Abstract
Outcomes from a large cluster-randomized study of Second Step©, a commonly adopted universal SEL program, have previously demonstrated small, teacher-reported effects on social–emotional competencies for subgroups of students. Given the size of investment in large RCT studies, and in SEL programming, replication attempts are warranted, ideally with diverse analytical strategies that can build a more convincing body of knowledge. The current manuscript builds upon previous study findings by utilizing a growth mixture modeling approach on a more limited set of outcomes. Intervention differences were significant for identified classes of hyperactivity, conduct problems, and emotional symptoms. Patterns suggest that Second Step© plays a predominantly mitigating role for those with modest levels of conduct problems and hyperactivity. Additionally, students in Second Step© schools were more likely to experience decreasing levels of emotional symptoms, as well as mitigation of escalation of symptoms. No academic effects were found, nor effects on prosocial skills. Findings are largely consistent with previous but different analytic approaches but extend to conduct problems and help in elucidating how universal SEL programming works. Implications for Second Step© implementation and future studies are briefly discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Results for the emotional symptoms scale differ from Low (2015) due to a small error in the earlier report.
References
Allison, P. D. (2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood (Paper 312–2012). Paper presented at the SAS Global Forum 2012, Orlando, FL.
Barkley, R. A. (2004). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and self-regulation: Taking an evolutionary perspective on executive functioning. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 301–323). The Guilford Press.
Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a school-randomized controlled trial of steps to respect: A bullying prevention program. School Psychology Review, 40(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087707
Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language arts instruction: The constructivist framework of an instructional theory. What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, 3, 25–47.
Cook, C. R., Low, S., Buntain-Ricklefs, J., Whitaker, K., Pullmann, M. D., & Lally, J. (2018). Evaluation of second step on early elementary students’ academic outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(4), 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000233
Corcoran, R. P., Cheung, A. C., Kim, E., & Xie, C. (2018). Effective universal school-based social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review, 25, 56–72.
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, 57–89.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Zinsser, K. (2012). Early childhood teachers as socializers of young children’s emotional competence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 137–143.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school- based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136–157.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.
Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Shiyko, M. P. (2013). A simulation study of the ability of growth mixture models to uncover growth heterogeneity. In Contemporary issues in exploratory data mining in the behavioral sciences, 194–211. Routledge.
Grimm, K. J., & Ram, N. (2018). Latent growth and dynamic structural equation models. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 14, 55–89.
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.
Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., & Ackerman, B. (2001). Emotion knowledge and social behavior. Psychological Science, 12, 18–23.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.002
Low, S., Smolkowski, K., Cook, C. R., & Desfosses, D. (2019). Two-year impact of a universal social-emotional learning curriculum: Group differences from developmentally sensitive trends over time. Developmental Psychology, 55(2), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000621
Low, S., Smolkowski, K., & Cook, C. (2016). What constitutes high-quality implementation of SEL programs? A latent class analysis of Second Step® implementation. Prevention Science, 17(8), 981–991.
Madigan, K., Cross, R. W., Smolkowski, K., & Strycker, L. A. (2016). Association between schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports and academic achievement: A nine-year evaluation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(7–8), 402–421.
Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 625–654.
Murray, D. M., Hannan, P. J., Wolfinger, R. D., Baker, W. L., & Dwyer, J. H. (1998). Analysis of data from group-randomized trials with repeat observations on the same groups. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 1581–1600.
Salmivalli, C., Laninga-Wijnen, L., Malamut, S. T., & Garandeau, C. F. (2021). Bullying prevention in adolescence: Solutions and new challenges from the past decade. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1023–1046.
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171.
Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2007). The social and emotional foundations of school readiness. In D. F. Perry, R. K. Kaufmann, & J. Knitzer (Eds.), Social and emotional health in early childhood: Building bridges between services and systems (pp. 13–37). Paul H. Brookes.
Thurber, R. S., Shinn, M. R., & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31, 498.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1–24.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357–364.
Witkiewitz, K., Hartzler, B., & Donovan, D. (2010). Matching motivation enhancement treatment to client motivation: Re-examining the Project MATCH motivation matching hypothesis. Addiction, 105(8), 1403–1413.
Funding
For this project was provided by Committee for Children. No one working at Committee for Children was directly involved in the study activities, data collection, analyses, or dissemination.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed under the leadership of Dr. Low and analyses were performed by Dr. Merrin. The first draft of the manuscript was written by both authors and both read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Ethical Approval
This study was approved by the appropriate institutional research ethics committees at Arizona State University and the University of Washington, and certified that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Waiver of active consent was utilized for this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Funding for this study was provided by Committee for Children, Seattle, WA.
