Elementary School
Grossman et al. (1997). Method. RCT. 790 2nd-3rd grade students in urban/suburban Washington schools (79% white). Each participating school was paired with another school from the same district with similar numbers of FRL and minority students; schools from each pair were then randomly assigned as an intervention or control school. Teachers from intervention schools were given 2-day training before implementation and monitored to ensure treatment fidelity. Three outcome measures, before intervention (T1), 2 weeks after intervention (T2), 6 months after intervention (T3): (a) teacher ratings (School Social Behavior Scales, Achenbach Teacher Report Form), (b) parent ratings (Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist, Parent-Child Rating Scale), (c) direct observations of students in class, playground, and cafeteria (trained observers used Social Interaction Observation System, observed each child for 45 minutes, in 5-minute increments, not aware which group were in). Findings. Neither teacher nor parent ratings found improvements, but differences found in the data collected by observers. At T2, intervention group had reductions in physical aggression and increases in prosocial behavior, while control group had increases in physical aggression. At T3, intervention classes maintained reductions in physical aggression.
Low, Cook, Smolkowski, & Buntain-Ricklefs (2015). Matched, randomized-control design: schools randomly assigned to early start intervention (intervention) or delayed start (control). Forty-one schools in Washington, six randomly selected classrooms per school (4232 students); 20 schools in Arizona, five randomly selected classrooms per school (2326 students). Participant demographics (WA, AZ): grades K-2; FRL 50, 78 percent; African American 14.7, 47.1 percent; Caucasian 45.8, 40.1 percent. Schools matched on the basis of FRL and non-white students; no major differences b/t intervention and control groups. Teacher reports: Devereux Student Strengths Assessment, Strengths Difficulties Questionnaire. Behavioral observations conducted by graduate students using BOSS (Behavioral Observation of Students in Schools). Second Step taught by classroom teachers, two trainings (1 hour Second Step training, 3 hour Proactive Classroom Management training). Overall, the intervention group only experienced growth in only 2 of 11 categories, BUT students who scored in the lower half at baseline experienced growth in several areas: "conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, prosocial skills, SEL skills, skills for learning, emotion management and problem solving—as reported by teachers." "[U]niversal programming does not mean all children will show similar rates of improvement. Some students who receive universal programming have minimal room for improvement in social-emotional competence and adaptive behaviors (e.g., reductions in problem behavior), but they may need such supports in order to maintain their level of functioning over time...[U]niversally delivered programs such as Second Step may be one way to provide some of the support needed by higher-risk children without the required additional resources to screen children and the stigma associated with identifying students as at risk" "No effects were found with the behavioral observations of disruptive behavior. Change in observed behaviors is often difficult to demonstrate due to the limited time observers are able to remain in each classroom, in contrast to teachers who have daily observations and interactions with students over many months."
Only Abstracts Available
Botzer (2003). Only abstract available. Method. Quasi-experimental design, 189 3rd grade students. Control group?? Measures: “Archival data (discipline referrals, attendance data), pre- and post-test measures of affective skills, and teacher reports of student aggression and delinquency (Teacher Report Form-Child Behavior Checklist).” Findings. “Results indicated that the Second Step program was successful at teaching students the violence prevention terminology, as evidenced by an increase in affective skill mean scores from 11.89 (pretest) to 18.65 (posttest). Nonetheless, based on discipline referral data for the past three years and teacher reports of aggression and delinquency, the level of violent related behavior among third grade students did not significantly change or improve over the year Second Step was implemented.”
Not Great Studies
Sprague et al. (2001). Quasi-experimental design. Not randomized, as schools were picked based on the willingness of school administrators to participate. Fifteen schools involved, 9 intervention, 1 control. Intervention schools implemented Second Step; additionally, the authors of the study worked intensely with staff at the treatment schools to "establish school-wide behavior rule teaching," to establish a school-wide token economy, and to problem-solve different discipline issues (Effective Behavioral Support). All treatment middle and elementary schools reported reductions in office discipline referrals in the intervention year when compared to the baseline year and showed greater improvement relative to comparison schools." "Adults in the [intervention] school[s] did not report measurable differences in their perceptions of school safety (as measured by the Oregon School Safety survey)." This study shows nothing regarding Second Step's effectiveness.
