August). How to calculate effect sizesJrom published
research articles: A simplified methodology. Retrieved May 24, 2009 from
http://work-Iearning.com/effect_sizes.htm.
126
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school:
Evidence-basedpractices (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Watkins, C.L., & Slocum, T.A. (2004). The components of direct instruction. Journal of
Direct Instruction, 3 (2), 75-110.
Webster-Stratton, C. (199). Wally Game: A problem-solving skills test.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J.M., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems
and improving school readiness: evaluation of the Incredible Years teacher and
child training programs in high risk schools. Journal ofChild pjychiatry and
Psychology, 49 (5), 471-488.
Wilson, D.E., Gottfredson, D.C., & Najaka, S.S. (2001). School-based prevention of
Problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology,
17 (3),247-272.
Wolf, M.M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement of how applied
behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 11
(2),203-214.