Appendix
Appendix
Model Fit Indices
No. of classes | − 2LL | Number of parameters | AIC | BIC | CAIC | AWE | LMRT | Adj LMRT | Entropy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reading | |||||||||
1-class | 232,239.178 | 13 | 232,265.178 | 232,357.242 | 232,370.242 | 232,514.305 | – | – | – |
2-class | 227,949.694 | 17 | 227,983.694 | 228,104.085 | 228,121.085 | 228,309.476 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.909 |
3-class | 225,999.974 | 21 | 226,041.974 | 226,190.692 | 226,211.692 | 226,444.411 | 0.090 | 0.094 | 0.905 |
Math | |||||||||
1-class | 223,093.224 | 13 | 223,119.224 | 223,211.328 | 223,224.328 | 223,368.431 | – | – | – |
2-class | 221,444.002 | 17 | 221,478.002 | 221,598.445 | 221,615.445 | 221,803.888 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.709 |
3-class | 220,116.350 | 21 | 220,158.350 | 220,307.133 | 220,328.133 | 220,560.915 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.673 |
4-class | 219,198.164 | 25 | 219,248.164 | 219,425.286 | 219,450.286 | 219,727.409 | 0.011 | 0.013 | 0.695 |
5-class | 218,440.986 | 29 | 218,498.986 | 218,704.448 | 218,733.448 | 219,054.910 | 0.036 | 0.039 | 0.717 |
6-class | 217,967.682 | 33 | 218,033.682 | 218,267.483 | 218,300.483 | 218,666.285 | 0.168 | 0.173 | 0.721 |
Conduct problems | |||||||||
1-class | 9044.112 | 13 | 9070.112 | 9161.752 | 9174.752 | 9318.392 | – | – | – |
2-class | 5139.080 | 17 | 5173.080 | 5292.917 | 5309.917 | 5497.754 | 0.033 | 0.036 | 0.927 |
3-class | 2959.080 | 21 | 3001.080 | 3149.114 | 3170.114 | 3402.148 | 0.034 | 0.036 | 0.894 |
4-class | 1581.724 | 25 | 1631.724 | 1807.955 | 1832.955 | 2109.186 | 0.040 | 0.044 | 0.891 |
5-class | 366.098 | 29 | 424.098 | 628.526 | 657.526 | 977.953 | 0.050 | 0.054 | 0.884 |
Emotional symptoms | |||||||||
1-class | 17,553.078 | 13 | 17,579.078 | 17,670.718 | 17,683.718 | 17,827.358 | – | – | – |
2-class | 14,453.432 | 17 | 14,487.432 | 14,607.269 | 14,624.269 | 14,812.106 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.847 |
3-class | 12,624.772 | 21 | 12,666.772 | 12,814.806 | 12,835.806 | 13,067.840 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.845 |
4-class | 11,362.160 | 25 | 11,412.160 | 11,588.391 | 11,613.391 | 11,889.622 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.806 |
5-class | 10,598.710 | 29 | 10,656.710 | 10,861.138 | 10,890.138 | 11,210.565 | 0.296 | 0.305 | 0.813 |
Hyperactivity | |||||||||
1-class | 32,977.226 | 13 | 33,003.226 | 33,094.877 | 33,107.877 | 33,251.527 | – | – | – |
2-class | 14,453.432 | 17 | 14,487.432 | 14,607.283 | 14,624.283 | 14,812.134 | 0.034 | 0.037 | 0.742 |
3-class | 30,547.770 | 21 | 30,589.770 | 30,737.821 | 30,758.821 | 30,990.872 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.731 |
4-class | 30,096.782 | 25 | 30,146.782 | 30,323.033 | 30,348.033 | 30,624.285 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.684 |
5-class | 29,782.080 | 29 | 29,840.080 | 30,044.532 | 30,073.532 | 30,393.983 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.687 |
6-class | 29,261.126 | 33 | 29,327.126 | 29,559.778 | 29,592.778 | 29,957.430 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.692 |
7-class | 28,835.422 | 37 | 28,909.422 | 29,170.274 | 29,207.274 | 29,616.126 | 0.240 | 0.240 | 0.694 |
Prosocial | |||||||||
1-class | 26,099.412 | 13 | 26,125.412 | 26,217.040 | 26,230.040 | 26,373.668 | – | – | – |
2-class | 24,934.718 | 17 | 24,968.718 | 25,088.539 | 25,105.539 | 25,293.360 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.632 |
3-class | 24,119.784 | 21 | 24,161.784 | 24,309.798 | 24,330.798 | 24,562.812 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.697 |
4-class | Non-convergence | ||||||||
Peer problems | |||||||||
1-class | 9627.790 | 13 | 9653.790 | 9745.418 | 9758.418 | 9902.046 | – | – | – |
2-class | 7720.862 | 17 | 7754.862 | 7874.683 | 7891.683 | 8079.504 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.805 |
3-class | 6872.700 | 21 | 6914.700 | 7062.714 | 7083.714 | 7315.728 | 0.240 | 0.240 | 0.755 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Merrin, G.J., Low, S. Who Benefits from Universal SEL Programming?: Assessment of Second Step© Using a Growth Mixture Modeling Approach. School Mental Health 15, 177–189 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09542-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09542-1