Taub (2002). Cluster-randomization. Rural school with mostly poor, white students, grades 3-5, 44 students in intervention school, 28 students in control class; intervention school 40% FRL, control school 37% FRL. All students at intervention school received Second Step. One classroom in each grade at both schools (intervention and control) randomly chosen for evaluation. One teacher and guidance counselor attended training and then gave 6-hour training to other teachers. Data collected pretest (T1, January 1996), posttest (T2, May 1996), and one year after intervention began (T3, January 1997). Measures: (a) teacher report (School Social Behavior Scale), (b) observations by project coordinator and undergraduate assistants. Findings. Teachers rated control group more socially competent pretest but similarly socially competent one year later; control group had a slight increase in antisocial behaviors while intervention group had slight decrease. (Although both schools saw an increase in antisocial behaviors at T2.) Behavioral observations: students in intervention group improved in two of four behaviors (Following Classroom Directions and Engaging Appropriately with Peers); no improvement in Following Classroom Rules and Bothers or Annoys Other Students. One limitation of the study: “The comparison site, ideally, will be similar in demographics such as socio-economic status of its students, class size, ethnic breakdown, and so on. Even when sites are so matched, each school still has its own unique climate and culture that cannot be replicated. As such, it will never be completely clear if a given program would work the same way in another setting.” Another limitation: no one was blind to the experiment, which could have “created expectancy effects such that teachers at the intervention school were expecting their students to improve in the areas targeted by the intervention. Given that the teachers at the intervention school rated their students more highly on both social competence and antisocial behavior at Time 2 than at Time 1, it does not appear to be the case.”
Botzer (2003). Only abstract available. Method. Quasi-experimental design, 189 3rd grade students. Control group?? Measures: “Archival data (discipline referrals, attendance data), pre- and post-test measures of affective skills, and teacher reports of student aggression and delinquency (Teacher Report Form-Child Behavior Checklist).” Findings. “Results indicated that the Second Step program was successful at teaching students the violence prevention terminology, as evidenced by an increase in affective skill mean scores from 11.89 (pretest) to 18.65 (posttest). Nonetheless, based on discipline referral data for the past three years and teacher reports of aggression and delinquency, the level of violent related behavior among third grade students did not significantly change or improve over the year Second Step was implemented.”
Not Great Studies
Orpinas, Parcel, Mcalister, & Frankowski (1995). Quasi-experimental design: schools chosen if principal was interested, compared with schools with uninterested principals. 223 6th graders in four schools. Schools equally diverse, half of students FRL. Measures pretest, posttest, 3 weeks after intervention: all student reports (content test, Aggression Scale, instrument “specifically designed to evaluate attitudes toward violence and alternatives to violence”). Taught by classroom teachers who received 8-hour training. Findings. Boys in intervention group had a decrease in aggressive behaviors, but this decrease only occurred in 2 of 6 classes. No decrease found among girls, but this could be because girls initially reported lower rates of aggression, meaning “a further reduction of aggression for girls may be more difficult to achieve.” Major problems implementing curriculum: One of four schools did not implement program with high fidelity, and all teachers identified problems with implementation: “class periods were too short for implementing the lessons, lessons included too much information and were above the grade level of the students, and students were reluctant to talk about personal problems or feelings.”
Sprague et al. (2001). Quasi-experimental design. Not randomized, as schools were picked based on the willingness of school administrators to participate. Fifteen schools involved, 9 intervention, 1 control. Intervention schools implemented Second Step; additionally, the authors of the study worked intensely with staff at the treatment schools to "establish school-wide behavior rule teaching," to establish a school-wide token economy, and to problem-solve different discipline issues (Effective Behavioral Support). All treatment middle and elementary schools reported reductions in office discipline referrals in the intervention year when compared to the baseline year and showed greater improvement relative to comparison schools." "Adults in the [intervention] school[s] did not report measurable differences in their perceptions of school safety (as measured by the Oregon School Safety survey)." This study shows nothing regarding Second Step's effectiveness.
