↓ Skip to main content

What Constitutes High-Quality Implementation of SEL Programs? A Latent Class Analysis of Second Step® Implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
What Constitutes High-Quality Implementation of SEL Programs? A Latent Class Analysis of Second Step® Implementation
Published in
Prevention Science, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11121-016-0670-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabina Low, Keith Smolkowski, Clay Cook

Abstract

With the increased number of schools adopting social-emotional learning (SEL) programming, there is increased emphasis on the role of implementation in obtaining desired outcomes. Despite this, the current knowledge of the active ingredients of SEL programming is lacking, and there is a need to move from a focus on "whether" implementation matters to "what" aspects of implementation matter. To address this gap, the current study utilizes a latent class approach with data from year 1 of a randomized controlled trial of Second Step® (61 schools, 321 teachers, over 7300 students). Latent classes of implementation were identified, then used to predict student outcomes. Teachers reported on multiple dimensions of implementation (adherence, dosage, competency), as well as student outcomes. Observational data were also used to assess classroom behavior (academic engagement and disruptive behavior). Results suggest that a three-class model fits the data best, labeled as high-quality, low-engagement, and low-adherence classes. Only the low-engagement class showed significant associations with poorer outcomes, when compared to the high-quality class (not the low-adherence class). Findings are discussed in terms of implications for program development and implementation science more broadly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 32%
Social Sciences 36 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,722
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#776
of 1,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,238
of 365,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#21
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.