Given that mindfulness training is highly variable across studies, it is important for future research to examine these factors to determine which intervention best fits the needs of youth. Second, we did not evaluate specific mindfulness practices (e.g., sitting meditation, body scan, movement meditations) and program delivery aspects (e.g., level of teacher training). This includes principal and district buy-in, individual attitudes towards the intervention, and organizational climate and culture, as well as implementation climate and leadership (Locke et al., 2016).

Why use them with your students?

Much like other computer-assisted treatments, Camp Cope-A-Lot addresses several barriers to the implementation of evidence-based SBIs by requiring minimal therapist training, staff time, and financial burden. One computer-assisted intervention that has been developed for anxious youth is Camp Cope-A-Lot (Khanna & Kendall, 2008), a 12-session computer-assisted CBT program based on the Coping Cat program (Kendall & Hedtke, 2006). Furthermore, proficiency emerged as a potentially important organizational factor to examine in future school-based implementation research. Where the ESEA requires states, districts and schools to use EBPs, it generally requires that the EBP fall under one of four tiers of evidence.

Another possible reason relates to the level of district and national supports for social and emotional learning across countries. They contend that some non-US interventions fail to show impact as a result of their more flexible, bottom-up approach to skill development which can make it difficult for teacher to know what to implement and how it should be implemented. The low number of studies combined with the use of teacher self-report data weakens the confidence that can be placed in this finding, and as a result, this finding should be viewed with caution. The remaining studies utilised teacher self-report data of academic competence.

Barriers to inclusion in SWPBIS

• Even more important is that such partnerships offer the opportunity for districts and researchers to learn from and support each other in their work toward the shared goal of moving evidence-based programs into general practice with high-quality implementation.
• The quality assessment results were compared and disagreements were resolved through discussion.
• After this step, we met as a team to discuss whether these content categories adequately captured content presented across studies; this discussion resulted in the decision to retain the first three content categories, combine the last two categories to examine the effectiveness of SWPBIS across Tiers 1–3, and add a new content category related to SWPBIS data collection and assessment.
• Across all schools, the duration for implementation activity completion was significantly longer than pre-implementation activities (Table 4).
• Regardless of a program’s specific content or delivery mode, most programs require some form of support system for effective implementation (Chen, 1990).
• There was no “A Grade” evidence for this domain, and regarding research designs, evaluation designs, and control group types, no studies with active control groups found null/negative effects on psychological stress.

Research on the identification of “essential ingredients” across evidence-based youth mental health treatment and prevention interventions has shown some promising results in this area (e.g. Chorpita and Daleiden 2009; Boustani et al. 2015). Furthermore, whilst there is emerging evidence on the economic case for investing in school-based SEL (e.g. Belfield et al. 2015), cost-benefit analysis of whole school interventions would provide an important insight into their economic returns as educational investments. Reviewers of the evidence to date conclude that taking a whole school approach is more likely than individual classroom-based interventions to result in enduring positive change, because of its multi-component focus (Weare and Nind 2011; Adi et al. 2007a, b; Tennant et al. 2007; Jane-llopis et al. 2005; Wells et al. 2003). In Australia, for example, KidsMatter Primary is a mental health and wellbeing whole school framework that supports primary schools in implementing social and emotional learning school-wide (Dix et al. 2012).

Related content

Tier 1 practices and systems establish a foundation of regular, proactive support while preventing unwanted behaviors. A primary goal of SWPBIS is to create equitable and inclusive school environments for all students, including those with ESN. Content focused on SWPBIS broadly and strategies for including students with ESN can be embedded in both coursework, ranging from dedicated courses focused on students with ESN to foundational behavior management courses, and field-based experiences. As such, it will be important for SWPBIS teams to identify strategies that promote meaningful and equitable involvement in SWPBIS across all educational settings for students with ESN. Overall, the extent to which students with ESN participated in SWPBIS varied across studies. Because our purpose was to explore and map the scope of research focused on SWPBIS and students with ESN, we did not report detailed characteristics and findings of each study.

In contrast, School B, located in Canada, demonstrated strong adherence to the pre-implementation phase (Phase 1) activities, but did not complete the implementation phase (Phase 2) activities with fidelity. However, given that this school moved https://www.nj.gov/education/esser/arp/ at a relatively fast pace to implement all activities, the assessment of competency may have been premature; indeed, the second role play was passed with competency 6 months later. Although providers at this school successfully passed all knowledge tests, the first role play demonstrating competency was not passed. Importantly, providers at this school consistently engaged in consultation through the final consultation session.

Although some studies included used multiple methods (e.g., subjective self-reports, behavioral observations, and objective neurocognitive, and physiological testing), the majority relied on a single method. Most studies relied on questionnaire measures to assess for effects (particularly student self-report), which are limited by possible response bias and retrospective memory biases. Future studies may benefit from larger sample sizes to power statistical analyses adequately and to aid in the generalizability of the findings. Many studies included in this review relied on small samples, with studies averaging around 35 participants. Given our knowledge of brain plasticity in early development, future research in this area with children is especially important (Black, 2015; Burke, 2010; Zoogman et al., 2015). Therefore, examining potential gender effects is especially important given the prevalence of gender differences in affective disturbances and treatment outcomes among youth (Kang et al., 2018).

About the author