Taub (2002). Cluster-randomization. Rural school with mostly poor, white students, grades 3-5, 44 students in intervention school, 28 students in control class; intervention school 40% FRL, control school 37% FRL. All students at intervention school received Second Step. One classroom in each grade at both schools (intervention and control) randomly chosen for evaluation. One teacher and guidance counselor attended training and then gave 6-hour training to other teachers. Data collected pretest (T1, January 1996), posttest (T2, May 1996), and one year after intervention began (T3, January 1997). Measures: (a) teacher report (School Social Behavior Scale), (b) observations by project coordinator and undergraduate assistants. Findings. Teachers rated control group more socially competent pretest but similarly socially competent one year later; control group had a slight increase in antisocial behaviors while intervention group had slight decrease. (Although both schools saw an increase in antisocial behaviors at T2.) Behavioral observations: students in intervention group improved in two of four behaviors (Following Classroom Directions and Engaging Appropriately with Peers); no improvement in Following Classroom Rules and Bothers or Annoys Other Students. One limitation of the study: “The comparison site, ideally, will be similar in demographics such as socio-economic status of its students, class size, ethnic breakdown, and so on. Even when sites are so matched, each school still has its own unique climate and culture that cannot be replicated. As such, it will never be completely clear if a given program would work the same way in another setting.” Another limitation: no one was blind to the experiment, which could have “created expectancy effects such that teachers at the intervention school were expecting their students to improve in the areas targeted by the intervention. Given that the teachers at the intervention school rated their students more highly on both social competence and antisocial behavior at Time 2 than at Time 1, it does not appear to be the case.”
Preschool
McCabe (2000). Method. Research design not specified. Preschool, children aged 3-5. Intervention group: two Head Start classrooms, two childcare classrooms. Control group: four classrooms at different childcare center. Measures: (a) children interviewed, (b) children observed, (c) teachers completed Preschool Behavior Questionnaire. Findings. “Results indicate that the Second Step curriculum did not lead to an overall decrease in conflict and antisocial behaviors or to an increase in prosocial strategies to resolve conflicts in children exposed to the curriculum. The Second Step curriculum does, however, appear to be somewhat effective for the most aggressive children. Children in the intervention group who were most aggressive at the beginning of the study showed a significant decrease in number of conflicts and use of antisocial strategies to resolve those conflicts. These beneficial changes were not evident in the most aggressive children in the two control groups.”
Middle School
Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown (2013). Cluster randomization. 36 middle schools in Kansas and Illinois, 3,600 students. Schools matched on the basis of school and student characteristics; one pair randomly assigned to intervention, the other to waitlist. Measure: student self-report. Results: no significant intervention effects for perpetration or victimization of bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence, but “experiences with sexual violence and homophobic teasing harassment were reported infrequently.” Students in intervention group were “42% less likely to self-report physical aggression perpetration at post-test.”
Espelage, Rose, & Polanin (2015). Cluster randomization. Part of Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown (2013) study. 123 middle school students with disabilities (including cognitive, emotional, health, SLD, speech/language). Measures: student self-report. Compared to students in the control group, students in the intervention group saw a significant decrease in bullying perpetration. Compared to students in the control group, students in the intervention group did not report lower levels of victimization or fighting.
Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, E. C. (2015). Part of Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown (2013) study. Only abstract available. Middle school. From this article: "bullying, physical aggression and victimization did not decline at any of the intervention schools." "Second Step's lack of impact on bully perpetration and peer victimization was not surprising, according to the researchers. Recent studies have shown that bully prevention programs appear to be most effective with children in grades one through six, but their efficacy drops sharply with seventh-graders -- and plummets to zero with eighth-graders." Only abstract available.
Sullivan, Sutherland, Farrell, & Taylor (2015). Cluster-randomization, 28 classrooms randomly assigned to intervention or control conditions; control conditions were health and physical education or enrichment classes. 457 6th graders in SE US. Measures: student reports and teacher reports. “Although no main intervention effects were evident, several significant subgroup effects emerged.”
Sullivan, Sutherland, Farrell, Taylor, & Doyle (2017). Cluster-randomization: classrooms in same school randomly assigned to intervention or control. Participants: 231 students, grade 6-8; FRL 89%, African American 67%, 17% multiracial, 7% Latino. At same time school implemented Olweus Bullying Prevention Program; "teachers led weekly 30–40 minute class meetings that consisted of teacher and student discussion and experiential learning activities related to the prevention of bullying behavior." Measures: teacher report (Problem Behavior Frequency Scales, Relational Aggression measure, SSIS) and student self-report (Problem Behavior Frequency Scales, Relational Aggression measure, Children’s Anger Management Scale). "Although no intervention main effects were found, there were several moderating effects by disability status and gender, and all but one represented medium effect sizes. The combined intervention was more efficacious than OBPP alone in enhancing social skills for students with disabilities. In contrast, students without disabilities who received the combined intervention reported increases in anger regulation coping skills as compared to those who received OBPP alone. Gender-moderated effects included greater decreases in teacher ratings of externalizing problems and bullying behaviors for boys who received the combined intervention as compared to those who received OBPP alone." "Our study’s within-school design could have resulted in diffusion effects such that students participating in the combined intervention condition may have improved their behavior and conflict resolution skills, which, in turn, resulted in fewer conflicts with other students in classrooms that did and did not receive the combined intervention." It's not clear what the results had been if the control group had not been taught OBPP.
Espelage, Rose, & Polanin (2015). Cluster randomization. Part of Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown (2013) study. 123 middle school students with disabilities (including cognitive, emotional, health, SLD, speech/language). Measures: student self-report. Compared to students in the control group, students in the intervention group saw a significant decrease in bullying perpetration. Compared to students in the control group, students in the intervention group did not report lower levels of victimization or fighting.
Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, E. C. (2015). Part of Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown (2013) study. Only abstract available. Middle school. From this article: "bullying, physical aggression and victimization did not decline at any of the intervention schools." "Second Step's lack of impact on bully perpetration and peer victimization was not surprising, according to the researchers. Recent studies have shown that bully prevention programs appear to be most effective with children in grades one through six, but their efficacy drops sharply with seventh-graders -- and plummets to zero with eighth-graders." Only abstract available.
Sullivan, Sutherland, Farrell, & Taylor (2015). Cluster-randomization, 28 classrooms randomly assigned to intervention or control conditions; control conditions were health and physical education or enrichment classes. 457 6th graders in SE US. Measures: student reports and teacher reports. “Although no main intervention effects were evident, several significant subgroup effects emerged.”
Sullivan, Sutherland, Farrell, Taylor, & Doyle (2017). Cluster-randomization: classrooms in same school randomly assigned to intervention or control. Participants: 231 students, grade 6-8; FRL 89%, African American 67%, 17% multiracial, 7% Latino. At same time school implemented Olweus Bullying Prevention Program; "teachers led weekly 30–40 minute class meetings that consisted of teacher and student discussion and experiential learning activities related to the prevention of bullying behavior." Measures: teacher report (Problem Behavior Frequency Scales, Relational Aggression measure, SSIS) and student self-report (Problem Behavior Frequency Scales, Relational Aggression measure, Children’s Anger Management Scale). "Although no intervention main effects were found, there were several moderating effects by disability status and gender, and all but one represented medium effect sizes. The combined intervention was more efficacious than OBPP alone in enhancing social skills for students with disabilities. In contrast, students without disabilities who received the combined intervention reported increases in anger regulation coping skills as compared to those who received OBPP alone. Gender-moderated effects included greater decreases in teacher ratings of externalizing problems and bullying behaviors for boys who received the combined intervention as compared to those who received OBPP alone." "Our study’s within-school design could have resulted in diffusion effects such that students participating in the combined intervention condition may have improved their behavior and conflict resolution skills, which, in turn, resulted in fewer conflicts with other students in classrooms that did and did not receive the combined intervention." It's not clear what the results had been if the control group had not been taught OBPP.
Unknown
Gottfredson et al. (2010). Cannot locate study. Low, Cook, Smolkowski, & Buntain-Ricklefs (2015) write: that the study “found no positive or negative effects of Second Step on school achievement or positive behaviors. In the case of this study, however, the control schools were, on average, found to be implementing a fairly high level of SEL programming/supports, making it difficult to clearly differentiate dosage between intervention and control schools.”
* * * * *
Botzer, E. A. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Second Step violence prevention curriculum for third grade students. Dissertation Abstracts: International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 64, 1171.
Brown, J. A., Jimerson, S. R., Dowdy, E., Gonzalez, V., & Stewart, K. (2012). Assessing the effects of school‐wide second step implementation in a predominately English language learner, low SES, Latino sample. Psychology in the Schools, 49(9), 864-875. No control group
Cooke, M. B., Ford, J., Levine, J., Bourke, C., Newell, L., & Lapidus, G. (2007). The effects of city-wide implementation of “Second Step” on elementary school students’ prosocial and aggressive behaviors. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(2), 93-115. No control group
Edwards, D., Hunt, M. H., Meyers, J., Grogg, K. R., & Jarrett, O. (2005). Acceptability and student outcomes of a violence prevention curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 401–418. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-0002-z No control group
Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(2), 180-186.
Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., & Polanin, J. R. (2015). Social-emotional learning program to reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization among middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and special education, 36(5), 299-311.
Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2015). Clinical trial of Second Step middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 52-63.
Frey, K.S., Nolen, S.B., Edstrom, L.V.S. & Hirschstein, M.K. (2005). Effects of a school-based socio-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(2).
Gottfredson, G. D., Pas, E. T., Nebbergall, A. J., Nese, J. F., Strein, W., & Shaw, F. (2010). An experimental outcome evaluation of the Second Step elementary universal prevention program: Technical report.
Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell, T.D., Liu, P., Asher, K.N., Beland, K., Frey, K., and Rivara, F.P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(20), 1605-1611.
Holsen, I., Iversen, A. C., & Smith, B. H. (2009). Universal social competence promotion programme in school: Does it work for children with low socio-economic background? Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 2(2), 51-60. Norway
Jack, D. (2009). Investigation of the effects of a violence prevention program in reducing kindergarten-aged children’s self-reported aggressive behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70, 05B. [Not enough information available to assess study.]
Low, S., Cook, C. R., Smolkowski, K., & Buntain-Ricklefs, J. (2015). Promoting social–emotional competence: An evaluation of the elementary version of Second Step. Journal of school psychology, 53(6), 463-477.
McCabe, L. A. (2000). Violence prevention in early childhood: Implementing the Second Step curriculum in child care and head start classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60, 4274.
McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43–62. No control group
Neace, W. P., & Muñoz, M. A. (2012). Pushing the boundaries of education: evaluating the impact of Second Step®: a violence prevention curriculum with psychosocial and non-cognitive measures. Child & Youth Services, 33(1), 46-69. Only abstract available
Orpinas, P., Parcel, G. S., Mcalister, A., & Frankowski, R. (1995). Violence prevention in middle schools: A pilot evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17(6), 360-371.
Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2001). Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 495-511.
Sullivan, T. N., Sutherland, K. S., Farrell, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2015). An evaluation of Second Step: What are the benefits for youth with and without disabilities? Remedial and Special Education, 36(5), 286-298. Only abstract available
Sullivan, T. N., Sutherland, K. S., Farrell, A. D., Taylor, K. A., & Doyle, S. T. (2017). Evaluation of violence prevention approaches among early adolescents: moderating effects of disability status and gender. Journal of child and family studies, 26(4), 1151-1163.
Taub, J. (2002). Evaluation of the Second Step Violence Prevention Program at a rural elementary school. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 186–200.
McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43–62. No control group
Neace, W. P., & Muñoz, M. A. (2012). Pushing the boundaries of education: evaluating the impact of Second Step®: a violence prevention curriculum with psychosocial and non-cognitive measures. Child & Youth Services, 33(1), 46-69. Only abstract available
Orpinas, P., Parcel, G. S., Mcalister, A., & Frankowski, R. (1995). Violence prevention in middle schools: A pilot evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17(6), 360-371.
Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2001). Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 495-511.
Sullivan, T. N., Sutherland, K. S., Farrell, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2015). An evaluation of Second Step: What are the benefits for youth with and without disabilities? Remedial and Special Education, 36(5), 286-298. Only abstract available
Sullivan, T. N., Sutherland, K. S., Farrell, A. D., Taylor, K. A., & Doyle, S. T. (2017). Evaluation of violence prevention approaches among early adolescents: moderating effects of disability status and gender. Journal of child and family studies, 26(4), 1151-1163.
Taub, J. (2002). Evaluation of the Second Step Violence Prevention Program at a rural elementary school. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 186–200.
No comments:
Post a Comment